I thought that, in the case of Hefner, we're talking a great-great-great-granddad magazine.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that they are advertising to "dads" who are going to masturbate to girls who are around the same age as their daughters?

Its no wonder men get so confused and rape women and daughters.

“Its no wonder men get so confused and rape women and daughters.�
Excuse me? Men who are 30 years and older get so confused by looking at images of young women in magazines, that it causes them to think it is ok to rape? Um, Wow! That’s all I have to say to that.

Really? Because I don't think I said "causes," I mean simply that they are getting messages that its ok to have sex with women who are significantly younger.

But I guess you (sojourner) never had a "daddy" that thought it was ok to touch you because society told him it was ok.

What's the problem with males looking at young females? Or dating them? Is it a problem when older women have sex with younger men?

So, basically, Jerima, men are incredibly dumb, and subject to any sort of outside mental stimulus that tells us what to do?

Thanks for giving us ever so much credit, there.

For the record, society does not say it's okay to molest your children. Quite the opposite.

Really? Because I don't think I said "causes," I mean simply that they are getting messages that its ok to have sex with women who are significantly younger.
In that case, what you meant is not at all what you said. You said "Its no wonder men get so confused and rape women and daughters."

There is a huge difference between a man thinking it's okay to have sex with younger women and a man thinking it's okay to rape women. Dating someone younger is not wrong or rape.

To get back to your original comment though, what the Hell? Lots of men look at Playboy and are not sexually violent individuals. On the same note, a lot of men who rape probably don't look at softcore porn mags. Give men some credit. To claim they are just so confused that they cannot help themselves is not only insulting to men, but also absolves sexual assailants of blame.

But I guess you (sojourner) never had a "daddy" that thought it was ok to touch you because society told him it was ok.
I don't even know what the shit you're saying with this. I've personally never been touched inapppropriately by my father. Why is "daddy" in quotations? Futhermore, what society do you live in where it's socially acceptable to molest children?

"But I guess you (sojourner) never had a "daddy" that thought it was ok to touch you because society told him it was ok.
I don't even know what the shit you're saying with this. I've personally never been touched inapppropriately by my father. Why is "daddy" in quotations? Futhermore, what society do you live in where it's socially acceptable to molest children?"

A lot of other females have been touched inappropriately by their fathers. I believe this is what Jerima was attempting to articulate. And it is generally accepted that it is inappropriate to molest children, but amongst many men who do actually molest children, it is considered to be entirely appropriate. There is even talk amongst pedophiles of making pedophilia the next great civil rights movement. I believe what Jerima is trying to say is that perhaps it isn't such a swell idea to encourage men to view women as young as their daughters as sexual partners given the very real reality of sexual abuse.

While I agree with the connections being made by Faith above, I sort of have to disagree with the tone of what was said. Let's call a duck a duck here and recognize that this would be the exact same sort of nonsense like 'she was wearing a short skirt' justification and therefore is idiotic, not to mention it assumes that men are devoid of reason as a whole.

Molesters are molesters. Let's keep our terms in a row and not just imply that all men are somehow going to be magically confused by Hefner and start molesting their daughters out of mistaken identity. It could turn into another justification, sure, but it's not that anyone with a Y chromosome is going to suddenly become a monster. That's every bit as insulting a stereotype as saying a woman has it coming by wearing a short skirt.

Clearly, there's a connection between pornography and sexual violence toward women - and there's also definitely a culture in which young women and girls are sexualized and made into fetishes.

What this does mean is that plants the seeds in certain people's head - something as natural as sexual fetishes have to be deconstructed to understand how social constructs of the images of women can affect them.

So, while there might not be a DIRECT link between porn and child molestation, we can certainly see that if a group of people is told in porn that groups of young women can be turned into sexual objects, eventually, they will do so in their own lives.

If violent films have an effect on the way we think and behave, then certainly, pornography is the same way.

Add that to the power dymanics between older men and younger women, and we get a recipe for disaster.

"Let's call a duck a duck here and recognize that this would be the exact same sort of nonsense like 'she was wearing a short skirt' justification and therefore is idiotic"
Yes, thank you BelliButton. That's exactly what pissed me off about Jerima's statement. It sounds so much like "Well, young women dress provocatively and send mixed signals, so the poor men get confused".

