Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Another Earthwork Worth Testif... | For Slog's Only Poetry Fan »

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Tits In the P-I

posted by on April 3 at 16:12 PM

The P-I’s Big Blog “Thanks Big Blog Readers!” today for voting (by text! we hear it’s what the kids are doing!) for Amber James (below), a “hometown girl” who won the Miss Playboy Mobile 2008 contest. According to the Big Blog, the “5’2”, 34-24-34 blonde blue-eyed bombshell found out she won during a VIP event in Las Vegas on April 2 at the Hugh Hefner Sky Villa at the Palms Casino Resort. Besides the adulation of red-blooded males everywhere, James receives the inaugural crown, a professional photo-shoot at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles and a $5,000 cash-prize.” Even edgier, the P-I even linked to the softcore Miss Playboy Mobile site. Way to keep up with the kids, Big Blog! (Extra bonus points for sticking it to the feminists! Apparently, prostitutes are nasty sluts, but competing in a porn contest is totes AWESOME!)

Just one question, though… Do any “red-blooded males” still know what Playboy is?


RSS icon Comments


Only for the articles.

Posted by COMTE | April 3, 2008 4:16 PM

Wow, 25? She's freaking OLD!!!

Posted by DOUG. | April 3, 2008 4:16 PM

if i want articles I read the new yorker/economist/harpers/atlantic monthly, if i want naked women (i want so much more than that though) I go to the internet. Playboy leaves me nothing.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 3, 2008 4:19 PM

It took me a minute to realize that there weren't actually tits in the P-I, per se, but rather that your headline was a pun. Which makes me somewhat sad.

Posted by Ziggity | April 3, 2008 4:22 PM

Yeah, I can get more, and much more outrageous, porn in five minutes with Google Images than I've seen in a lifetime of looking at Playboy. (Remember to go into settings and turn the filter off, kiddies.)

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | April 3, 2008 4:26 PM

Please. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Posted by hey jealousy | April 3, 2008 4:26 PM

Playboy is surprisingly pricey now, and mostly ads... :(

Posted by Peter F | April 3, 2008 4:41 PM

Um, okay. That tattoo on her back? It's kinda nice, if you're into really big ink, but the large dark thing at the bottom of the piece looks a hell of a lot like a dick. A squat, kind of stubby dick, but a dick nevertheless.

Maybe it's just the unfortunate angle of the photo, though.

Posted by haunted leg | April 3, 2008 4:45 PM

I've had a subscription to Playboy for four years. They've got a wealth of freelance stories that apparently none of you have a friggin' clue about. So I'm not exactly sure why you would comment on something you know nothing about.

The extremely gorgeous women are a side show in that magazine. If I want to see naked women I go to the Internet and watch porn.

Thanks for Slogging this, ECB!

Posted by Sam | April 3, 2008 4:52 PM

Erica, you are pathetic. If the Times, PI, Weekly, Tacoma News Tribune spent as much time dissecting your every keystroke as you do theirs you'd be throwing a fucking hissy fit.

As it is, you come off as one gigantic fucking hack.

Keep on girl.

Posted by I'm a Nuclear Bomb | April 3, 2008 5:00 PM

I guess she's o.k. for a playboy chick, Playboy is nowhere as good as Maxim. The chicks in that are f'n hawt and their articles are the shit. A & F catalogs are also great.

Posted by clueless frat boy | April 3, 2008 5:08 PM

Playboy? Isn't that what old guys read?

Seriously, ever since they went from all-natural to "enhanced" it's been down the tubes ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 3, 2008 5:33 PM

I'd totally hit that

Posted by Clint | April 3, 2008 5:37 PM

The only thing that keeps me coming back to Playboy isn't the magazine, it's the spectacular train wreck called "The Girls Next Door". That is some fucked-up TV. The overinflated bimbos are definitely not sexy, though.

That tattoo is freaking HIDEOUS.

Posted by Fnarf | April 3, 2008 5:42 PM

RachaelS got robbed. She's got the aim-here tatoo as well, but she's hot. I guess 32B doesn't cut it. Who did Mudede have in the pool?

Posted by left coast | April 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Yeah, she's the way that most Seattle women are ugly. When did love handles and ugly tats start passing for attractiveness in Seattle?

Oh least she doesn't have plugs in her ears, or and ugly fucking septum ring.

Posted by Gomer Bolstrood | April 3, 2008 5:51 PM

wait aren't prostitutes sluts? i thought that was a requirement...

Posted by Tom | April 3, 2008 6:01 PM

I'm glad you posted this. Otherwise I was going to. I wonder if they think about stuff before they post or if they throw stuff up there as soon as the press release rolls off the fax machine.

Posted by Ryan | April 3, 2008 6:04 PM

#16, had sex before?

I admit, I'd put a paper bag over that tat, but the love handles are definitely IN.

Posted by w7ngman | April 3, 2008 6:13 PM

...if you could even call those love handles.

Seriously, is your concept of female attractiveness that warped by porno?

Posted by w7ngman | April 3, 2008 6:29 PM

Love handles? Huh? She's a stick with tits.

Posted by Fnarf | April 3, 2008 6:39 PM

Erica looks like Marion the librarian, only w/o potential.

She doesn't like good looking women who make more money than she does.

Typical feminist "critique".

Posted by ecce homo | April 3, 2008 6:42 PM

since when does anyone look attractive while squatting? is that a red-blooded male thing?

