Specious arguments, insulting tones! Oh who would have thought it would
have all ended in tears ! We do not deny that we used a partially clad woman
to attract attention to NYW but we do contest that there is any
decided strategy on our part to demean women in the site. True, we may have attempted to have
our cake and eat it too(A propostion of a bikini and done hair in the midst
of the then winter- How utterly practical!) but there was no intention on our part
to flag that as CURRENT and though you doubt our sincerity again
we must re-iterate THE IMAGE IS A REFERENCE.
Maybe our bemusement over the dedicated banality of The Vargas Girl did not
transmit accurately enough and obviously there is room for
mis-interpretation! But if you are so sensitive to scantily clad human
beings then please register equal outrage over our Revenge Of The Waif
article with its gratitiouus display of nubile male flesh. Chastise
Vivienne Westwood for making clothes that satarize the cliches of
feminity:padded bum and all , burn Cindy Crawford at the stake for wearing
a bikini on the cover of April's Bazaar!
The outrage you exhibit is a combination of projection and
misinterpretation because for us a sexist stance towards women is such
an amazingly outdated way of thinking .Rest assured though that there is a
generation out there capable of creating images of women without investing
in the primitive ideals of sexism. Stay tuned for our new May cover that
attempts to achieve this. We'll be giving you a MODERN visual devoid of
Vargas Girl references or irony. Will you show us your love then?

> All the best.
NYW