So, while there might not be a DIRECT link between porn and child molestation, we can certainly see that if a group of people is told in porn that groups of young women can be turned into sexual objects, eventually, they will do so in their own lives.
Young women are not children. The women in Playboy are adults and look it. I don't approve of Playboy, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that young women = children, thus porn plants a seed that child molesting is just a-okay in people's minds. If someone is sexually aroused by the idea of violating a pre-pubescent child, there is something else wrong with them besides having looked at porn.

If violent films have an effect on the way we think and behave, then certainly, pornography is the same way.
As someone who loves war films, horror films, and action films and has never been violent other than in self-defense in her life, I call bullshit on this. People have self-control and a moral compass instilled in them by society. Mental disabilities aside, people know that acting out in a certain way is wrong. Sure, sometimes I get angry at people and would love to just kick a hole in the wall or hurl something across the room, but I don't do it because I know better. I know it's wrong. Most people are perfectly capable of controlling their impulses.

Add that to the power dymanics between older men and younger women, and we get a recipe for disaster.
As a woman who has been involved with older men, I find this really offensive. Sure, for some people there is an imbalance of power, but this hardly holds true for all relationships that have a significant age gap in them.

I don't think that Jerima was saying that it has anything to do with girls' actions, but everything to do with the promotion by men that young women (often the youngest they can legally get away with) are the most sexually attractive, in addition to encouraging men to think of young women as sexual objects available for their pleasure.

I don't think that Jerima was saying that it has anything to do with girls' actions, but everything to do with the promotion by men that young women (often the youngest they can legally get away with) are the most sexually attractive, in addition to encouraging men to think of young women as sexual objects available for their pleasure.

I didn't think Jerima was saying it had anything to do with the girls' actions either, but the idea that it's "no wonder" men rape because they've been exposed some of society's more twisted messages is ridiculous.

Nancy - are you saying that "rape porn" and other types of violent pornography don't have a direct impact on how women are viewed and the sexual violence they face?

I look at Playboy (for the first time since 2005, anyways) and I agree with Nancy on this one - most men are not sexually violent. Movin' on.

Isn't the Phillipines a predominantly Muslim country? If they are, don't expect Playboy to last long there. Just look at what happened in Indonesia, the country to their south southwest (SSW), a few years back.

I didn't want to imply that's what Jerima directly meant, I just meant the phrasing came dangerously close to an excuse for the molestor. PFM was spot on with his analysis of why this is all bad, but for pity's sake, we don't want 'the porn made me do it' to become a new justification either.

Men are completely capable (as are women) of recognizing that something is bad and wrong. Any genocide or unjust action will have people who will stand against it. But we're all on the same page at the end of the day on this one, I think it was just poor phrasiology. :)

And I absolutely agree with Nancy that older-younger isn't badness in and of itself at all. As always though, you can give a kid a nerf bat and enough time and he -will- find a way to hurt himself with it. However, that's hardly the fault of the nerf bat.

Most men are not sexually violent, but that doesn't mean that pornography plays no role in sexual violence or that it doesn't encourage disrespectful attitudes about women and women's sexuality.

There are a lot of problems with how men treat women sexually even when it doesn't involve rape.

"I don't think that Jerima was saying that it has anything to do with girls' actions"
I didn't think so either. Just the problematic notion that men "get confused and rape" which absolves the rapists (at least partially) of responsibility for their actions.

"Isn't the Phillipines a predominantly Muslim country?"
No.

To clarify, what I mean is: If seeing naked or half-naked bodies in a magazine confuses men and “causes� them to rape, then, “well, she was showing a lot of skin so I got confused and thought it I ok to rape her�, is a reasonable defense.

Mild - it depends on what "society" we're talking about when it comes to how it "does not say we can rape children."

Do a quick google search for either "rape porn" or "pre-teen models," and you get a plethora of websites, the latter of which feature young children in provocative poses, passed off as modeling. We all know it's not true. So again, I would emphasize the fact that it does sexualize children - and what happens when viewers attempt or do engage in sexual behavior with these children?

Since children aren't mature enough for consent, I would call it rape.

I understand where you're coming from, sojurner and BelliButton, I also have a problem with the idea that rapists are "confused." I think that was a poor choice of words.
There are many contributing factors in society, including messages sent about women's sexuality, lack of respect for women's autonomy, and the many excuses for rape that let so many rapists get away with it and probably help give rapists the sense of entitlement that emboldens them.

I'm not a huge Playboy fan myself, but I would agree that it's got a more grown up attitude toward women than, say, Maxim. The body image they promote is woefully unrealistic, but the articles and such depict a world in which women are, well, people. I don't get that sense from Maxim, where women seem to exist only to serve the desires of the dudes who read it.

