Last year, the SF Weekly criticized the San Francisco Bay Guardian for not featuring enough male nudity on the cover of their annual guide to nude beaches โ€” there was visible boobs and bush, but every penis was tucked behind a Psychology Today (creative!) or another dude. "Aside from it being a terrible photo, it reminds us of those old Cinemax After Dark movies where women's breasts are overexposed while men's penises are tucked primly away โ€” even during those endless sex scenes," the SF Weekly wrote. Burn.

But this year, the SFBG changed up the ratio: there are two full-frontal nude men and only one naked lady โ€” who's covering herself up, no less!

Editor Tim Redmond says he's expecting complaints, because that's what usually happens when the magazine features dick:

Here's the thing: I've been doing this a long time, and we've put a lot of naked people on the cover (nude beaches, sex issue, random stories about public nakedness) โ€” and when it's just women, nobody peeps. Full frontal, whatever โ€” it seems in our society that it's perfectly okay to show the unclothed female body. But not a dick. God, not a dick.

I've often wondered why a movie that shows tits and (female) asses can get away with a PG-13 rating and even full-frontal female, and lots of it, only gets you an R. But a single glimpse of a male organ, even in its unaroused state, automatically turns a movie into NC-17.


Here's to changing the world, one dick (or two dicks) at a time.