This thread is about self image, and particularly about anorexia. As a middle school teacher, I hear a lot of girls complaining about being fat, when they have no business doing so. Some of them may be truly anorexic, although I have no business making such a diagnosis.
But I've noticed lately these two types of magazines at the newsstand. There's YM, 16, 17, or whatever, marketed to young girls. All the models are pencil thin, and unhealthy looking. On the other hand, there's Maxim, and a host of other gateway pornography magazines, aimed at teenage boys, and featuring extremely buxom women. These models are curvy and soft-featured.
The thing that gets me is that young girls are being sold an unhealthy thin image, while it's pretty obvious that boys prefer some meat on the bones. Seems like girls would be better off reading the boys magazines if they wanted to know how to be attractive, and over all, the image is healthier.
Comments?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just think men's magazines are more interesting. They tend to talk about stuff I like more, like video games and rock and roll. Not like Women's magazines. Also they are not pink. I hate pink. Perhaps they would be useful for knowing what the average boy likes or something, I don't know. Gender based magazines tend to frustrate me.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Seems like girls would be better off reading the boys magazines if they wanted to know how to be attractive, and over all, the image is healthier.
Yeah, that's great advice.
"Now, girls, if you are interested in learning how to be seen as an object for men's pleasure, may I direct you to some pornography for your edification."
Glenn, you are usually on the ball, but in this, you are off the wall.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
That's an interesting observation. I don't read the magazines aimed at my age group because I'm not interested in cars (except Aston Martins) or sports; but I'm inclined to agree with you based on a quick mental snapshot of my local bookstore's magazine rack.
To be honest I never fully understood why girls' magazines had photos of women on their covers. Shouldn't there be 'coverboys'?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Glen, I'm going to go get a copy of Maxim tommorow and try to compare.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: "Now, girls, if you are interested in learning how to be seen as an object for men's pleasure, may I direct you to some pornography for your edification."
Glenn, you are usually on the ball, but in this, you are off the wall.
I wouldn't exactly call Maxim pornography. Nor do I think it's a bad idea for girls to learn how to be seen as an object for men's pleasure. (They should also learn other things, like nuclear physics, racquetball, and playwriting.) I think in this case Glenn is indeed on the ball.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Do you think it's a good idea for boys to learn how to be seen as an object for women's pleasure?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yes.
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
Glenn, Mike,
I feel sorry for you and your tired right hands (assuming you're right handed!)
One day, in some obscure future, if you meet a living woman, may you regret your foolish remarks!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, for starters there's a difference between a fashion magazine and a "men's interest" magazine. Fashion magazines in general have things that women like, and tend to be aimed at women, but the anorexically thin women are in there not necessarily because they are more attractive to anyone (certainly not me) but because they sell clothes/accessories/whatever. Their looks are attention-getting, etc. It's sad that girls pick women like that as their physical role models, and I don't think that fashion magazines have done anywhere near as much as they should to help girls know the difference between an "attractive female" and someone that is essentially a walking mannequin.
I wonder if part of the reason girls want to look like fashion models is not just because they think they are beautiful, but because being a model seems to be the most glamorous life that a young woman can lead. Similar to boys wanting to be basketball stars.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I wonder if part of the reason girls want to look like fashion models is not just because they think they are beautiful, but because being a model seems to be the most glamorous life that a young woman can lead. Similar to boys wanting to be basketball stars.
Definitely
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: The thing that gets me is that young girls are being sold an unhealthy thin image, while it's pretty obvious that boys prefer some meat on the bones.
Is it obvious? Tell that to the millions of men who are downloading images of girls. Yes, thin ones who have hips like boys. You are jumping to conclusions. You may enjoy looking at curvy girls, but you can't speak for the majority of men.
For the record, I love Maxim. It is a good magazine with witty, creative writing. Sure, some articles don't appeal to me, but no more than other magazines. I would read Maxim over Cosmo any day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heck, I'd say that Maxim has pornographic elements, but might not be pornography if that makes sense.
