It's hard out there for a magazine full of naked men — or, maybe not so hard. I was already skeptical about Filament, the recently launched erotic periodical for women. Now the magazine is wondering whether it should print photos of males who are clearly aroused.
Filament aims to be artful and appealing to women, setting itself apart from Playgirl. But if it prints images of erections, does it cross the line from art into pornography? See what Filament has to say about the matter.
According to the magazine's website:
Filament only prints explicit images when these are of high photographic and erotic quality, and clearly designed for women — we won't ever be putting hard c*cks on every page. The problem is, all the printers that a small, independent magazine like Filament can afford have said they won't print images of the male of the species in a state of obvious arousal.
While I can see how such photos might cross the line, it also seems odd that a magazine featuring sexy photos of men should ignore the fact that — let's face it! — the male genitalia looks very different during sexual activity than it does in its more natural state. What do you think? Would you want a magazine of naked men to feature erections or ignore them?