And this is different from the rest of New York magazine exactly how???? Seems like they are just catering to/representing their reader base. ho hum

In a strange twist, it seems we're idolizing very young boys now. I see so many men on TV whose chest hair has been shaved to give them that clean, pre-adolescent look. And, of course, for a long time now, the hipless, breastless, teenage boy look has been in for women. It's all very strange to me.

As a coworker from Ukraine once said to me, "Back home, we have a saying: men are not dogs; they don't like bones." A sentiment that certainly applies to me!

In the cover linked to at Gwakster it is mostly white people, but I do see an asian male and the male under the New Yorker is definitely African American and that may be an african american or hispanic woman embraced in the kiss above the headline "The First Lust Drug." Additionally, how can anyone tell who is and who is not hispanic. For all we know there are more than the one I noticed above that are hispanic in this cover. I mean honestly, if Cameron Diaz did not have the last name and publically acknowledge here hispanic heritage, would any of us know? That being said, as a puerto ricana, I am always very aware of how little minorities are represented in the media and when we are represented, it, more often than not, is done in a negative light. I, for one, can not say that I am all that upset that more faces like mine are not a part of this particular cover. Maybe this is one time, we can be grateful that we are being excluded.

While I applaud the rise of full-figured women in advertising, and wish some of them appeared on this cover, I have to take issue with your assessment that most of the women are "small-chested." Small-breasted girls get plenty of nasty messages about their bodies, from peers and media alike. Don't make things worse by implying that only big breasts are hot. The message should be that any healthy body can be beautiful -- big or small.

Let me preface this comment by saying I am in no uncertain terms a feminist who glowers weekly at the flesh beamed from magazine covers in the grocery aisle.

Let me now state that I am a thin Caucasian. I am also small chested. Does that warrant someone sarcastically saying "That's hot"? This little snippet just reeks of reverse discrimination, and what bothers me is the "Right, guys?" attitude, like everyone who is intelligent and PC would agree. It's so hypocritical: We're sick of the corporate media telling us what's sexy and what's not so...uh...we in this smaller and much cooler media form are going to tell you what's sexy and what's not.

Skinny women are like boys! That's the kind of crap I had to endure in junior high and certainly do not expect to find on Salon. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going home to my average-build Caucasian fiance who thinks I'm "hot" indeed.

For all the entwinement, there really isn't much boy on boy or girl on girl touching. It's the orgy equivilant of your grandmother's dinner parties - boy-girl-boy-girl-boy-girl...

It's a bit rich to accuse New York magazine of privileging white faces and bodies when Salon does exactly the same thing. All the columnists who publish frequently enough to merit a little picture of them, like Cary Tennis, King Kaufman, and Tom Tomorrow in today's issue, are white. Even those pictures that could afford some racial inclusion, such as the picture for "Ten Years of Salon," feature only white people. In fact, I can't remember a single regular contributor of color, except for the excellent Debra Dickerson, in the past two years. So before Salon starts throwing rocks at others, it should make sure it's not being embarrassingly hypocritical.

On the other hand, I really do love Broadsheet and most of Rebecca Traister's longer articles.

here, Traister invokes the wise saying of the rich and skinny (Paris Hilton) to comment on the whitish and skinny.

the subtlety is lost on me too...

I totally agree with the posts here that the Traister bit is, in its way, as limiting as New York magazine... I also am waiting for Rebecca Traister to refer to a group of African Americans as "ebony-black."

And if the women on the cover were all large-breasted Asians, Traister would be decrying unrealistic body images and racist fetishization. Please save us all some time and just publish an article on exactly what *is* politically correct sexiness, so we'll all know.

b.) there's a point where uber-meta-hipsterism dissolves into garden-variety snark.

Like it's not bad enough that I already get paid less for being a woman, and suffer blonde jokes e-mailed to me by my black stepmother (of all people) ... but now being thin and caucasian is somehow a bad/pathethic thing?

Incidentally, does anyone know how much a Bikram butt like this COSTS?

OK, I've devolved into satire, but the point stands. Luv ya otherwise, Traister, but lay off my skinny white ass. I can only speculate that what this post really represents is misplaced hostility toward "thin blonde pundit" Ann Coulter.

I am SO sick of seeing only one type of person whether it be racial/ethnic, body type/style, etc. as you commented, when depicting human sexuality, or even just the human body period. I'm a woman - a sexually-active, passionate, healthy woman - and I am not thin, I am not young, I am not thin, and I have hair in a lot of places besides my head...and yes, I do sweat. And not just alone, if you get my drift...

You mean like the Broadsheet logo girl? I guess Traister (who, herself looks pretty thin and white: http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/partypictures/2004/03_30_04/images/koons/KerryLaurmanRebeccaTraister.jpg)

suffers from some sort of self hatred - or is it just bullshit she spews to keep her feminst cred? Not to mention that she's written for New York herslef, the whole schtick is questionable. Whatever - New York Magazine is written for skinny thin white girls...

Just like Triaster!