PICTORIALS 8 DANA Photos by Tim Hammill 20 ANGELICA Photos by Tim Hammill 26 RENEE Photos by James Hamilton 36 WET DREAMS A plumper pool party 42 NOVA Photos by Wildflowers 62 SHANITA Photos by Sal Del Re 86 KAREN Photos by John Lomax FEATURES
50 Hindsight
When a skeptical scientist sets out to debunk a woman's claim of unusual powers,
he realizes that not only is she a paranormal plumper but her supernatural abilities
extend to sex!
Fiction by Frank Sandwell
70 Femmes Fat-ales
If there is such a thing as a fat gene, these giant goddesses have it and make
the most of it. Bigger is better and one wide woman explains why super-fatties
are super sexy and in vogue.
Article by Meg Barry DEPARTMENTS
5 BULK RATE
Letters from readers
14 THE ROUND TABLE
An ample advice column
18 EXCESS
Meaty morsels about the wide world
81 MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
A buffet of big amateurs
92 THE BIG PICTURE
Reviews of big videos
95 BUFFET
A real growth market
FROM THE PUBLISHER
We all know something about censorship and the issue of free speech. Because we
each have our own opinions on the subject. Each of us looks at, reads, and hears
things a little differently from each other.
We know that if you are reading this magazine, for instance, that you are more
likely to advocate freedom to read materials of your choice than are most people.
Most Americans would say that the guarantees in the Constitution are basically
a good idea, but if you asked if it's okay to keep certain books out of libraries
and schools, or certain programs off television, they might hesitate and then
qualify their answers.
The biggest problem with saying it's okay to censor "some" things is
that it is always a completely subjective decision. That is, unless you are prepared
to say, for example, that all nudity is forbidden, each of us would look at the
question from our own perspective. What would offend a schoolmarm is not likely
to get a yawn from you. But how do you feel about a Maplethorpe exhibit showing
one nude peeing into the mouth of another? That exhibit gave everyone fits a few
years ago, and even staunch anything-goes advocates had some qualms.
A Supreme Court Justice (Potter Stewart) summed up just how subjective pornography
is by admitting that he couldn't really define it, but that he knew it when he
saw it. Talk about confusion! If he knows it when he sees it, does that mean:
1. He'll always see it the same way in the future?
2. Other judges will see it the same way he does?
3. We'll know what factors go into his decisions?
How does that help an artist, or publisher or movie director stay out of censorship
problems with the "law?" Aren't our laws supposed to be clear enough
so that a law-abiding citizen can know what is and is not legal in this country?
And not risk jail?
We've come a long way, baby, but there are still many politicians (many now labeled
the new "Conservative Right" or "Christian Coalition") who
think we've gone much too far. And so long as we don't have a Supreme Court that
has the courage and honesty to say the Constitution means what it says (free speech
means free speech) but rather what the Court decides in each and every case what
is or is not free speech, we will have local politicos who know the arrest of
a clerk in a video or book shop is always good for some publicity and votes, no
matter who gets hurt.
Nadine Strossen, the President of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) said
it very well in a recent Playboy interview: "If freedom of expression doesn't
include the right to talk about sex, to look at pornography, to pose for it, to
perform in it, how do I have free speech?" We are now quite used to nudity
and sex scenes in major Hollywood movies, that just a few years ago were automatically
censored by fearful prudes who predicted the end of the civilized world if people
were exposed to such filth. Well, the world hasn't ended, so maybe it's time we
"went for it" and gave the concept of "free speech" a real
try.
The Publisher
