- NND ---------------------------------------------------------
Visit my FTP site: ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/Roller/ <--click
Click, or put the address into your browser. All my stories are there.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAKED AT THE NEWSSTAND
by holy joe
I donÕt actually go to the newsstand anymore. Some time ago I was
briefly at a high school and when I saw all the gorgeous chicks there, I
said to myself, ÒItÕs ridiculous for me to go running off to Tower Books
every two weeks. All the girls are right here!Ó And they were, in spades.
Unfortunately my high school experience didnÕt last too long, but
nonetheless I didnÕt go back to Tower Books any more after that.
However, I had several subscriptions, and the magazines kept on
coming. Until recently. Just Come of Age, a magazine out of New York
(featuring, apparently, New York area girls) has finally bit the dust. Of
course there was no official word that the magazine has folded, but I
havenÕt been getting issues anymore, despite having an outstanding
subscription.
Since nobody else will ever write the epitaph of a magazine designed
to deliver young girls to ÒpervertsÓ, I guess I will. Just Come of Age got
off to a grand start. Some of its early issues were really great. Young,
fresh faced, well-endowed girls beamed from the front and back covers.
Inside, the photography, in the beginning, was quite creative. Eager or
seemingly hesitant girls pulled down their panties, showing their
bottoms, when not gulping glasses of milk or Òdoing itÓ to another darling
young girl.
The high point of Just Come of Age was February 2000. It featured a
new blonde girl who was making the rounds of all the magazines, and I
was so delighted to see this new favorite blonde of mine in Just Come of
Age that I subscribed.
That was the last great issue ever published by the Just Come of Age
company. (Their company name was the slightly overambitious title,
ÒWorld MediaÓ.) From then on, all the issues were trash. I mean, the utter
dumps. Terrible girls, terrible photography, little or no creativity in the
layouts.
Gradually Just Come of Age started missing months. Yes, a whole
month would go by, and no issue would come out. Then IÕd get a letter
apologizing to me for the lack of an issue and a promise that next month
theyÕd manage to get an issue out. Which they did, for awhile, until they
missed another month. Now they donÕt exist anymore, and I never even
bothered to write to them to complain or ask for my money back.
Virgins was a magazine published by Larry Flint. I guess he saw all
the young girl magazines coming out in the late 1990Õs, and decided Barely
Legal wasnÕt enough for him to publish. So in the summer of 2000 he
started a magazine called Virgins.
If you like young girls posed naked, like infants in baby pictures,
this is (or was) the magazine for you. I personally enjoyed the magazine
quite a lot, especially the cover, because I like young innocent girls.
(Recently I saw an article where someone was complaining about men
looking at school photos of girls on the Internet, their Òyoung developing
bodies and innocent-looking eyesÓ. I got a laugh out of that, because as
far as IÕm concerned, the girl had better BE innocent. Whether her eyes
look innocent or not is irrelevant to me. Is she a (total) virgin, or isnÕt
she? If sheÕs not, IÕm not interested. I mention this opinion since, like
this review, you are very unlikely to see it anywhere, in this corrupted
Òbeen there, done thatÓ yuppie age that we live in.)
But getting back to Larry FlintÕs Virgins: despite the great covers
and reasonably good interiors, there was no way those girls were virgins.
I mean, NO cute 18-year-old girls in America are virgins. The idea that
girls posing naked in a magazine published by Larry Flint would be virgins
was utterly laughable. I liked the idea, but I didnÕt believe the title. When
pictorials started showing girls supposedly deflowering themselves with
dildos in their cunts, in the magazine, I knew the whole thing was a hoax.
So, we are left with a question. Why did Virgins fail? Several
theories are possible:
a. Men are not interested in virgins.
b. Men are interested in virgins, but didnÕt believe that Larry FlintÕs
girls were virgins.
Based on the success of books by David Hamilton, featuring naked
little girls who are presumably total virgins, the answer (a) is probably
wrong. Men are interested in virgins, very interested, even in naked ones,
but they must believe that the girls are in fact virgins.
It is, I assume, like Hugh HefnerÕs seven million dollar disaster when
he published a swimsuit issue. As you know, every year Sports Illustrated
publishes one (or more) swimsuit issues. The issues make a lot of money.
So Hugh Hefner, of Playboy, thought, ÒWhy donÕt I do the same? My girls
are good looking. IÕll put out a swimsuit issue too.Ó
Unfortunately for Hugh, the Playboy swimsuit issue was a total
bomb. Hugh Hefner was stuck with millions of unsold copies. For years
afterward, the Playboy swimsuit issue was a free premium available for
people who subscribed to Playboy.