At this point, porn isn't going away. And Playboy is a lot better than some of the stuff out there (and it is a female-run company).

Also, because I'm about to become a dad, I should point out that just as women don't lose their sexuality when they become moms, men don't stop being sexual beings when they become dads.

Having a female executive is not the same as being a female-run company, which implies that there is a great deal of power in the hands of female employees in general.

MikeT, are you really suggesting we should just shush and be glad that Playboy isn't AS misogynist as the worst of the mainstream "laddy" maagazines? That somewhere buried in the articles is the notion that women are actual people, so we shouldn't be critical?

I didn't think Jerima was offering an excuse for rapists. Rather, I read her comment in terms of the effect such magazines have on the normalization of ideas that contribute to violence against women (women's bodies exist as objects for male consumption; sexism is sexy; etc., etc.). Such images play a role in shaping the sexual subjectivities of women, men and cultures in which violence against women (and young women in particular) is endemic and acceptable.

The Philippines are mainly Roman Catholic and neighboring Indonesia is Islamic.

I'm just surprised no one above has mentioned the huge issue of sex trafficking amongst Fillipino women and children and the pervasiveness of the "asian doll" mythology that's been popular since Philippine-American war, the Korean War, and Vietnam. "Decades of US military presence in Olongapo and Subic Bay have contributed to the growth of institutionalized prostitution and trafficking of Filipino women and girls for the R & R of troops." -Phillipine Women's Center Online

Geek, I'd never suggest anyone on this site should shush. I just wanted to add my perspective to the mix.

Based on my personal experience, I think that a harm-management approach to porn is more effective than proscription. For whatever reasons, a lot of people (both male and female, but mostly male) like looking at pornography. That seems to more or less be a human constant.

But there also seem to clearly be social harms that result from some types of pornography, so I think we need to work to fix that while still leaving an outlet for the human impulses that porn satisfies.

But no, Geek, I'm not trying to silence anyone else. Wouldn't dream of it.

I didn't think it was characteristic of you, it was just the tone of your comment.

I'm not for proscriptive measures in general, either. I don't have a problem with the concept of pornography, just with the very harmful reality of the porn industry as it exists.

And there's just something creepy about suggesting that playboy is porn for dads (as dads), rahter than to just say it's for men, not "laddies". I'm just unable to articulate why.

As an occasional writer of doggerel, I can understand when the urge to go for a rhyme leads you someplace not good. But, yeah, it would have been better if they'd said "for men, not lads."

Geek, I'm with you on the "dad" part being distrubing.

To me, I think that has to do with the conflation of the roles of 'father' and 'man'. I don't think of my father as a man first, I think of him as my dad. And for the most part, anytime the ideas of sexuality and dad cross in my head, I immediately work to think about something else, anything else. Perhaps it's like that sitcom scenario where a guy keeps thinking about his mom while he's dating/making out with a woman and then he can't continue.

Parents and sex are not okay in our culture. Slowly, norms are changing in that parents are becoming recognized as sexual beings (which is odd, if you think about it, becuase that's what got them into being parents in the first place,) which is great for parents. However, due to the fact incest is definitely societally unacceptable (to the point of denying it's very definite existence, to the detriment of victims) parents have been seen as asexual in the majority of contexts. And while it's been a slow go for the moms-are-sexual-too/your-marriage-doesn't-have-to-be-sexless thing for women, I think due to the fact that men commit the vast majority of sexual assault, combined with the societal aversion to incest, marketing a porn mag to "dads" is hella creepy.

Phew, I hope that makes sense.

Why can't they just market the mag to the over-30 set? Why specifically dads? Maybe it's because of all the anecdotes we hear about people, men and women, who first discovered porn by checking out their dad's stash of playboy? Well, lots of dads must be into playboy, so let's market to them? I'm kinda at a loss there.

AngryYoungFemme, you expressed it much better than I could :)

Why specifically dads? Maybe it's because of all the anecdotes we hear about people, men and women, who first discovered porn by checking out their dad's stash of playboy?

That was what I thought. Almost everyone had a dad with a secret cache of playboys.

Or, that it's a "dad" magazine, because it's always sort of been geared toward the older set? Compared to a lot of magazines and material today, it's not really all that racy, or "hard"; it's fairly tame stuff.

Still, I think it's mostly because everyone's dad had playboys. Maybe partially because they aren't going to be having articles about all the standard Maxim/etc things that are chock full of immaturity?

