Jake | 21 Mar 2009 | My rating:

I disagree with some of the above comments. While Joe is right - Playgirl really SHOULD upload some of their earlier content, I still think that there is a lot of excellent jerk-off material on their site. Besides, although some of the models are rather in the 'twink' category, which doesn't do anything whatsoever for me personally, Playgirl offers a decent amount of pics and videos of real masculine hunks that you don't get to see anywhere else. What's more, the photography is top-notch and the site updates regularly.
Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I'm all for Playgirl and have been a frequent subscriber to their site and will probably continue to be one!

eric | 25 Mar 2008 | My rating:

This site is really a waste of my money. Unfortunately, the videos are very poorly made. The couples' scenes focus more on the women than the guys. Straight women are supposedly too squeamish about seeing close-ups and erections. The solos' and couples' videos are organized in three nondescript categories like Playgirl Blue and Playgirl TV, and each category virtually contains the same videos in stock. The lighting in the couple scenes just hide a lot of nudity, if you can believe.
Adding to the frustration, the videos come either as a Quicktime or Windows version, which is not bad if it weren't for their quality: the windows videos keep freezing and their counterpart on quicktime barely reach the size of an index card embedded in the screen. Also, there's just a lot of annoying track music which serves to just detract from the viewing content.

Samantha Jones | 28 Feb 2008 | My rating:

I just rented a very, very stupid movie by Playboy Blue. It was supposed to be a hot movie watching guys jack off. There were NO cum shots, the music was stupid and I'm just really pissed off that I wasted my money. I will go to Babeland next time for a real porno with cum shots. This sucks!

Joe | 21 Feb 2008 | My rating:

I don't really care much for the newer Playgirl magazines. I had hoped this site would have archived every edition from the beginning, some of it's best days were from 1985-1990. Had they included those magazines online (some of which are impossible to find) I would join right away. The rest of it is crap.

The gay sites are mostly garbage also, so I don't really bother with them. The dialogue is fake, the ages of the models are fake, and why the need to constantly remind us that these guys aren't gay, want nothing to do with gay men, but they will sure take our money if they jack off for us. So the lesson here is what, gay men aren't worthy of even looking at someone like that? I don't get what the developers of these sites are thinking.

Sam | 15 Feb 2008 | My rating:

For such a slick magazine, this site is very amtuerish. The magazine is scanned in and you can't jump to pages, the videos load very slow and you can't jump to the stuff that interests you. Other than the centerfolds, the other models and clips can be found on many gay sites

John | 07 Jan 2008 | My rating:

Every time I think about Playgirl I have to laugh because the publishers continue to deceive themselves into thinking that this is a website for straight women, even though the vast nmajority of their subscribers (allegedly) are gay and bisexual men. And, thank God for gay and bisexual men, otherwise Playgirl would probably have faded away a long time ago.

All the guys who appear in Playgirl's movies, magazines and on the website claim to be straight, which I suppose is a part of its appeal to gay and bi men, but those of us who've been around a while know that this isn't true at all. Some of the Playgirl models have moved on to full-fledged gay porn, and at least one of their Man of the Year award winners later admitted that he is, in fact, gay. But, who cares? Show me a hot naked man any day or night. As far as I'm concerned 'straight' and 'gay' are simply points of view and very subjective labels, in any event. This is one gray area in biology where methinks Dr. Kinsey got it right when his research showed that most people are actually bisexual but are either loathe to admit it or to indulge the experience to find out where they really stand.

All this may seem like too much information and nonconsequential, but it actually explains why Playgirl has always trailed so far behind its Playboy counterpart in terms of success. The people in control at Playgirl apparently missed Marketing 101 in college, and they continue to pander their wares to entirely the wrong target audience!

That being said, Playgirl is known for producing some OUTSTANDINGLY high quality movies and photosets, with obviously big budgets. Unfortunately, most of that effort is spent on the boy-girl aspect of their business. The solo male videos on heir website are nowhere near in quality to the photosets in the magazine. And, although they have an impressive arsenal of all-male solo jerk off videos on their site, their material is still a bit blah. If playgirl wants to know how to really do all male solo videos right, they need to pay attention to how the producers of professional gay porn get the job done.

Here's where the dissonance come in. All-male porn that is produced for a female audience (as Playgirl claims to be its specialty) is a bit different from all-male porn that is produced for a gay male audience. Both sets of audiences want to see goodlooking, athletic men with big cocks. Gay men want to see great shots of cute butts, and assholes, women don't, and that's the problem I have with playgirl's content. They serve up some gorgeous boys, but they don't show enough of the type of stuff that the majority of their audience (gay men and bi men) want to see. Their boy-girl porn is all produced in traditional straight porn format---focus on the girl's face, her tits, and her pussy, the fucking, and erotic kissing and fondling, but the shots of the guys' butts are carefully edited out. So, this material isn't even fun for bisexual men.

I still can't figure out Playgirl, and I don't think they have themselves figured out either. And I say this because the Playgirl TV content on the website is also different from the pay-per-view Playgirl stuff on cable TV. The all male solo movies on the website is typical Playgirl fluff, but the all-male movies on the Playgirl cable pay per view are more the type of stuff you would find on a high quality gay amateur site like Corbin Fisher---asshole shots, and all---(except that there is no on-camera dialogue or interaction between the film director and the models). I've seen some excellent all-male videos on Playgirl's cable ppv TV, but that's a terrible way to spend your money because it costs something like $12.99 for a couple hours access to just one movie. Why do that when you can spend about $25 for an entire month of all the hottest gay or bi porn you can handle on a decent quality pay site?

This is a good site if you like to watch really goodlooing 'straight' men get naked and jerk off, or if your're bi and like to see hot men fucking really hot women, in what I like to call 'glamor porn'. The quality is better than good, but the material itself falls a bit short in the delivery department.

Cal | 24 Oct 2007 | My rating:

The magazine is cheaper on the newstand. Course it doesn't have all those hot videos, so that does make it worthwhile, least for me.

Hate that drm stuff, or whatever it is called, but the movies are classy stuff. Well done and I love the centerfold section.