Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« "I'm not criticizing your book... | A Sari Moment on the Slog »

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Women Today

posted by on October 3 at 10:08 AM


RSS icon Comments


it's cool that BUST is in the front, it used to be that I couldn't get BUST outside of the comic book store

Posted by Dee in SF | October 3, 2007 10:20 AM


Posted by Carollani | October 3, 2007 10:21 AM

Not even writing any article text? So basically people won't know what to make of this unless they've read other writing from you. Confusing.

Posted by Jason Petersen | October 3, 2007 10:21 AM

No... those are MAGAZINES today. Women aren't as floppy and it's more difficult to take them through security at the airport.

Posted by Katelyn | October 3, 2007 10:23 AM

Maybe the title was supposed to be:
Women today, geesh!

I've learned having read Charles' previous writings never really help understand his current offerings. Something tells me he's proud of that.

Posted by monkey | October 3, 2007 10:24 AM

I think those are actually magazines.

Posted by Ari Spool | October 3, 2007 10:24 AM

I'm still shocked by Nicole Kidman's perfect cleavage.

Posted by Whoa | October 3, 2007 10:25 AM

The man gave you a title and a photograph. What more do you need?

Posted by tsm | October 3, 2007 10:25 AM


Posted by Mr. Poe | October 3, 2007 10:27 AM

Mr Poe needs whores?

Posted by genevieve | October 3, 2007 10:30 AM

@10: How else is he gonna get laid?

Posted by Dee in SF | October 3, 2007 10:33 AM



Posted by Mr. Poe | October 3, 2007 10:37 AM

Um, not women today. Professional entertainers today. Entertainers with professional photography and styling. Some non-professional entertainers look like this, but not enough to label them "Women Today."

Can you not tell the difference?

Posted by la | October 3, 2007 10:45 AM

I find it funny that the magazine, BUST, is the only one with the woman not showing off her bust. The cut on the rest of the clothes in the three mags to the left of it is almost identical...
Was that the point of the post?

Posted by defman23 | October 3, 2007 11:21 AM

That is the rack at the University Bookstore. It's quite a nice rack.

Posted by loiterer | October 3, 2007 11:28 AM

Yeah, the title of this post should have been...


Posted by monkey | October 3, 2007 11:36 AM

Hurm, I could have sworn that was the mag rack at the Harvard QFC.

But then, racks all look the same to me...

Posted by COMTE | October 3, 2007 11:42 AM

it's all about the boobs. and the beads. who knew there were entire magazines devoted to beads?

Posted by brandon | October 3, 2007 11:48 AM

"Female Complacency Weekly" Wheres the tabloids? Gotta have em.

Posted by 911Hoax | October 3, 2007 11:58 AM

so what were the women of yesterday?

same thing.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 3, 2007 12:03 PM

So it's all about the underwear, then?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:04 PM

more like the lack of underwear. someone needs to put 2 and 2 together and knit these bitches a bra.

Posted by brandon | October 3, 2007 12:33 PM

Wait -- wait -- in the back, top: "Star Trek"! Those women today.

Posted by --MC | October 3, 2007 12:37 PM

No, some have bras on. And that's all.

Look, the best ones are Bust and Vanity Fair, of the ones I see there. In terms of content - and at least Bust has a better self-image for women.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:41 PM

I still wonder how how the only time non-white women are featured on magazine covers are when the magazines themselves targeted at such women.

Posted by Gloria | October 3, 2007 1:13 PM


Yup. The exceptions are women who are incredibly hot and famous, such as Halle Berry or Sandra Oh.

Posted by Greg | October 3, 2007 1:39 PM

Does this have something to do with Charles's deep infatuation with Ms. July (the Bust cover girl)?

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | October 3, 2007 1:44 PM

@26: At which point, really, they're practically white.

Posted by Gloria | October 3, 2007 2:00 PM

Women are stupid, reading garbage like this. I only read men's magazines for men, like "Bus World", "Garden Railways", and the like.

Posted by Fnarf | October 3, 2007 2:11 PM


umm... the only time white women are on magazine covers is ALSO when they're incredibly hot and famous.

that is all.

Posted by clausti | October 3, 2007 3:20 PM

Hillary Swank looks like she fell out of an ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, yet she gets magazine covers.

Posted by Big Sven | October 3, 2007 4:44 PM

@30: Incredibly hot in a pale kind of way was kind of my point. I don't see many faces darker than milky tea on most covers. Not many narrow eyes or broad, flat noses. Granted, that's because those things aren't hot in general. Right?

Posted by Gloria | October 3, 2007 5:32 PM

Garden Railways?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 5:57 PM


Nah, they put some ugly hoes on the cover of Cosmo.

Posted by Greg | October 4, 2007 8:16 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).