Active Users:538 Time:22/11/2024 02:26:23 AM
Probably with the old Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues Cannoli Send a noteboard - 17/04/2013 11:43:04 AM

View original post
I mean I could understand if it was a copy of Jugs lying around the coffee table getting a "I've enough damn insecurities already without you leaving pictures of airbrushed whores around the house", but other than that, its hard to imagine outrage and getting confrontational about it or having any doubt about its purpose. There's no real vice-versa on that either, I've never doubted the purpose of or been offended by a girlfriend's romance novel collection or fireman-sans-protective-gear calendar, nor ever heard a guy complain about it.

Back when I was a kid that was a thing, because my parents objected to the objectification of women and so I could never have a subscription, because it included the Swimsuit Issue. My father got it through his store and brought it home to me, but disposed of the Swimsuit Issue instead of bringing it home. I was really annoyed too, because there would always be references to articles from that issue in the letters of subsequent issues. It came out once football was over, before spring training and before the playoff races started heating up for the Stanley Cup, so there were never any real events I was in danger of missing coverage of, but every now and then there was an interesting profile or analysis article that I had to read on microfilm at the library. That was okay, because nobody is going to get their rocks off with black and white negatives of mostly nude models.

Anyway, that's kind of moot now, since the Swmimsuit Issue is a seperate magazine with absolutely no pretensions to sports coverage, and the last time I subscribed, it was through a fundraiser for my neice's girl scout (or whatever they call five year olds) group, and there was the option to refuse the Swimsuit Issue which I virtuously checked off (I'm in my thirties. Human clothes racks minus clothes are hardly worth setting a bad example should my neice actually happen to read the catalog to see what her uncle bought, or the trouble of disposing of it).

I think the expression could also apply to the sort of person who thinks Playboy or Penthouse is sufficiently classy to excuse buying or reading in public. I remember back in '88 or '89, during an NFL game, seeing ads for the upcoming Playboy issue which was supposedly breaking the story about Jimmy Hoffa's corpse being buried under Giants Stadium, which occasioned a great many "reading it for the articles" jokes from my father and uncle. I suppose there is a certain degenerate portion of society that would not consider one of those magazines sufficiently pornographic to reject, while still feeling the obligation to defend their choice of periodical.

Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
An NSFW question. - 16/04/2013 03:11:37 AM 1240 Views
Wait, what was your question again? *NM* - 16/04/2013 05:11:01 AM 368 Views
No. - 16/04/2013 05:49:20 AM 753 Views
I don't think so but quite possibly - 16/04/2013 05:50:00 AM 749 Views
"I just read it for the san serif." *NM* - 16/04/2013 08:11:45 PM 353 Views
I always wonder how "I just read it for the articles" can even come up - 16/04/2013 10:09:03 PM 760 Views
Probably with the old Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues - 17/04/2013 11:43:04 AM 775 Views
That would make sense - 17/04/2013 01:32:34 PM 827 Views
That doesn't mean there's no swimsuit issue... - 17/04/2013 06:52:53 PM 797 Views
I think my brain almost melted from that first one - 17/04/2013 09:05:45 PM 696 Views
Nah, you just read something on a *different* web site... *NM* - 17/04/2013 04:36:44 AM 378 Views
BwAhAHHAhAhAhAaa.... - 22/04/2013 05:33:55 AM 713 Views
- 23/04/2013 03:17:53 AM 921 Views
Re: An NSFW question. - 24/04/2013 01:06:52 PM 664 Views
I would never read if that was true *NM* - 24/04/2013 05:16:13 PM 345 Views

Reply to Message