For those who missed it, last week was our annual Sex Issue. Although, seeing as our cover featured a hot blonde in red latex, we're not sure how you could have missed it. We like to be obvious that way.

Speaking of obvious: Hasn't it been painfully clear for, like, ever, that condoms suck? They aren't comfortable. They smell. They haven't seen any real innovation in centuries. Last week's feature, “Condoms Suck,” by Dr. Paul R. Abramson and L.J. Williamson, pointed out just that, arguing that some fraction of the billions of dollars we're spending to develop an HIV vaccine might be better used in the development of a condom that men would actually wear. “There's too much complacency around the suckiness of this Stone Age bullshit,” Abramson and Williamson write. “Where is our Steve Jobs of condoms?”

Readers thought the question was a good one. “I find the lack of fresh condom-technology odd, too,” writes @mistressmatisse on Twitter. “Usually boys are just all about designing new penis-focused stuff.

Selene MSC agrees. “You know, normally we're all about making sex better. Why hasn't condom technology advanced in the last few centuries?”

Reader sandsmith is a bit more skeptical. “Point made, but there are few suggestions for improvement here, and really, it is hard to imagine many variations on the theme.”

Come on, people: Did Steve Jobs say that about telephones? Lots of people thought they were pretty nifty back before touch screens, too.

Sex and the Single Student

In addition to Abramson and Williamson's serious call for a better condom, the Sex Issue contained plenty of tomfoolery — with nothing more foolish or fun than our sex survey, which purported to contrast the sexual proclivities of students at USC with last year's survey of students at UCLA (“Trojans? Man!”). As we learned via the oh-so-scientific method of surveying 100-plus students at each school, USC students appear to be saucier, sexier and downright sluttier than their UCLA counterparts.

Lucy notices other differences. “The women at UCLA also dress more for comfort at their gym and go there to work out seriously, but because they're so fit and self-assured, they're actually hotter,” she says. “The men are just as hormone-fueled, but the atmosphere is more serious. Guys may mainly want to pick up girls, but they work out seriously anyway. The women often go to female-dominated classes and shun the few men who show up there hoping to pick someone up. The women can smell their motives a mile away. The women working out at the USC gym and women there in general remind me more of 90210. Overall, my impressions support this survey.”

Al says he's proud to be a UCLA kind of guy: “So, are we supposed to be ashamed that the girls at our campus aren't skanks or something? Sorry, UCLA just has more class.

Finally, TeeJones1776 notes that we asked students about their ideal penis size — and begs for gender parity. “Since the question regarding 'ideal penis' size usually comes up everywhere (no pun), why, in all gender fairness, is there no question regarding the 'ideal vagina size'? BTW, I like my women to have a really, really big vagina — and it seems to me that I should definitely enroll at USC. Go Trojans!!”

The Final Solution

On a more serious note, we heard from reader Neil Rudd, who wrote a letter in response to last week's brief review of the art-house film In Darkness (“Grueling but Familiar, Oscar-Nominated In Darkness Dramatizes Another Holocaust Horror”).

Rudd writes, “It's worth noting I have never written a note of complaint before in my life, and I'm not Jewish. But I thought Michael Atkinson's review of In Darkness was unbelievable. To describe the true story as 'a scab perhaps only familiar to Holocaust Museum devotees' shows a singular lack of tact and respect for the horrific historic events that beggars belief. 'Devotees of the Holocaust Museum'??!! People do not go there to be entertained. They do not go there for a fun day out. They go there to keep these events in the public consciousness so they are never forgotten or excused. …

“I just happened across the review, and ultimately it made my blood boil. To simply reduce the suffering that happened into a veiled rant about how all Holocaust movies are effectively drawing from the same well left me speechless. His view is as if the Holocaust and its resultant stories are now somehow passé and need a Hollywood revamp to keep them interesting for this reviewer.

“When handling anything regarding such subjects, the majority of reviewers are aware of the delicate nature of that which they are writing about and approach it in a respectable manner. Not this guy. He doesn't even say if the film is any good or not — just that he now finds movies about the Holocaust boring as they are all the same story. No shit, Sherlock. The tone of the whole piece left me disgusted, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of relevant Jewish parties to review.”


A theater review in last week's paper (“The Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald”) wrongly stated Oswald's reasons for visiting the Soviet Union. He met his wife while living in Russia; he did not, as he tells his interrogators in the play, go there to visit her family. Also, our Jan. 26 story “Who Should Own the Dodgers” incorrectly listed the late Roy Disney as a potential buyer of the Dodgers. The family of Roy Disney is a potential buyer.

You Write, We Read

Please send letters to Comments, L.A. Weekly, 3861 Sepulveda Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. Or write us at Full name and contact info preferred.

LA Weekly