If the definition of ART is that which provokes a response, then I should say that Slug is getting into the right general area.
I’d pay to see his art properly displayed in a gallery.
If it should happen, pray that some obnoxious, self-righteous politico denounces it. Slug deserves more money. Controversy = $$$$$
Who’s with me?
Hey, great idea, Beakeroni! Let’s get some serious controversy going here 
Plus, of course, more exposure and money for Slug would mean more for the whole Straight Dope.
In a pop culture which includes a current top 40 hit that goes, “Let me see that thong/thong, thong, thong–thong, thong”, which BTW I didn’t “get” until my 10-year-old daughter explained it to me, and a top 40 hit that goes, “You and me are just mammals, let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel” and which contains the immortal line, “Put your hand in my pants and I bet you’ll feel nuts” (10-year-old daughter, ditto), and a top 40 hit that goes, in part, “I wanna get down, but not the first time”, Slug’s illustration begins to look remarkably innocuous. One had to go to a specific place to look at it; it wasn’t spewed incessantly over the public airwaves, where 10-year-old girls and their friends could listen to it (and make up line dances to it–you ought to see the motions that evidently go with “Discovery Channel” in Mrs. B.'s fourth and fifth-grade class.)
But as for this–
Absolutely! Hubba hubba! Let’s see some “equal time” for the clitorally over-endowed!
As is apparent by this week’s illustration, Slug is going to work sex into every friggin’ picture, so I guess you’ll get to see your electrode laden ejaculating prick next week, since the question is, I hear, “Does a duck’s quack really not echo? revisited”
“The Artwork of Slug Signorino: Cecil Adams’ Descent into Madness”
If that was unintentional, it was perhaps a bit unfortunate.
But it sure was funny.
So my question now is: why is it that the SD editors think it’s appropriate to slap the illustration we’re discussing on a web page that is just as easily - and sometimes more easily - accessed by a less-than-mature audience? Heck, I’m a college student, and typically the one that starts the “naughtiness,” as one of my acquaintances likes to put it. But Slug’s picture of the woman really went overboard, IMHO. Since the column is run in an “alternative” newspaper, the subject matter can probably afford to be a little more crass than if it ran in the Tribune. The illustration, though…can’t it be a BIT more tasteful? Most of us have fun with pictures of compromising situations from time to time, and Andros, you’re right - it’s not pornography. But I digress. If the editors feel that they can’t publish it in the paper edition of the Reader, why do they feel like the Web’s a different scenario?
First, the editors of the Reader did print it. The article is syndicated to other newspapers, and some of them printed the alternate picture.
Second, look at this week’s pic
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000519.html
This one shows a turkey with a candiru swimming up it’s urethra. You thought the last one was bad.
I understand the criticism - it seems a bit strong for a pic in a web page accessible to everyone - minors included. I thought it was a bit crass, too. But then I’m a prude. 
I guess a point in it’s favor is that if the kid is old enough to understand the pic, then he/she’s old enough to read the article, and maybe even learn something.
True 'nuff…LOL, and point well taken on the picture. I’ve gotta give Slug this - he’s an equal opportunity offender, at least. 