I dunno, just shooting theories out. I haven't seen the inside of a playboy in about 7 years, so just guesses here.

Ironically enough, the last time I saw the inside of a Playboy was in the office at a maternity clinic.

If they really want to market to dads, they need to include a free gift for subscribers of a lockbox to keep the mags in so your daughter doesn't find them and get skeeved out.

Ironically enough, the last time I saw the inside of a Playboy was in the office at a maternity clinic.

I hate to make a joke at this, but I can't help myself:

Maybe they're just trying to ensure repeat business?

I can think of a lot of things they could have done to ensure repeat business, and they weren't doing any of them, Ennui.

But I do wonder if this is what the Playboy spokesman meant by "dad mags"...

Here's my take on it: in some countries, like my parents' and perhaps like the Phillipines, adulthood is inexorably tied with parenthood. One "cannot" be an adult without also being a parent.

So, when I read this, I had a wry moment of, "There my non-Western peeps go again, conflating adulthood with parenthood."

Of course, I may be wrong, since I'm not that familiar with Filipino culture; maybe there is a strong acknowledged singles/childless culture there of which I'm unaware.

"Does anyone else find it disturbing that they are advertising to 'dads' who are going to masturbate to girls who are around the same age as their daughters?"

Years ago I read a newspaper article about some Playboy issue and one of the nude models said something like her mom posed in Playboy too when she was younger and her dad and brother both subscribe. Even if I was confident enough in my looks to pose nude, I wouldn't Hmm.

"For the record, society does not say it's okay to molest your children. Quite the opposite."

Whether it's the opposite depends on which society you're talking about. For example, some societies say it's not okay to molest your children yourself and say it's okay to pay other people dowries to molest your children...

While our society does not condone child molestation - when society turns a blind eye, makes it a taboo subject, and fails to punish those who get caught, I have a hard time believing that our society does not, on some level, think that it is OK.

"While our society does not condone child molestation - when society turns a blind eye, makes it a taboo subject, and fails to punish those who get caught, I have a hard time believing that our society does not, on some level, think that it is OK."

Exactly.
22% of females raped are under the age of 12 years; 32% are 12-17 years old; (National Institute of Justice 1998)

So the question is what percentage of these offenders are adults?

And there is something fishy going on with all of the creepy teen porn floating around out there; Back in the day, the "models" looked like 25 year olds with pony tails. These days the trend seems to be where the girls really do look like 15 year olds.

Meanwhile my adopted European home country now holds the honor of being the number 1 source of sex tourists for underaged sex, more specifically unprotected, underaged sex. (Despite the fact that adult prostitution is legal and readily assessable in this country).

Somebody is lying.

"While our society does not condone child molestation - when society turns a blind eye, makes it a taboo subject, and fails to punish those who get caught, I have a hard time believing that our society does not, on some level, think that it is OK."

Exactly.
22% of females raped are under the age of 12 years; 32% are 12-17 years old; (National Institute of Justice 1998)

So the question is what percentage of these offenders are adults?

And there is something fishy going on with all of the creepy teen porn floating around out there; Back in the day, the "models" looked like 25 year olds with pony tails. These days the trend seems to be where the girls really do look like 15 year olds.

Meanwhile my adopted European home country now holds the distinction of being the number 1 source of sex tourists for underaged sex---more specifically unprotected, underaged sex. (Despite the fact that adult prostitution is legal and readily assessable in this country).

Somebody is lying.

Re: Playboy
No one should want to support a company which profits Hugh Hefner. Read "Out of Bondage" by Linda Lovelace on Hefs encouraging her abusive husband to force her to have sex with a dog on film. That shows a man who gets a thrill out of robbing a woman of human dignity for his sick entertainment.

As for Playboy: no one should want to support a company which profits Hugh Hefner. Read "Out of Bondage" by Linda Lovelace on Hefs encouraging her abusive husband to force her to have sex with a dog on film. That's the kind of pervert who gets a thrill out of robbing a woman of human dignity for his own sick entertainment!

It seems like people who educate themselves about porn (Thank you Pro Fem Male, Spike the Cat) have a balanced view. Most of the men I've spoken with just have that knee-jerk reaction that it's just harmless fun and no one could pick up the disrespectable attitudes it presents unless they're a little off their rocker to begin with. The book by Julian Sher "Caught in the Web" explains how many men caught molesting kids are not pedophiles at all, just opportunists. Porn fuels a sexual addiction for some men who decide to exert their control over kids (they're less likely to fight, tell, or give the molester a STD). After much porn consumption, porn loses some of it's power to excite and these men turn to real human beings to get off.

