The porno mag Fox underwent a rebirth a few years ago. In an attempt to distinguish itself from the masses of mediocre mags out there, it took on a theme, calling itself the magazine of porn stars and strippers and swingers. It tries to present itself as a magazine filled to popping with wild debauchery--the home of the dirtiest girls known to man.
I don't know if they're the dirtiest, but they're certainly among the nastiest. Fox is now ostensibly led by Jill Kelly, an elderly porn star who's listed as "publisher" on the masthead (I assume she's nothing more than a figurehead). The washed-up models have bleached blonde hair (or sometimes a bad wig), enormous black eyelashes, sagging shapeless breasts, absurd costume jewelry, bad tattoos, and bloated chewed-up bodies that have seen better decades.
Sadly, even the best airbrushing can't save these women. The photos tend to be grainy and low-res, maybe because the editors are doing their damnedest to try and hide the models' flaws. A few good pics do slip in here and there--a recent issue had a gorgeous closeup of a woman fingering herself to the second joint. Most of the time, though, the photos imitate the mechanics of good porn (with women squatting on dildos, licking two schlongs at once, and the like) but lack the spirited and enthusiastic lustiness of better mags like Cheri or Hawk. A straightforward split beaver shot is ruined by the model's withered and clawlike hand. In one picture, the guy receiving a blowjob has his eyes closed, but he doesn't seem overwhelmed with passion--instead, he looks like he's fallen asleep. In another shot, a girl in the midst of a double penetration has a mildly confused expression, as though she can't quite hear what the photographer is saying to her. Later on, the closeup of the double pen is ruined by amateurish lighting--because of the shadows, you can't actually see what's going on, which makes the poor girl's effort a total waste. On the whole, it looks as though the photographers and models didn't really have their hearts in their work. And hey, given how crappy the magazine is, who can blame them?
- Pictorials: 7-9
- Girls: fake and washed-up
- Penetration: a moderate amount, though the photos of it tend to be blurry or poorly lit
- Lesbian: 1-2 pictorials/issue
- Guy/Girl: 1-2 pictorials per issue
- Group: 0-1 per issue
- Fetish: none
- Stories/Articles: letters and a story or two
- know_no_bounds's rating: * *