Women's erotica goes limp
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...jects-magazine

I really don't get why its such a big deal. I've never seen Playgirl itself but I did see the Peter Steele pics, he stood proud. Why is a boner so taboo but tits and pussy are not?

Peter Steele is one ugly guy.

Because unfortunately sexism is still an issue hidden behind closed doors.

Yeah but I had to look.

whenever I search for dark sensual erotica, their is definitly more erotica for a femme/lesbian audience, I enjoy this but I also like men. So if their was tasteful and artistic erotica featuring men besides just their big cocks...more of their ethereal beauty..and less men in uniform crap... it would be lovely!
mainstream society is definitly fucked up, I am not surprised....just continually disapointed....

That and because the female body is sensual, curvey, graceful, and elegant. In my opion, it is more beautiful then the male body.

Because people are accustomed to seeing the latter but not the former. Not saying it's right, and I wish Filament luck in their pursuit of acceptance.

Does your opinion reflect that of all women?

The male body is quite beautiful and sensual, and the magazine is trying to cater to women who agree with that. Don't try to paint it as putting women up on a pedestal and degrade men's bodies, its insulting to both sexes.

Nude men can be quite aesthetically pleasing, there is no part of a woman's body that I find as appealing as a man's shoulders and upper back. Personally I'm not a huge fan of looking at penises but I'm also not a huge fan of looking at vaginae, they bot serve their purposes and they can both be fun to play with I just think that are kind of funny looking but I understand that other people are different.

Me neither to be honest, I had a look at their website though and it looks nice enough, and it looks pretty tasteful too so I doubt they tried to print anything really raunchy or hardcore.

I like written erotica better than visual but I wouldn't mind leafing through it myself, a few of their models are really attractive.

I wouldn't mind it either way-tastefully posed naked men or raunchily posed naked men.
What can I say? I like dudes. A lot.

Seinfeld put it best. 'A woman's body is a work of art. A man's body is a utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep.'

I think that both can be extremely aesthetically pleasing, but in different ways.

I never said the male body wasn't beautiful nor did I degrade it, I simplely said that I find the female body more beautiful then the male body.

You also described the female body as " sensual, curvey, graceful, and elegant", as if men's bodies cannot be these things. Also you're only describing one type of body, both sexes have a lot of diversity.

Okay, I phrased that poorly.
I did not intend to imply that males bodies could not be any of those things, I was only trying to say that I find the female figure more these things then I find the male figure. I'm sorry if I offended you with that statement.

I might actually buy a copy to support it. It's the brainchild of a friend-of-a-friend, and my friend is actually writing in it. So I should probably be good and buy it.

My theory is that most guys don't want competition, and until now, guys have controlled this type of market.

As a straight gal, I do admire beautiful men if they were portrayed in positive light. They're still works of art just like the ladies, but graphic nudity isn't my thing unless it's artistic nudity, which is whole another subject. I agree about some men controlling the media making women less empowered when it comes to sexuality. They can't see it as equal partnership, after all, it's a man's world.

Shame,

I'm not used to seeing men as beautiful sexual things. Usually if I see a man with an erect penis, I think of dirty sex or something to that effect. Or, some strong masculine hunter of some sort. But, it's changing over time.

Which is a shame because the penis is just as wonderful as the vulva.

I think the idea of considering a vulva or a penis as attractive is sort of weird. It's like saying "Man, you have the sexiest earlobe I've ever seen." What?

Interestingly, in Australia, the opposite is the case. Pornographic magazines are only allowed to show "discreet genital detail" if they are to be distributed in all states without being wrapped in plastic. This guideline was somehow interpreted as only being applicable to women, so the magazines will not publish pictures of females with visible inner labia (they must either be edited out or obscured), yet naked men with or without erections can be depicted. It is really quite bizarre.

Honestly I think thats part of the reason why people say "Oh women won't buy visual erotica", most erotica that I've seen that is supposed to be geared towards women usually has men that are hypermasculine macho beefcakes, which I never found at all attractive, so no I don't buy visual erotica. I'm considering buying Filament though, to show my support and also some of the guys in the magazine are very pretty, and I haven't seen that in erotica before. They also rely on their reader's taste, which is cool.

Siouxsie, thats funny, I wonder why it only applies to women?

Erections, real sex and a plentiful cumshot could be seen in the mainstream film "9 Songs"; mainstream meaing openly available from HMV. And thanks to a loophole in the UK censorship legislation, little Tommy can go into HMV and legally buy the skin flick. It's a funny old world.

* * * *

Ladies' erotica! Oh, it brings back happy memories of working in Waterstones! When there were no customers to serve, no shelves to stack and tidy, no deliveries to unpack, and no autograph signings (Jilly Bleedin' Cooper again!), we would take the Black Lace novels off the shelf and have a little read!!! I still feel nostalgic for "The Stallion"!

Good news everyone!

They raised the money to switch printers so they can still go ahead and offend women by catering to women!