I'm not kidding, people. Every time I see those magazine covers, I think about the fact that I live in a city, a glorious city, in which a high percentage of the menfolk do not want women to look like skeletons. You may be able to guess that I'm well-endowed in that area myself, though I'm white, so I have had to feel bad about it.

You know, I'm fine with men desiring women. I'm fine with men being horny, and occasionally shallow. Sometimes I'm horny and shallow too. The thing I hate about porn is that all the women look the same -- blond, skinny, and huge-breasted -- not that it's about physical desire. (Ok, I hate the cum shots too.) And I think it's frankly pretty great if different kinds of women can be portrayed as desirable in a horny, shallow way. Women of different races, of different ages, and of different ass sizes.

It's one thing to say to men, "look beyond our physical imperfections and love us anyway," and another, more radical thing, to say, "those weren't imperfections at all! desire me because of them."

Now, excuse me while I go buy one of these magazines for a Spanish friend of mine...

 Reply

Anyone who wants porn can (and should be able to) easily access it, but I don't see why that means everyone has to be exposed to it at a neutral, everyday place like the corner newstand. It's entirely reasonable that people who don't want to see pornographic images are irritated by the fact that they can't avoid them whether they want to or not.

 Reply

Maybe they should be treated like the Playboys and given the shrink-wrap treatment/cover the offending bits treatment. But prolly not with a cig ad.

 Reply