ProFeministMale:“Clearly, there's a connection between pornography and sexual violence toward women - and there's also definitely a culture in which young women and girls are sexualized and made into fetishes.�

I agree with both of these points. This is a good example of the latter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411719&in_page_id=1770

I'm in my mid-thirties, and I've felt too old for Playboy for a while now. The magazine went down hill in many ways when it started dumbing itself down to compete with Maxim, Stuff, and Gear. It created a double standard, where certain starlets could appear in non-nude poses, ala Maxim, which fed the puritanical view that people who are willing to pose nude are somehow lesser than those who would not. It also got rid of a number of valuable sections, like movie reviews

Maybe Philippine's Playboy will be designed differently, but I think the American magazine's target audience is teenagers, not adults. In addition to the ultra-airbrushed nudes, American Playboy is full of misogynistic jokes, features about Pro Wrestling, and ads for penis enlargement devices and pheromones. It's really not appealing to a mature feminist male.

I don't understand why Dolor's comment has made so many commenters here squirm. The reasoning behind his characterization of his book as a "Dad magazine" seems simple, at least from a marketing perspective: He's telling men that they can read Playboy and still feel like wholesome and well-adjusted family men, not like sex-crazed old bachelors. In a country whose population is overwhelmingly Catholic (not Muslim, Jovan1984 -- the nation was once a Spanish colony), I imagine that spin might be an important aspect of an ad campaign.

Also, what exactly is so "ew" about dads having sexualities? Maybe we don't want to think about our own dads' in too much detail, but it seems sexually unfair to balk at men's sexualities wholesale just because those men have kids. I hope my parents didn't completely stop going at it after my younger sister was born.

"Also, what exactly is so "ew" about dads having sexualities? Maybe we don't want to think about our own dads' in too much detail, but it seems sexually unfair to balk at men's sexualities wholesale just because those men have kids."

This is a comment that warrants more thoughtfulness and space than perhaps is appropriate for this posting.

I guess my question is does heterosexual male sexuality (including dad's) necessarily have to involve objectifying women?

Looking at a country such as the Philippines where men retain their spot as the patriarchal head of household and are entitled to all of the privileges granted thereof and even where prostitution of young girls and women is widespread, I can't help but wonder how far the rabbit hole of male sexuality goes.

signed,

former little girl who found her dad's Playboy stash (we always find it).

everybodyever said: "it seems sexually unfair to balk at men's sexualities wholesale just because those men have kids. I hope my parents didn't completely stop going at it after my younger sister was born."

I don't think anyone is saying that dads shouldn't be sexual at all.

But, I think that your mom and dad continuing to have sex with each other for pleasure after they were done having kids is really different than a married father looking at sexualized pictures of women he doesn't know in a magazine (especially ones that are as young/younger than his daughter) when his wife isn't around.

"I guess my question is does heterosexual male sexuality (including dad's) necessarily have to involve objectifying women?"

Good question, spike. That's where my mind went to.

I don't have much to say about Playboy (let alone Philippine Playboy), but I notice an awful lot of really, really foggy thinking around the concept of Dads and sexuality and "old enough to be their daughters."

First: Dads are sexual beings. As much as it makes you queasy to think about it, YOUR Dad had a sex drive -- if he didn't, you wouldn't be here -- and a sex life, at least to the extent that you kids didn't interrupt it. The reason you got sent downstairs to watch Saturday morning cartoons probably was so he and Mom could have an hour or so to boink. Sending you to the grandparents for the weekend absolutely was for that purpose. Being a Dad and simultaneously being a sexual being is the normal state of the species. You're a grownup; get over it.

Second: those "Dads" developed an attraction to nineteen year olds back when the men were nineteen themselves and weren't dads yet. Nineteen year olds don't stop being sexy to us just because we got old and wrinkly; and it's got nothing to do with our daughters.

Surely you aren't making the proposition that men are only allowed to be attracted to women of their own age. (Personally, I say "eww" to granny porn, and I hope you do too.)

Third: the essential problem in the "daughters" formulation is not about the age difference. The first taboo about daughters is the family relationship, not about being nineteen; incest is every bit as disgusting if the dad were sixty and his daughter forty. The second taboo about daughters is taking advantage of defenseless children. Twenty-year-old models are not children -- let alone our children. Rhetoric that insinuates otherwise is offensive.

