from www.thefrisky.com – We love the idea, in theory, of a porn magazine for women. Unfortunately, Filament, a British for-women-by-women porn mag, is having a lot of troubles. First, the above-the-waist photos of “feminine” male models, which Filament‘s editors said academic research proved women are attracted to, were not pornographic enough for us. Sorry, but Rufus Wainwright clones don’t make us hot. Fortunately, the mag listened to the complaints and is trying to, um, fluff their content by including guys with erections in the next issue. But now Filament‘s publisher has stated it will not allow them to print pictures of aroused men. [Guardian UK]

According to an entry on Filament‘s LiveJournal, after the magazine stated its intention to do a series of photos depicting men with erections, their printer wrote them to say:

“I can now herein formally confirm that we would NOT want to print material of this nature, which although likely to perhaps only cause offense to a small number of actual staff, may unfortunately create much bigger and more serious far reaching problems for us with other clients—particularly those in the women’s/religious sectors, who could potentially withdraw their own work in protest as a result.”

The editors of Filament added that they cannot change publishers because this particular printer is 30 percent cheaper than the others. So, we guess there’ll be no peen for us girls. Rats!

We understand that losing other customers is a legitimate problem for a printing business to be concerned about. But we can’t help but be cynical and wonder if the publisher would have had the same problem if Filament was a (far more common) porn mag for men with pics of naked women? Is the problem just that Filament is porn, which, presumably the publisher knew when it took the magazine on as a client? Or is the problem that some people just can’t handle the idea of chicks being as sexually ravenous as dudes?