View original post
View original postI 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.
View original postBack 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.
Not a big sports fan so I can't recall ever reading any SI to know if the articles are good or not, regular issue or the one with the bikinis. Most magazines I've subscribed to over the years have had some variation of the word 'science' on them or were comics books. Most comic books tend to feature gals in them who's chest to waist ratio is probably impossible in standard gravity so they'd represent something of a contrast to other material featuring scantily clad persons. I don't think most comic books fans buy them for the hot chicks.
View original postAnyway, 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).
IIRC it goes Daisies then Brownies, presumably Daisies in that case. What they probably needed to do was classify binging and purging as a sport, then they'd have a better argument for an issue featuring nothing but swimsuits but not featuring any professional swimmers.
View original postI 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.
Well, to each his, her, or its own I suppose. My own public decency axis is pretty screwed up these days, probably from my time in Europe, where full-frontal-headlines aren't uncommon, and the other place, where that would get you stoned. I would definitely look askance at someone reading Playboy in public but not Maxim or FHM which are the same thing minus about one square foot of fabric... though generally with more interesting articles... but my reasoning would be of a 'when in Rome...' variety, people who deliberately violate social norms without a good reason always make me nervous. I don't usually view nudity itself as the Yes/No on 'Is this pornographic?"
I always wonder how "I just read it for the articles" can even come up
- 16/04/2013 10:09:03 PM
760 Views
*NM*
*NM*