Kind of like how Fight Club was not pornography, yet had undeniable pornographic elements. Have you read it? Some of the writing and most of the modeling in Maxim at least approaches soft-core.
-------------
It's obvious to me, anecdotally, that men prefer women whose ribs aren't visible to those whose are. In other words, the women most men I know (not just am friends with, but actually know) would not choose runway-thin fashion models over, say, someone gracing the pages of Maxim.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
The thing about me is--I usually don't find any of the magazine girls attractive. I've seen too many of those clips showing the reality behind magazine covers, where they photoshop them like crazy.
I'm all about the girl-next-door who doesn't look glamorous or make-uped.
oh, and curves are good.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I wouldn't exactly call Maxim pornography.
A) Glenn didn't call it pornography. He called it a pornography gateway. B) From what little I've seen of Maxim, I consider it pornography, along the lines of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (do they still do that?) or the Lingerie Bowl.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Glenn didn't call it pornography. He called it a pornography gateway.
The Shvester called it pornography. Which maybe isn't fair. I haven't read it; I've just seen the covers on the newsstand, and assumed it was pornography.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So you did. Feel free to disregard point A).
Point B) still stands, though.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Do you think it's a good idea for boys to learn how to be seen as an object for women's pleasure?
Yup. It's a useful skill.
-----
montevardi, that was uncalled for.
-----
PSI, I agree completely. How then do we reverse this trend? These skinny models are indeed eye-catching, at least to the target audience, and the technique works well for the fashion industry. There is simply no incentive to advertise using models with more realistic body types. Campaigns like Dove's Real Beauty are probably always going to be in the minority.
-----
quote: Is it obvious? Tell that to the millions of men who are downloading images of girls. Yes, thin ones who have hips like boys. You are jumping to conclusions. You may enjoy looking at curvy girls, but you can't speak for the majority of men.
Porn runs the gamut. I don't have access to any hard data, but from my experience (gasp!) "model-thin" porn stars are distinctly in the minority.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Tante, in the same situation do you assume that Cosmopolitan is pornography?
edit for grammar
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would say that Cosmopolitan and Glamour are not pornography like Maxim is. It seems to me that the pictures in Maxim are meant to be sexually arousing or interesting to the magazine's core audience while the pictures in Cosmo and Glamour are not.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Tante,
I'm not promoting Maxim. That's why I called it pornography. I think it's a marketing tool and no more.
I was just calling attention to the obvious discrepancy: in girls magazines, the projected image of girls is unhealthily thin, while in men's magazines girls are buxom and curvy. For the most part, these girls have a healthy weight (excepting certain other enhancements).
The difference is in the intended audience. Girls look at (female) models because they want to emulate the look. It is the girls who want to be an object of desire, but the girls magazines are sending an unhealthy message. The images of thin girls is intended to sell products, such as diet programs, or pills.
Boys magazines on the other hand, use pictures of girls to sell the magazine, which in turn has advertising to sell products.
The parallel to the girls' mags are magazines like "Mens' Health" (ironically) and body building magazines which project an image for men to emulate which is also generally unreachable without the aid of steroids. If these models aren't muscularly bulky, they are also unreasonably thin. It's either one extreme or the other. And not surprisingly, cases of anorexia in boys are becoming prevalent.
This is actually a pattern that's been going on for quite some time. Early attempts to sell deodorant to men failed. So did early attempts to sell hair coloring. But the advertising industry made these products household words by first preying on the insecurities of women, based on their self image. Once the products were established, it was easier to increase the market by targeting men.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:A) Glenn didn't call it pornography. He called it a pornography gateway.
I think it is pornography. It's just this side of a legal line that permits underage boys to buy it. I think its purpose is to introduce children to pornography so they'll buy it as soon as they are of age.
And Cosmo is also pornography.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: And Cosmo is also pornography.
Eh? For whom?
