Some observations:
- I am now old enough, and access to smut online easy enough, that I actually read it for the articles, and only idly glanced at the photospread, mostly to find where it ended and the next article began.
- There is a lot less photo smut. There was only one spread, and the rest of the mag only had the occational bare side of breast.
- The smut is a lot less hardcore and "filthy" than it was in the late 1980s. It was an "artistic erotic". No gynecology shots.
- The principle photographer credit was to the internet erotica superstar, Peter Hegre!
- Back to the articles and "text content". There are more of them, and they are better written.
- Mostly they are reviews of upcoming TV shows, movies and DVDs, books, and video games that would be of interest to the early 20s male demographic.
The old porn mags cannot complete with the internet. The ones that survive will do so by evolving into ones that one wants to READ, instead of furtively, ahem, "use".