I would say that there are some slight differences between the
Sports Illustrated girls and the Playboy girls. The Sports Illustrated girls
are more slender and taller. They are real models. The Playboy girls tend
to be shorter and somewhat chunkier. Their legs are not as long, but they
make up for it by having (naturally) bigger breasts. A second difference
between the magazines that I would point to is the photography.
Traditional Playboy photography is excellent, but an argument could be
made that the Sports Illustrated photography is slightly better.
Nonetheless, the real answer is that Playboy stands for naked
women. Men are not interested in seeing Playboy women if they are not
naked. In the same vein, Larry Flint stands for ÒdirtyÓ sex. It is
impossible for a man who has made his mark publishing ÒdirtyÓ sex to put
out a magazine featuring girls who are ÒvirginsÓ.
Which brings me to Taboo, a magazine which is also published by
Larry Flint. God, they should pack a vomit bag with it! Several years ago,
when Taboo started, there was some modest attempt to publish Òfashion
bondageÓ pictorials. Those are the kind I like, and I have exactly one issue
of Taboo, in all my years of subscribing, that features one excellent
Òfashion bondageÓ pictorial. The rest of the magazine has been trash. Yes,
if you want to quibble, there were one or two other reasonably okay
Òfashion bondageÓ pictorials. There were also one or two Ôyoung innocent
blonde tied upÕ pictorials, which are generally not as interesting as
Òfashion bondageÓ but are better than nothing.
As for the trash, it has gotten ever more grotesque. I am glad to see
Larry Flint expanding the range of what can be legally published in
America, but much of it I would not want to wipe my ass with! So I will
not be resubscribing to Taboo.
Which brings me to the opposite end of the spectrum, Playboy. This
magazine is now a complete waste. They are starting to show the girlÕs
pussy a little bit, but who cares? Who wants to look at daunting women
doing nothing creative, who are nude but donÕt look nude because the
magazineÕs photography is so wooden? I mean, when you open up Playboy,
do you find yourself saying, ÒWow! SheÕs naked!Ó I donÕt. Everything is so
staid and hidebound in that magazine that itÕs like looking into an
airbrushed tomb. And the girls are too old.
In my opinion, Playboy died when it switched from being bound with
staples to a stiff-edged Òperfect bindingÓ. (You know, where the edge is
hard like a book.) It may sound like an irrelevance, how the magazine is
bound, but I date that as the end of PlayboyÕs heyday. That happened in
1985, and the magazine has gotten worse and worse since then. In fact, if
I were pressed, I would say that the last really great year of Playboy was
1979. Back in the 1970Õs, Playboy featured very young women who were
sexy, yet somehow carefree and innocent. In the 1960Õs it featured young
girls, Òthe girl next doorÓ, a category of girl that is today supposedly only
of interest to so-called Òchild molesters.Ó
But by 1980 the females in Playboy were no longer children (per se),
or very young women. They were women, though fortunately not yet
women who were particularly old. Then, very slowly over the years, the
girls of Playboy became women, so that now the women of Playboy are, or
look like, theyÕre in their mid 20Õs, no longer young girls at all. At the
same time, the photographs are no longer of young, naive girls, darling
girls, who have been caught being naked, or naughty. Posing naked in
Playboy is today a crass career move by a woman on the make. She is
trying to become the next Jenny McCarthy or Pamela Anderson. I have no
interest in such women. Good luck to them, but I donÕt fantasize over
them. And I donÕt need to see them naked, particularly in boring,
uncreative poses. So I will not be resubscribing to Playboy either.
If youÕre wondering what magazines to buy, all I can say is, several
years ago when I was still visiting Tower Books the two best magazines
were Live Young Girls, and Finally Legal. Whether theyÕre still any good or
not, I donÕt know. Hawk and Tight are much less interesting, with Tight
having great Ôlittle girlÕ covers but nothing inside. Hawk is a slightly
creative (but only slightly) version of Larry FlintÕs Barely Legal.