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I think too many of you are judging a book by it's cover. Look inside these magazines. Maxim and Cosmo are not porn. The pictures on the cover are very suggestive but most of the pictures in them are not like that. Those pictures are just meant to catch your eye.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014:
quote: The thing that gets me is that young girls are being sold an unhealthy thin image, while it's pretty obvious that boys prefer some meat on the bones.
Is it obvious? Tell that to the millions of men who are downloading images of girls. Yes, thin ones who have hips like boys. You are jumping to conclusions. You may enjoy looking at curvy girls, but you can't speak for the majority of men.
There's also stuff like this which would seem to back this thought up.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Valentine, your concept of porn must be very different from mine. What is inside the magazines are pretty equal to what is outside on the covers. Yes, I have checked both of them out. For me porn means more than just naked. It means an attitude of permissiveness and arousal. Both Cosmo and more especially Maxim are filled with that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Pornography doesn't have to be pictures. "Sex tips that will drive him wild" are certainly pornographic in nature.
What little I've read of Cosmo also seems to glamorize extramarital affairs.
If it's purpose is to arouse sexual interest, it's pornography.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I've seen naked women in Cosmo. I've never seen a naked woman in Maxim. Do with that what you will.
I think the underlying point here is the interesting differences between how women see themselves and how men see women. I know very few men who think the rail thin runway models are attractive. Mostly, they look like they need a good meal. This applies to all the skinny hollywood chicks that look starved as well. While these women think being super thin makes them attractive, most men I know would disagree.
I know there are a lot of eating problems and image problems with young teenage girls. This rail thin issue puzzles me. I think it is the ultimate end of that spectrum that pushes women to be so thin, and I think that it is women who have pushed it to that end of the spectrum.
As far as men go, I can only speak from experience. IMO there are two layers to attraction for men. While men have the women that they oogle at in pictures in magazines or whatever that they consider the ultimate in beauty, I find that men also have the second layer of attraction of women that they actually go for. And by second, I don't imply a lesser beauty. Men have a fantasy, a pedestal image of beauty, and then there is the image that they are attracted to in reality.
Most men know they will never have a chance at the fantasy beauty girl, and I believe most men don't want those women either. There are exceptions though, and those guys are usually incredibly shallow and spend a lot of time chasing the hot chicks around.
Meanwhile, when a guy finally starts to mature and go after his reality beauty girl, he is looking for the average girl. There is beauty and sexuality in just about every different kind of woman, and when dudes grow up they realize that.
The problem is, all young girls see when they are growing up is the immature fantasy beauty ideal, and think they have to strive for that. And the fact is, that image sells stuff to guys, so that's the image girls are going to see. It's too bad we can't make young girls somehow understand the differences in fantasy and reality beauty and use that to combat all the image issues young girls have growing up.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Tante, in the same situation do you assume that Cosmopolitan is pornography?
OK, I haven't read Maxim at all, so I'm really no judge. I was judging the book by its cover. As for Cosmopolitan, I have picked it up in the beauty parlor (or salon, or whatever we're calling it these days), intrigued by the outrageous cover stories. I'd say it is on the safe side of soft-core, by a hair.
That said, I am not all in a righteous bunch about porn. If you like it, go and enjoy! I just think we can find healthier role models for girls than are found in any of the popular magazines discussed here.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
As a super-crazy-workout-veteran (female) with a body I am very proud of...
it is so much easier to starve yourself than it is to get your butt to the gym everyday and be healthy about it. Especially for young people, whose bodies respond to those things quicker and more drastically... and who also have far more time to ponder their attractiveness to the opposite sex. I read Maxim whenever I can. I like it because it uses humor and because it provides motivation to work out! And because I am training to be Miss Object of Pleasure 2007.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: I do.
Definately. Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Glen, I'm going to go get a copy of Maxim tommorow and try to compare.
Won't that be an awkward situation with the cashier?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
Do you think it's a good idea for boys to learn how to be seen as an object for women's pleasure?
Where do I learn?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Glen, I'm going to go get a copy of Maxim tommorow and try to compare.
Won't that be an awkward situation with the cashier?
