Mitcz.com : Official blog of Rev. Mitcz, the demented devilish comedian from Hollywood, CA.

For years, I’ve tried to figure out why Playboy (and Maxim, FHM, et al) doesn’t turn me on. I thought, at first, it was because it just wasn’t hardcore enough. I’m a sick fuck, and I like dirty women – so, pardon me if I don’t whip it out when I see some leggy blonde lying down with her boobies out and a towel draped over her lower half. I need spread eagle shots. Fingering. Insertion. But even that won’t guarantee an erection. However, in real life, I’ve gotten pretty rock-hard over as simple a thing as being titty-flashed.

Why? I think I figured it out..

There’s two things at play here. One is, if it’s in-person (and not across the street, or during a taping of my show) there is the possibility that I can play with the naked girl. That idea alone can give me the pants-tent, no nudity required.

However, I can also salute my shorts just by looking at shitty webcam shots from women I’ve talked to online. If they’re 1000’s of miles away – that’s hardly “being able to play with the naked girl” material.

There’s something more. Something Playboy doesn’t provide : imperfection.

Here’s an actual Playboy shot (nipples edited out for “work-safe” purposes) :

Some people might find that “sexy”, or “erection-inducing”. I feel REALLY sorry for those people. Truly, I do. It’s not because the girl isn’t hot. She probably is. But w/that photo – how can I tell? How the hell am I supposed to be aroused by THAT?

Playboy edits out moles, pimples, warts, creases, folds, stretch-marks, birthmarks, errant body hairs, curves, bellies, scars, cuts, scrapes, random fat deposits and even goes so far as to smooth out any part of the body that may have jutted out as a natural consequence of being in that pose.

In other words EVERYTHING UNIQUE THAT DIFFERENTIATES ONE HUMAN FROM ANOTHER!

What you simply must realize here is that you’re looking at an artist’s rendition of a naked woman. That photo above STARTED as a regular photo. 100% real, give-or-take lighting tricks. From there, I can tell you from experience (I edited photos like that during my time at Vivid) that you’re looking at a “base coat” with hours of work smoothing and shading and removing and patching and cloning and processing on top of it.

It’s quite literally like taking a photo of someone and then painting a whole new picture on top of it and then saying “yup! that’s what they look like!”

Are you fucking kidding me? Don’t insult my intelligence, assholes.

Ya know what’s REALLY hot? Scars. Folds. Stretch marks. Scrapes. Bruises. Moles. Errant barely-visible body hairs (most women have a light-blonde “happy trail” on their stomach and peach fuzz on their buttcheeks). I like seeing a woman contort in bed and make fucked up faces and see parts of her stomach jut out to the side. I like slapping an ass and not hitting their fuckin’ ass-bone. I like seeing a little jiggling when I’m pounding away. I like REAL PEOPLE. I like IMPERFECTION. I like knowing that we’re all retarded fuckin’ snowflakes.

Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Stuff – they’re all guilty of it. It’s more than just giving an unrealistic image of the female form – it’s HIDING the female form. When Ms. “Give Me Attention Cause I Have No Redeeming Qualities” posed for Playboy, people were excited to see her naked. Hell, I love seeing new boobies for the first time. But unless you’ve ripped her top off in person – you’ve not seen her naked. You saw an artist’s impression of what she might look like naked if she were a plastic doll on sale at the Wal-Mart.

To drive my point home, here’s what I’d look like naked in Playboy :

Now you can tell everyone you’ve seen Mitcz’s enormous cock, hanging out of his pants in a photo he posted on his blog.

You’re welcome.

Diggin' my shit? Well then..