Subject: How many times do we have to say it?
Why do you have so damn much trouble hearing
what women have to say to you?
We say it over and over, and you continually ignore it.
I do not come to your site
to see pictures of women OR men. I come to
your site to read about political matters. As a woman, I am OFFENDED when
you publish pictures of your latest pin up favorites. It is demeaning to women.
It is demeaning specifically to me and to each individual woman who visits your site.
If you must indulge your
adolescent fantasies, put your stupid, not-even-vaguely-related-to-the
pictures on a labeled link so I don't have to see them.
Why do you enjoy undercutting
your power by interspersing pictures of pin ups with your material?
What a waste!
Women are trying to teach
other women to quit shooting themselves in the foot--apologizing
in business situations for things they have no control over, waiting to be acknowledged instead
of speaking up, etc. Why would a man willingly want to diminish his own power (while purportedly
trying to "grow the hammer") by clinging to a practice that has been out of style for years?
How many pin ups do you see in Newsweek or Time?
If they're there, they're in the back (as a link would be) in the entertainment section,
not in the politics, news, or business sections.
Please stop it!
Does your head explode when you walk into a Barnes & Noble?
My Koresh, to hear you describe this page, you'd think this was Hustler or Big Jugs magazine.
To hear you tell it, one can't even find the articles without
scrolling thru page after page of obscene material.
Demeaning to women?
When did the sight of a fully clothed woman become demeaning?
But ...if you know me at all, you know I love a challenge.
So I went to my closet of old magazines and, swear to Koresh,
pulled out the first five TIME Magazines in the pile to test your theory.
The first issue was October 1, 1990. It had David
Lynch on the cover.
I think your theory has taken its first hit. Lynch is a master of kinky sex.
(Time would never stoop to sensationalism to sell magazines, would they?)
In that issue, they had a story about the government getting into
the brothel business,
complete with a picture of two prostitutes.
They also had a sexy(?) picture of Whitney Houston,
but I'm sure it was there for its news value, not to entertain.
The second issue was from Feb 10, 1997. It had the Star Wars movie on the cover.
Inside, they had a picture of Miss Universe and another picture
of Pat Boone
wearing a Dr. Laura-style bondage doggie collar.
Both, certainly were there for their news value.
They also had a sexy model selling cancer to young men.
Maybe it's not perverted if you're making money hooking people on a drug that kills?
Then a little beefcake for the women to enjoy.
Then a double-shot of beefcake, all in this second issue.
Here's another sexy shot of a guy selling Ericsson phones.
More sexy guys, this time it's Billy Bob Thornton.
Maybe the editor was a sow, instead of a pig?
Still on issue two, look what we have!
Kathy Ireland and Vendala selling potatoe* chips!
Why, that's almost like running pictures of supermodels.
...and we close with an ad for Playmate Jenny McCarthy's book,
all in the same issue of TIME Magazine, that'd never stoop to running sexy pixtures
I pulled out five magazines, but I think the first two make the
I run fewer pictures than TIME, and mine are more tasteful.
I don't know why they'd upset anybody.
You can be as upset as you want with the pictures you'll find
but you're not having to page thru cancer ads and maxipad ads and Viagra ads.
If you want non-stop politics 24/7 with no "funny business," Bushwatch,
onlinejournal,mediawhoresonline and american-politics are all superb publications.
I gotta be BartCop.
I can't do non-stop politics - that would drive me crazy.
I gotta mix in some cranberry sauce with the meat & potatos*
I can't do what ten people tell me to do, so I guess I'll remain the same.