MATH IS HARD

Colby's mention of January Playmate Rebecca Ramos (beware of nipple) is rightly critical, but to my mind, not critical enough. Listen to this:

It's a culturally diverse country, so it makes sense to feature different women. You don't have to be a skinny supermodel in your early 20s to be a Playmate.

OK, Rebecca. I'll take you up on that statement and look at your stats:

Height: 5'5"
Weight: 110
Bust: 34DD
Waist: 24
Hips: 34

Apart from a charming height deficiency, what do you see there? I see measurements that, at the age of 24, I will never see again, if indeed I ever had them.

And as for being 35, well. What's Rebecca's ambition? "To pursue a meaningful personal and professional path with passion." A path in what? Alliteration? I can understand that each of us comes to God (or a job) in his or her own way, and that there are many whose careers haven't reached their height or even realized meaningful form yet at the age of 35, but by that age, most people know what they want to be when they grow up.

I don't mind Playboy that much; I really don't. But, and God help me for saying this, the more explicit magazines are generally far more tolerant of the diversity of female beauty - which isn't to say that they're necessarily tolerant, but certainly more so. I can accept a lot of things, but not that Playboy doesn't have "preconceptions" about women and beauty. Don't quit your day job, Hef.