But Juggs wasn't your typical pornographic magazine. It described itself as "the world's dirtiest magazine" or something. In the early day, even up to when I bought the magazine, it was run by openly gay men who would intentionally use unattractive and overweight models in the magazine as a dig at it's readership.
I didn't know any of this at the time. And sure enough, the cover model was described as "the world's saggiest 19 year old". She looked okay on the cover but open it up and...yeah. Pretty saggy.
There was also a full pictorial of a woman who must have weighed 350 pounds.
But most disturbing was seeing a woman bending over with nipples glued on to her buttocks and spreading her pussy. It really freaked me out and I didn't look at the magazine for quite some time.
Never bought another copy of Juggs either. I switched to Busty which was made by the people who did Hustler and much classier. Still did pussy spread shots, which is something that I've never understood, but not the weird shit that Juggs would do.
But yeah, these "pink shots" (photos where the woman is spreading her pussy) were the line between hardcore and softcore porn. Of course, today this would all be considered softcore but we're talking circa 1996. Playbody didn't do pink shots. I don't think Penthouse did either at the time. But certainly Hustler and below did pink shots.
So now that I think of it, apparently there are people out there who like looking at pussies. What on earth can they be looking for, though? What's the criteria used to determine a good pussy versus a bad pussy? Or are they all good but they still like looking?
It totally escapes me. If anything, I find these pink shots unpleasant. And any gaping stuff is just gross. You see this a lot in anal porn. It's a whole genre within anal porn. Focusing on the anus after the guy just pulled out. It's disgusting. But there must be people out there who like that stuff.
So where was I? Oh yeah. I suppose that pussies are a bit unpleasant to look at particularly if you haven't seen one before but certainly in it's normal state it's fine.
As for Daniel Clarke, I've never seen his Facebook but I think he posted just recently asking for Sleepyflower's Facebook. Let's see what Sleepyflower is up to. I don't know his name. I always have to first look for Wymark's Facebook and search the friends.
Man...he really needs to get some YOUNG women in his friends list. These women all have kids. Except for this weird biker chick who lives in Canada. She's still old but no children that I can see. Exhibits quite a bad attitude. Tells the reader to "phuck" off.
So anyway, here's Sleepyflower. Pictures of cat, pictures of baby, pictures of wife. Nothing new here then.
But no, I wouldn't suspect that the removal of Facebook indicates somebody's demise. I mean...they're not removing Facebook after they die. There's a whole process apparently that families have to go through in order to remove somebody's Facebook.
I had a classmate who died and eventually his Facebook was removed (presumably by his family) but it took a while. But why remove it anyway? Maybe just put a note up that the person died.
What else...vaginas...Daniel Clarke...that's enough. I never saw Daniel Clarke's Facebook, though. It's a crazy common name and I didn't know where he lived.
There's a former classmate who I found on Facebook. Big time homo. Still gay. And just posts endless dumbass pictures that he finds on the internet. And it's even worse at Halloween because Halloween is the holiday that edgy misunderstood outsider types like to identify with. Okay, you enjoyed Michael Jackson's Thriller. Great. Can you post something vaguely interesting that's perhaps happening in your life, though?
« Back to index