Do you mean you had an (understandably) apoplectic fit? A reading that brings about the apocolypse simply makes no sense, and while he's foul to the point of retching, he's no anti-christ.

better ban men from looking at nude women or sex.

'Chonin points to the throngs who read Maxim: Breasts are great when clad in titillating lingerie, but not-so-great when, say, nursing a baby at a neighboring table at dinner. Likewise, she argues that those men who love girl-on-girl porn wouldn't be so thrilled to see "real lesbians--the ones whose sex lives aren't simply warm-up acts for straight men."'

I've seen Maxim on the news stand, but never read one. However, I'd like to know how Ms Chonin discovered that men who read Maxim find breastfeeding offensive. Did Maxim do some reader survey indicating that virtually all its readers hate public or semi-public breastfeeding? Or is Ms Chonin [and Broadsheet] simply engaging in convenient stereotyping -- the sort they denounce when it is done to women?

Secondly, what's so weird about finding beautiful lesbians [real or fake] attractive and not having the same reaction to "real" or unattractive lesbians? Are not all of us attracted to people we regard as beatiful, whether they are lesbians or not? I loved "Fight Club," but there is a reason Brad Pitt makes $18 million per movie and Paul Giamatti does not -- and it ain't 'cause Pitt is the better actor.

Is the problem that Girls Gone Wild videos are in poor taste or is the problem that Ms Chonin and Ms Clark-Flory are discomforted by anything that appeals to the libidos of men and they want to use the example of one high-profile pervert to smear all heterosexual men. If it is the latter, just say so honestly? If it is the former, what's the point of this all? That Girls Gone Wild is an example of leering and adolescent sexuality? Is that really news to anyone? Does anyone actually find that controversial?

I would venture a guess that the people who are upset about a picture of a breastfeeding woman on the cover of a magazine are probably not real thrilled with Girls Gone Wild either. Likewise, I would guess that most of the men who watch and enjoy Girls Gone Wild videos probably wouldn't have a problem with a breastfeeding woman on the cover of Vanity Fair. What Neva Chonin has identified is not some kind of an American Schitzophrenia, but simply two competing world views. They call it the culture wars. Which side is Neva Chonin on?

As for her "real lesbians" comment: what is she really saying? That "real lesbians" are ugly?

FYI - I did not get a chance to read Chonin's piece (tried unsuccessfully to click onto it several times), so if I am getting her wrong at all, please speak up.

There's not just two sides to the culture wars--those who like sex and those who don't. Some of the most adamant cultural warriors who decry events in Massachusetts and mourn the decline of the nuclear family are also some of the most prurient when it comes to sexual appetites. Bill O'Reilly? Or watch Fox News where the skirts on the bevy of female anchors get shorter and shorter and they show copious footage of girls on spring break. Save your money buying the GGW tapes and watch Fox in the morning. There are blogs dedicated to upskirt shots of the Fox & Friends women--and they're not tongue in cheek or media watchdogs. They are people who buy into the Fox worldview and love peeking at women's panties. And the point about lesbians was not that real lesbians are ugly but that lesbianism is acceptable only as a "warm-up" to what the women really want--men. I've known plenty of folks who find "girl-on-girl" action hot but are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage or anti-discrimination laws. And certainly don't bring up gay men around them.

You can be a feminist and love sex and make the argument that certain forms of sexual expression have the potential to be harmful or humiliating. That's not being a prude, it's just wanting good sex, something I'm guessing the barely legal women sleeping with Joe Francis have little familiarity with.

Actually, our "oversaturation with sex" is pretty normal. What isn't normal is the reaction to sex -- it's dirty and dangerous. By reading BS I know that at least one specific comment about the bare breast was from a mother who didn't want her son or husband to see it (we'll leave her explanation/self-delusion alone here), and I doubt she'd be a fan of the GGW series either.

What am I meandering to here? Ok, I'll get to the point: sex isn't wrong and this conflation of the sociopath founder in GGW, Maxim and the breast-feeding debate is artificial and points less to a particular view expounded by our society than to the various views of members of our society.

Final note; what about lesbians who watch gay (male) porn?

Chonin supports her conclusion that "a woman's body has no right being bared unless it is for the purpose of arousing a man" by alluding to the "hoopla" and "condemn[ation]" that attend images of breastfeeding and pregnancy on magazine covers.

She is thereby claiming that her rights are denied not by a prohibition of these images but by any expression of disapproval that any such image might possibly inspire.

Images of women and men sexually displayed are routinely covered up on magazine stands and are strictly regulated by law. Entire careers are built upon not only the condemnation of these images but upon their legal eradication.

Her "interesting" argument is that a woman does not have a right to do something unless she may do it 100% criticism-free. Naturally she permits herself the liberty to condemn images of her choosing. Her assertion that her rights are being denied when others do the same is a claim against your liberties and mine.

It's a very simple formula really. If you grew up being told that sex is something that is dirty and wrong unless under the sacrament of marriage then you think your desires are sick and wrong. If you are told that modesty is the only policy because men are filthy minded creatures that can never look at a woman without thinking of her in a sexual manner then yes, you are going to think something like breastfeeding is something that should be done in the privacy of you home or in a disgusting bathroom stall. The feminists and prudes double up on that one because many members of both camps are angry at the male sex drive, the feminists about how it's men that judge our looks so harshly that we starve and binge ourselves for their approval so we shouldn't give them anything that makes them horny and then we have the prudes who are told that sexual responsibility resides with them becuase men can't control themselves and so if you want to be a good prude, you can't like sex because it will make you like a filthy man. So if you think your desires are wrong and filthy anyway, they you will do the most degrading thing with it behind closed doors. Hence why the uber religious tend to have the filthiest minds and are obsessed with child rape and say things like women who wear mini-skirts deserve to get raped because they are enticing the uncontrollable male sex drive.

Regarding the lesbian comments, well come on, do you think men are fantasizing about Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen with Portia or Melissa Ethridge?