any threat to those enslaved by the porn industry gets reactions like those who look like being deprived their drugs. They are unable to face the obvious.

Get rid of so-called "Mens magazines" off the shelves of newsagencies. Who reads them anyway, and mostly they are a waste of trees.

But more importantly, get rid of "Women's magazines", as they have far, far more readership, and represent the greatest amount of polution of women's minds ever developed outside of feminist indoctrination.

A quick glimpse of the Jezebel magazine that the author quotes from has the following articles.

"The Popularity And Perfectionism Behind Butt Sex"

"Guys Aren't Always Thinking With Their Dicks"

"The Real Reason You Shouldn't F..k Your Professor"

http://jezebel.com/

One can only wonder what such crap is doing to the minds of young women.

But then, looking at the divorce rate, and considering how hopeless so many women have become, I think the results of reading such crap can be readily seen.

vanna I'd recommend a read of the last two of those articles you referenced. In particular the one about men and thinking.
An academic who is saying some very positive things about men.

R0bert

Robert,

You actually read that stuff.

The real issue is , "Why do women have to read such magazines"?

Can't they think for themselves for once, or is it a situation that women cannot do anything, or make any type of decision without reading about it in a women's magazine.

Q/ What to do if you can't think?

A/ Read a women's magazine or become a feminist.

However, back to the topic, I don't believe men's magazines have much to do with rape, as the sales are very minimal anyway.

This article establishes only two things:

1) The participants in the study were all idiots. I just took the test and got 14/16 (one rapist mistaken for a magazine; one magazine mistaken for a rapist). It's really not that hard - the fact that so many folk failed with flying colours says a lot more to me about their poor literacy skills and lack of grey matter than it does about anything else.

2) Matthew Holloway doesn't like sex. Or possibly, he just doesn't like sex with (live, human) females. Which is fine - but he'd be a fool to think that his views apply to the majority of people (of either gender). Homosexuals are a small minority; asexuals even smaller. But most men prefer the romantic company of women, and all of those men enjoy the sight of an attractive woman - clothed, naked or somewhere in between.

Matthew seems to labour under the misapprehension that this makes them sexual predators, which is a load of crap. Most men appreciate female beauty; few men are sexual predators.

He also seems lived such a sheltered existence that all those jokes about men buying pornographic magazines because the articles are so good have completely bypassed him. Here's a little secret, from one young man to another: guys don't buy them to read (in my experience, the guys that buy them aren't really the reading types at the best of times). They buy them to look at. Now, what is the difference between men ogling slim, busty, bikini clad women in Zoo magazine and men ogling slim, busty, bikini clad women at the beach (I don't know about the rest of you, but the ogling is my favourite part of going to the beach - much better than the sunbaking or swimming)? The slim, busty women in Zoo magazine get paid to be ogled at. And for the Matthew Holloways of this world, the women in Zoo magazine possess a strange supernatural ability to induce sexual depravity in the minds of men that the beach babes do not.

Hmmm, doesn't sound very likely, does it? What sounds a lot more likely is that Matthew is employing that tired, old argument so beloved of conservatives the world over: that whatever he finds personally distasteful is immoral, dangerous and should be banned post haste. I'm not going to rebut an argument which has been thouroughly rebutted countless times before - instead, I'd suggest that he deal with his personal distaste for Zoo magazine in the way that healthy people do: don't read it. Works for me.

I buy Phantom comics instead, they're cheaper and more entertaining. Matthew might not like them, though - they feature some breast nudity, and some of the classic (old) stories written before feminism was so popular feature attitudes toward women that would make some of those rapists cringe. Oddly enough, despite these obviously corrupting influences, I am not a sexual predator. I wonder how that happened? Maybe it's because I'm not so damn silly as to believe everything I read. Something you might like to try, Matthew.