As for Barely Legal, I subscribe to it, but it is totally boring. The
girls are quite attractive, but Larry Flint sticks religiously to his Òhigh
keyÓ lighting style, and his Òshow it allÓ approach. To me, there is a lot
more to nudity and naked girls than just getting a girl to spread her cunt
in front of a plain wall. I would point to the late 1970Õs Playboy photos as
being the high point of creativity. Every photo looks like a painting, and
they are loaded with little ÒfetishÓ objects that you have to find, like the
Playboy bunny. In my opinion pornography is not based so much on nudity
as on surprise. There must be something about the photograph, and the
posing, that draws you in and engages your imagination. Back in the
1970Õs, magazines could not publish bondage, urination, and other such
things. But Playboy would cleverly insert things into its lavish photos to
suggest such fantasies. Look at those old magazines and you will find
them. If you have trouble doing this, just get an armload of old Playboys
and take them to a feminist and ask her to find all the hidden references
to sex with children. Believe me, she will give you a very long list of such
references! Well, Playboy in the olden days didnÕt just have references to
sex with children, it had many other references too, of every sort of sex
you can imagine. The naked girl washing the puppy (animal sex), the girl
with a belt loosely wrapped around her hips (spanking), etc. That is what
makes pornography great. You look at the picture, and of course you are
first awed by seeing a beautiful girl naked. Then you look more closely
and you see the reference to forbidden sex. That is the payoff.
The payoff is not present, necessarily, if the reference is overt.
Seeing a girl actually getting whipped is not more exciting than seeing a
girl with a belt loosely wrapped around her waist. In some cases photos
of the actual act might be more exciting, but again it is only so if the
photography, and the way the action is staged, is sexy.
Let us say we have three photos:
a. A girl with a belt loosely wrapped around her hips.
b. A girl getting whipped.
c. A girl getting whipped.
First, (a) may well be the most exciting photo, even though nobody is
getting whipped.
As for (b) and (c), let us assume that (b) is not sexy, but (c) is. Why
is (c) sexy? I cannot say exactly. But my hunch would be that even though
(c) supposedly shows it all, it is in fact holding something back. (b) lacks
sexiness because it shows it all, and holds nothing back. But (c), even
though apparently identical to (b), manages to hold something back.
So I would say that the essence of great pornography is holding
something back. Even if the girl is urinating in the nude right in front of
us, there should be something about the photo that holds back, that causes
us to be surprised. I know when I write my sex stories I always try to
keep the element of surprise present. There is nothing worse than reading
a long, drawn out sex story where everything just goes as planned. The
Man with a Maid is an excellent example of this. There is no surprise in
any of the Man with a Maid books. (There are, unfortunately, several in the
series.) Everything just plods along. The same is true of, say, Barely
Legal or Playboy. Even though they are different magazines, they suffer
from the same disease. Everything just plods along.
The Playboy Newsstand Specials also suffer from this disease. At
one time these were great magazines. They got marginally better when
Playboy ditched the copy and expanded the size of the photographs to fill
the entire page. But recently I got one and it was terrible. Not only was
there nothing in the whole magazine to masturbate over, but the quality of
the paper they were printing on had gone down quite drastically. It was no
longer thick and colorful. It was duller, greyer, more like something
printed on newsprint. As you know, the paper in Playboy, the regular
magazine, has been for years now a complete travesty. ItÕs as thin as rice
paper and it has a tendency to wrinkle, before it arrives in your hands.
Will great pornography ever be produced again? I have no idea.
Nobody seems to be making it anymore. There is more quantity than ever,
but little if any quality. Perhaps in the next presidential election
someone will ask the candidates what they are going to do to make
pornography better in America. But I doubt it.
30
----------------------- Dreamgirls! -----------------------
-- More stories at: http://groups.google.com/ Search by typing:
roller666@earthlink.net Click on ÒPower SearchÓ
Change ÒstandardÓ archive to ÒcompleteÓ archive.
-- Other providers:
IFLC: http://assm.asstr.org and http://asstr.org
AnyaÕs LilÕ Hideaway: http://www.insatiable.net/
Silver: http://www.mr-yellow.com/goodies
The Backdrop Club: http://www.backdrop.com
Usenet Newsgroup: alt.sex.stories.moderated
-- Great art books by David Hamilton and Jock Sturges are at:
http://www.amazon.com http://bn.com (photos of naked little girls)
-- Naked little girls/politics: http://www.AlessandraSmile.com
Man/boy love: http://www.nambla.de Politics: http://www.lp.org
http://www.isil.org http://www.fear.org http://www.fija.org
http://www.aclu.org
-- Naughty Naked Dreamgirls (Library of Congress ISSN: 1070-1427)
is copyright 2001 by Andrew Roller. Dreamgirls, Naughty Naked
Dreamgirls, and NND are registered trademarks of Andrew Roller.
All rights reserved.
-- Visit me at: http://home.earthlink.net/~roller666/index.html
Or at /~Roller/index.html
(It is case sensitive, i.e. type Roller, not roller).