Penthouse!! It's more "revealing" :-)~
2007-01-19 10:35:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Playboy
2007-01-19 19:51:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jenns705 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Playboy
2007-01-19 18:39:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by ஐ♥Julian'sMommy♥ஐ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Playboy
2007-01-19 18:36:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ashley R 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Penthouse. Although I have nothing against Playboy, I prefer to look at Penthouse because thier a little more affluant looking, whereas Playboy tends to be a little more sporty.
2007-01-19 18:49:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anna Hennings 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I quit buying PLAYBOY because of their Lunatic Left stance. The pix are Ok but not as good as they once were. i have some old ishs back to August 1956. If I buy either now, it'll be PENTHOUSE unless it has offensive left wing propoganda too. I rarely look at it actually. I did plan to buy the January 2007 PLAYBOY to see the Playmate Review, but I saw Putrid Pamela Anderson on the cover and nearly puked. I won't buy it if it has pix of her. She looks like a mummy waasted away to nearly nothing. I am not a necrophiliac. I much prefer the athletic girl in MUSCLEMAG and FLEX.
2007-01-20 10:42:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by miyuki & kyojin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Playboy is a much better magazine over all, but if you are more interested in the women, I think that Penthouse might be more up your alley(Playboy's tend to look fake to me).
2007-01-19 18:38:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by icman87 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Penthouse definitely has better pics of the girls. Playboy doesn't show enough of the good parts.
2007-01-22 17:45:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by MICHAEL H 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with Ldy Bug, I love playboy. My phone cover is Playboy, shower curtain, and other stuff. Much more tasteful and all compared to the others.
2007-01-19 22:30:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by 3000gthottie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I consider Penthouse porno, and Playboy well done erotic art.
2007-01-19 19:57:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends On The Article.
2007-01-19 18:37:14
·
answer #11
·
answered by mks 7-15-02 6
·
1⤊
0⤋