Fourth: do the math. The "Dads" being referred to by the marketers were mentioned as 30 and up. For a thirty-year-old "Dad" to have a Playboy model for a daughter, he would have had to start procreating at around the age of eleven. For a thirty-year-old Dad to have procreated at a more reasonable age, his daughter would be approximately six to nine years old at the time he's reading this scandalous magazine that purportedly reminds him of his daughters. Funny, I haven't seen any nine-year-olds in Playboy.

I'm guessing that in the Phillippines, thirty is not excessively young to have a family. I'll even be so bold as to guess that in the Phillipines, twenty is not excessively young to be a mother. You are comparing these models to the men's daughters, when in all likelihood they more closely resemble their wives.

If it's about objectifying women being denigrating to the ones that the Dad in question knows personally, the age of the objectify-ee is irrelevant. You might as well say "same age as his wife." Aren't wives entitled to the same consideration?

You want to attack Playboy magazine, be my guest. Just don't use it as an excuse to tar the male of the species for daring to have a libido after procreation. Unenlightend, perhaps. Perverts, no.

Clearly, there's a connection between pornography and sexual violence toward women

And you have proof of this? Care to show me a scientific study -or are you just making this up?

By the way, since when is Playboy porn? 1957?

- and there's also definitely a culture in which young women and girls are sexualized and made into fetishes.

What do you mean by "girls"? Young women or are you referring to children? Or are you trying a dishonest bit of sleight of hand in order to conflate the two?

What this does mean is that plants the seeds in certain people's head - something as natural as sexual fetishes have to be deconstructed to understand how social constructs of the images of women can affect them.

Oh I see, when all else fails, drown them with logorrhea.

So, while there might not be a DIRECT link between porn and child molestation,

Anyone can wallow in this kind of sophistry:

"So, while there might not be a DIRECT link between soccer and child molestation..."

we can certainly see that if a group of people is told in porn that groups of young women can be turned into sexual objects, eventually, they will do so in their own lives.

I see that you were never taught the fundamentals of logic. Just because "X" happens does not necessarily mean "Y" will follow, let alone "Z".

If violent films have an effect on the way we think and behave, then certainly, pornography is the same way.

But they don't. Japan has all kinds of violent entertainment, as well as some truly weird porn (cartoons with tentacles and other things I don't begin to understand), yet the rates of violent crime are very low in that country, as are the rates of sexual assault. If porn is a factor in violence against women then Afghanistan must be the safest place of Earth for a woman and Denmark the worst. In fact it's the opposite.

For more:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Porno.html

Add that to the power dymanics between older men and younger women, and we get a recipe for disaster.

"Power dynamics"? A man in his 30s sees a model in her 20s and it's Katie Bar The Door!, right?

Men and women mature at different rates, with females usually maturing before males, which is the main reason women usually date and marry men who are older than they are. Unless you think every woman who dates or marries an older man is a "disaster", you're just being ridiculous.

I guess my question is does heterosexual male sexuality (including dad's) necessarily have to involve objectifying women?

-spike the cat

As "objectifying" is defined in some quarters, yes. Your Dad may have decided to marry your Mom because of her personality, but I'll wager he was first attracted to her by her physical appearance, and long before he got to know her as a person thought "I gotta get me some of that".

Yes it's creepy thinking of your parents doin' the nasty. But the fact that we're here is living proof that they did.

As for Playboy: no one should want to support a company which profits Hugh Hefner. Read "Out of Bondage" by Linda Lovelace on Hefs encouraging her abusive husband to force her to have sex with a dog on film. That's the kind of pervert who gets a thrill out of robbing a woman of human dignity for his own sick entertainment!

Posted by: Suziekabloozie

Yeah, I believe everything I see on the 700 Club, too.

Yes, ew is very apt..... the editor needs to be honest and call a spade a spade, I suspect the culture of dishonesty plagues the editors' mind that she tries to pass on a girlie mag as if it is an accompanying manual for Catholicism, lol.

Newbaum Turk: "Wow, she's really attractive," is not synonymous with "I gotta get me some of that."

Pedestrian Observer: I'd like to hear exactly what makes you say "ew."

Newbaum Turk: "Wow, she's really attractive," is not synonymous with "I gotta get me some of that."

Posted by: avast2006

But it is synonymous with "Wow! he is sexy!" or "SCHWING!"

avast2006,

Pedestrian Observer: I'd like to hear exactly what makes you say "ew."

hahaha, I think you need to click on the malaysian blogger in the first paragraph at POGB and you will "ew" in chorus with me....