I read that the popular sitcom character Marge Simpson is going to be on the cover of popular 'nudie' magazine Playboy. I think it is apparently a 'big deal' since so many people have watched the Simpsons for the past 100 years. Tons of cultural philosophers say that since her head is in the shape of a peen (a phallic symbol), she sorta represents all guys being a lil bit ghey.

I searched the internet for nude pictures of the Simpsons, and happened to find a 'shit load' of cartoon porn. Like graphic pictures of tons of characters doing 'the kraziest shit possible' to one another. It seems to indicate that there is already a niche of fans who are interested in seeing the Simpsons nude/performing sex acts, and they have probably already had their fill of Simpsons hardcore.

not an authentic hro advertisement

I don't think the magazine will show nudity, so I think a lot of people should just do a 'google image search' if they really want to get off 2 Simpsons porn. This is apparently how the porn industry works these days. It's a lot like the music industry--people want the best, most extreme porn/music 4 free.

Playboy appears to be utilizing this Simpsons gimmick just 2 try to sell magazines to 'people who usually aren't interested in Playboy' since showing C-list celebrity breasts no longer makes the Playboy Brand a valuable asset/resource to our society. From what I understand, men used to use Playboys to 'tug off' before the internet existed. I am excited about Playboy 'going under' within the next few years, but they might be able to extend their shelf-life if they get characters from Family Guys/South Park/Hannah Montana to show off their knockers.

Magazine companies seem like they are just trying to get people to buy them by posting pix of allegedly relevant people. Now that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, people are finally saying he 'hasn't done shit.'

Don't think Miley knows 'a damn thing' abt LIFE (not the magazine, but actual 'life').

Rolling Stone must have needed to 'sell tons of magazines' to tweens when they decided to ruin their brand.

What do tween broads know about Health? They probs don't even know what 'mammygrams' are.

Magazines seem like they 'try too hard' to generate discussion. Like they are trying to get 'stupid groups of people' to talk about their magazine content.

I am not sure if magazine covers are supposed to 'state the obvious.' I don't think that they can 'break news' as fast as the internet, but I think people still value them as some sort of 'pulse'

Not sure what this metaphor is supposed to mean.

'Jesus Christ.'

It seems easier/cheaper/'greener' to be a blog, since ur not wasting tons of paper. I feel happy to reach my readers through some wires and satellites and Macbooks. The internet has really 'changed the entire media landscape', whether ur looking 4 a 'good read' or if you need to 'get off' to some internet pornography.

As a society, we must 'take the final step' in eliminating magazines by disregarding them as unique content providers. We can't hold on to the significance of their brand just because they 'have been around forever.' Internet blogs must 'rejoice' whenever a magazine folds. We must blog/tweet to one another about how 'we' toppled another competitor by bringing tons more consumable content to our dedicated tribes of followers.

Will u 'tug off' to Marge Simpson?
What's the 'kraziest shit' u've ever tugged off to?
Are magazines better than blogs?
Are the Simpsons 'authentic' or 'just another krappie tv show'?
Are cartoons for people who 'live in a fucking dreamworld' (no matter how trendy & progressive they are)?

Previous Simpsons coverage
Aligning Ur Personal Brand with The Simpsons