Phillip Picardi, digital editorial director at the magazine, issued a tweetstorm defending his publication’s decision to publish the article.
The backlash to this article is rooted in homophobia. It’s also laced in arcane delusion about what it means to be a young person today.
I want to phrase this so I don’t get censored here. But, the subject being “anal sex”, and the target audience being young girls, how the heck does this dude see an element of “homophobia” involved???
If this publication is telling young girls how to have “anal sex”, the strong implication is that they are doing so with a male, thus engaging in “heterosexual” activities with an opposite sex partner. So again, I ask, how is there a “homosexual” or “homophobic” element involved here????
As you and I both know, this is the left, and the homosexual advocate’s instant response used to intimidate and blunt criticism or shut down any opposition. Impugn someone as racist or “homophobic” or whatever. Standard tactic, which has, heretofore, usually worked. No more.
The article does talk about men, although since it’s in a “non-prostate’s owner’s” magazine, they must have anticipated backlash and subsequent publicity.
I’d have to reread it, but I assume their main purpose was to make more men and boys (probably especially) try it. I notice they’re promoting “bottoms.”