Who needs a carnelian quartz and Victoria Secret’s underclothes when you have a Playboy cover sandwiched between “Sports Illustrated” and “People” mags?
I was doing my used book shopping spree with hubby in tow when I spied the Playboy mag among the mainstream rags. The cover — which showed a woman in huge rollers and drawers which barely covered her ass — made little sense to me. Why would anyone kneel in their underwear while yakking on the phone? If she was in the middle of getting dressed, why wasn’t she holding a pair of pants or a dress rather than the telephone? I thought men found hair rollers about as sexy as a prostrate exam. My husband answered, “The cover is tying to symbolize spontaneous sex.” Ever noticed how Virgo men cut to the chase? The model didn’t strike me as good-looking. Maybe due to the lights or to a heavily applied makeup job, the woman looked to be somewhere in her haggard thirties (not saying that “thirty and above” means getting up there. I’m saying the cover girl looked as though she was getting up there. The people behind Playboy know what makes men think about sex more than I know about what makes men think about sex. After all, they have raked in the dollars to prove it. So, with gratitude to a magazine that has made its mark by promoting women as holes to be filled at a whim, I announce my lust spell.
A 98% nude model on a mag cover that makes no sense
You and hubby have the day off, and the kid is at school
Shake ingredients well, and blend until smooth.