Noting that Marge Simpson has posed for Playboy, Glenn Reynolds
says, simply,

The end times are upon us.

And the end times are erototoxic!

I could not make this stuff up if I tried. No seriously. There are people who apparently sincerely believe that cartoon porn is more dangerous than real porn:

....American Family Association Special Projects Director Randy Sharp blasted 7-Eleven's decision to attract young men to the pornographic pictorial.

"Most American dads know the dangers that porn represents to young males," Sharp said in a statement. "It's irresponsible of 7-Eleven to display porn in front of boys who pop into 7-Elevens for a hot dog or a Slurpee."

He continued, "The cover will create the kind of curiosity that can easily lead them into an addictive porn habit. This is not what American families want to see in their neighborhood convenience store."

According to the AFA, the magazine will be carried in 1,200 7-Elevens that are corporately owned, stores that have been virtually porn-free for the last two decades.

Monica Cole, director of AFA's OneMillionMoms.com, and a mother, said 7-Eleven's decision is deeply offensive.

"Marge Simpson on the cover of Playboy is disturbing on so many levels," she said. "7-Eleven has to know that using an animated character on the cover of a pornographic magazine is deceptive and harmful because it will attract the attention of children.

She accused the chain of using a cartoon character to push pornography.

"America's moms didn't like Joe Camel selling cigarettes to their kids, and they don't want Marge Simpson selling degrading images of women, either," she said. "A lot of moms are going to shop somewhere else if 7-Eleven doesn't do the right thing and refuse to stock this magazine."

Dr. Judith Reisman is former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention study
of child sexual abuse and crimes suborned by "soft" pornography, and author of several books on Kinsey and pornography, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In a recent WND commentary, Reisman declared, "Mother Marge is used to snare millions of child 'Simpson' fans, future pornography addicts, boys made impotent, dependent on pornography and often predatory, to 'feel' anything, and girls trained to risk their very survival however an eortotoxic society has shown them is desirable.

"Shame on all us all for the growing erototoxic pandemic," she said. "And shame on 7-Eleven."

If you're not familiar with the word, it's because Reisman (who believes Hitler was a gay plot and whose doctorate is in Communications) made it up.

Reisman says that there are chemicals in the brain, which she has dubbed "erototoxins,"[5][6] that are produced by watching pornography and that have toxic influences on the brain.[7] Reisman lists these "erototoxins" as testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, glucose, dopamine, serotonin, and phenylethylamine.[6] While some of these chemicals are related to arousal or orgasm, none are specifically associated with toxicity or the viewing of erotic images.

I have to admit, there is something cartoonlike about all of this.

DISCLOSURE: My father gave me Kinsey's book when I was in my teens, so I am thoroughly erototoxic. And (as I have admitted) erotophobic.

UPDATE: For those who enjoy deeply offensive things, don't miss my more recent discussion in which I juxtapose the thoughts of pro-porn Glenn Reynolds with those of the very anti-porn Judith Reisman to come up with what I call the Erototoxic Paradox.
My shocking startling conclusion?

Pornography causes abstinence!

Not that you have to conflate Reynolds with Reisman to realize that. Most people with common sense will understand that typically, pornography is not used by couples who are having sex, but by individuals using it to achieve solo gratification.

In other words, at least while they use the porn, they're not having sex. And not having sex is abstinence, right?