Posted by brandon | April 3, 2008 6:46 PM

Total skank. A solid 6.

Posted by waldo | April 3, 2008 7:00 PM

take home message: slut-shaming [and posting trashy photos for public mockery] is acceptable when speaking of women who are competing in soft-core porn contests, but bad when speaking of prostitutes. yeah? no? it's so hard to keep up with feminist values these days.

Posted by brandon | April 3, 2008 7:16 PM

Har. Gotta love the way the never-been-laid brigade swarms out in defense of any troll with a vagina.

Good god, you losers...those folds on her side, right above the (sadly overwhelmed) thong? What do you call those? Spare breasts?

I should be gentle with you; most of you guys have never seen better, since you've never left the area.

Posted by Gomer Bolstrood | April 3, 2008 7:37 PM

does it say "PERV" on the left side above her hand?

Posted by woopee | April 3, 2008 7:49 PM


I had a bf back in college who was a bodybuilder, and he look great squatting... on my ***k!

Posted by montex | April 3, 2008 10:24 PM

Hustler at least addresses class dynamics, but the cartoons are enough to put me off my feed for weeks. But that lady is hot.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | April 3, 2008 11:27 PM

pron schmoran, all you want is girl that sgonan fuck!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 3, 2008 11:48 PM

So Amber used to serve coffee at Cowgirls Espresso up on the hill in Kent. She is easily the most attractive woman I have ever met in person, if you can mentally subtract that ridiculous back tattoo. Much cuter in person than in those photos.

And very sweet, too. All the guys at my work were in love with her. But she got tired of serving coffee in her underwear. Can't say as I blame her.

Posted by Big Sven | April 4, 2008 12:39 AM

Hey Erica, if you're so "EDGY" and beyond all this why are you still shlepping for the alt-press? At a paper that has to be GIVEN away, that is. Oh, I get it: you applied at the PI and got turned down. You applied at the Times and never even got an interview. And you just aren't going to let it go, are you?

Posted by And you're an SPJ reject, aren't you? | April 4, 2008 5:36 AM

@ 23: you ain't seen love handles 'til you've been to St. Louis. Or KC. Or Indy. If this chick is Seattle love handle, then count your lucky fucking stars. Any skinnier and she would be on one of those repulsive sexy anorexic sites.

Also, sqaut poses are always hot for the reason 28 cites.

Finally, LMAO @ 25...

Posted by Mike in MO | April 4, 2008 5:41 AM

thank god you can't see tits on the radio...

Posted by michael strangeways | April 4, 2008 10:50 AM

Those aren't love handles, that's a waist. Of course straight men love that pose - on top of you, isn't it called the reverse cowgirl or secret garden or something? Everything's good with her, but the tatoo and thong.

Posted by left coast | April 4, 2008 11:37 AM

It's only ok to pick apart a woman's appearance if there's a chance she could be regarded as conventionally attractive.

At that point, the most vicious criticism can be deployed, because she deserves it, for being fitter/prettier/more of an exhibitionist than you. Or for not having a college degree. Or because she caught your boyfriend's eye.

Is that about right?

Either way, this girl isn't off the charts, except maybe by the northwest's standards. I could do without the tats, but that's a personal preference I suppose.

Posted by S | April 4, 2008 12:00 PM

Erica, the saddest part of this thread is that by you creating it you basically were able to justify why you think the picture is horrible. You gave Internet trolls the chance to trounce and say whatever they could to objectify this very gorgeous woman however they see fit.

I suppose that I objectify her, too, because I'll never her other than the photo you posted. But she's gorgeous, super gorgeous, and sexy. Should I cut my penis off for appreciating the female figure in a way that you might view as being sexist and misogynistic?

For being extremely, extremely intelligent and having a fairly thorough grasp of science from what I've read from you, I don't understand how you can completely ignore evolutionary biology. You know for a fact that these visceral, visual stimuli are part of millions of years of adaptation.

Women, also, objectify and appreciate the visual stimulus that is a man. I might even argue that women appreciate and objectify the image of woman more than they appreciate and objectify that image of man, even if they are heterosexual.

What I don't understand, also, is that this young woman voluntarily wanted to participate. And yet you're so pissed. I'm sure you really, really judge her and think she's just a supreme dolt for wanting to take part in such a contest. And yet, I bet you cringe and get pissed every time someone on Slog bashes you for riding your bike everywhere, for all of the times you wax philosophic/rail against the viaduct issue, etc. etc.

There are far more pressing feminist issues that should be addressed by you than a minor, insufficient and irrelevant critique of a gorgeous woman's quest for stardom and being appreciate by both men and women alike (you think only guys voted in that contest?). How about female genital mutilation? What about the plight of prostitutes nationwide because our government refuses to consider a strict licensing program that could save lives, prevent STDs and curb unnecessary drug habits? What about real physical abuse?

No, what this post is, really, is a salacious, futile and sad attempt to get people to react. You've succeeded. But, for a journalist of your caliber, I really expect more. I'm disappointed.

Posted by Sam | April 4, 2008 5:52 PM

It is worthwhile to point out the sexism (and especially embrace of soft porn) in the MSM. ECB's post probably gave the dumb contest more publicity though. I thought it was stupid and uninteresting before this, but I'm starting to really to like that girl's backside. There are definitely more worthy target (America's Next Top Model), and Mudede is the biggest misogynist in town.

Posted by left coast | April 4, 2008 6:27 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).