For Women,
27b, Wyndup Street,
London
EC13 4PW

10th November 1997

Dear Mr Simms,

Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately we cannot return your photographs, as our legal department advises us that this could constitute a criminal offence.

We normally either commission our own photo shoots, or buy photographs from established photo agencies. We neither solicit the general public for contributions, nor publish unsolicited material. Indeed, it is only because you have obviously spent a lot of time, effort and imagination on this venture that I am replying to you at all. We regret, therefore, that we cannot publish your photographs.

Although payment in this respect is academic, please allow me to explain our remuneration scheme. Our practice as far as fees are concerned is that we pay rates negotiated between the photographic, modelling and publishing industries according to the number and size of the photographs published. Under no circumstances would we consider a scheme such as you suggest. However, the general consensus around the office is that, should we ever adopt your idea, you would operate at a considerable loss.

I thank you for your comments on our publication. Although For Women is not aimed at a male audience, all views are welcome. However, we feel that your idea of a Readers' Husbands slot is not suitable for our target readership. In any case, your contribution would not be considered for the following reasons:

1. You yourself admit in your letter that you "do not have a typical model's physique". Whilst you may be right that some readers might like a change from the normal male stereotype, we feel that such a departure that your body represents will be some time in coming, if ever. (Incidentally, we feel that to classify all of our male models as "butch woofters" is a little unfair).

2. For legal reasons we must have the express, written permission of all models featured to publish the photographs. Whilst you may be happy for your body to be in print, we would also need the authorisation of the other participants. As regards the photo set in the doctor's waiting room, opinion is divided in the office as to whether we would also need the owner of the emu's permission. (Strangely enough, in that photo we can count 4 heads, but 9 legs. Was a mannequin's leg used for some purpose, or was someone partly obscured by the surf-board?)

3. As responsible magazine publishers in these uncertain times, we have a responsibility towards the health and well-being of our readership. If our readers were rash enough to try some of your poses for themselves, possibly their physical and certainly their mental health could be at risk.

4. We have a carefully researched target market for our magazine. We constantly poll both our readers and the general public. We use three separate market research organisations. We subscribe to all the relevant trade papers and articles in our profession. We compute trend analysis on our own and others' data. We test possible ideas and directions on random samples from our target market groups. Thus far, we have failed to find a single woman that would be remotely interested in material such as you have contributed.

Whilst you may be somewhat down at this stage of my letter, please do not be discouraged. Very few letters to our publication have engendered such discussion, debate, disbelief and amusement. If you wish to continue a career in modelling, may I take this opportunity to wish you all the very best. However, should you ever attempt to contact this magazine again, we will not hesitate to take out a court injunction against you.

Yours sincerely,

Penelope Faye,

Editor

P.S. I believe that the condition revealed in the photo with the gas cooker and the trapeze can be helped with live yoghurt.