Why would it be?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, I guess if she tries to get the cashier to pose like a Maxim girl, you know, for comparison's sake...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I think it is pornography. It's just this side of a legal line that permits underage boys to buy it. I think its purpose is to introduce children to pornography so they'll buy it as soon as they are of age.
I have about a dozen friends who read and/or subscribe to Maxim, who are of legal age, and who do not read Playboy or any other magazine of that nature. So I disagree with your assessment of Maxim's purpose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, do they...ummm...patronize other outlets of pornography? I'm not saying that if they did, it would prove the idea...but that they don't get other pornographic magazines doesn't disprove it, either.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm curious if the company who owns Maxim also owns any clearly pornographic title. If they don't, what would be their motivation to act as a gateway?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have about a dozen friends who read and/or subscribe to Maxim, who are of legal age, and who do not read Playboy or any other magazine of that nature.
Just because they don't buy [other] pornographic magazines doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong.
Do these friends of yours watch or view porn at all?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm curious if the company who owns Maxim also owns any clearly pornographic title. If they don't, what would be their motivation to act as a gateway?
Misguided altruism?
I've heard people have said that what we need is more porn and less puritianism in America.
Note that I haven't argued myself that Maxim is a gateway to porn. I personally think it is pornographic, and the motivation for that is to sell more copies of itself.
[ January 07, 2007, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I frankly doubt that the publishers of Maxim and other such magazines put them out due to a crusade of some sort to change American culture. I, like you, think they're in it for profit. Which means selling more copies of their own magazine, not trying to get kids accustomed to porn while they're underage so they'll start buying the "real" stuff when they turn 18.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I have about a dozen friends who read and/or subscribe to Maxim, who are of legal age, and who do not read Playboy or any other magazine of that nature.
Just because they don't buy [other] pornographic magazines doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong.
Do these friends of yours watch or view porn at all?
I'm sure some or most of them do. But, unless I'm misreading what Glenn claims (i.e. that Maxim and the like are gateway magazines to stem the tide until it's legal to purchase truly pornographic magazines) that's immaterial.
It's a tenuous claim even when it's only applied to magazines, IMO. I can't imagine trying to prove the broader claim that reading Maxim is a gateway to consumption of pornography in other mediums as well.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I see nothing awkward about buying Maxim, though I might if this discussion were about playboy or other actual porn geared for men.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I used to work at a bookstore that carried playboys. People were so funny about it. Some people would be incredibly stiff and uncomfortable and talk in hushed tones when buying it. Others were loud and uncomfortable and would make jokes. A small handful acted like it was no big deal. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm really wondering if any of the people that call Cosmo porn have actually seen any real porn. I've only seen one episode of Playboy, so I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I see a huge gaping chasm between what is in Playboy and what is in Cosmo.
As a woman I find Playboy much more disturbing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've read a few Cosmos (obligatory male remark about the dearth of material in waiting rooms and bathrooms), and it seems to me that while Playboy can be said to objectify and demean women, much of the 'articles' in Cosmo do the same, focusing on all sorts of stupid ways to know what your man is thinking, how to please him, or how to look sexier with little attention at all paid to, you know, being a better person.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I worked in a store that sold DVDs, some of which were pornographic. And nearly every person who bought one said they were buying it for a friend.
Edit: While I do not think Cosmo is porn, I do agree that it tends to be hard on a woman's self-image. My husband hated it when I buy Cosmo because, in his words, "You always go through this self-hatred thing immediately afterward." I realized he was right...and I actually haven't bought Cosmo since.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Pornography doesn't have to be pictures. "Sex tips that will drive him wild" are certainly pornographic in nature.
What little I've read of Cosmo also seems to glamorize extramarital affairs.
If it's purpose is to arouse sexual interest, it's pornography.
I know that we have a mutable and fairly obscure definition of what constitutes pornography, but you may be stretching the applicability of the word too far! I generally keep it down to those works that have little or no artistic, literary, or technical merit beyond stimulating sexual desire.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: But, unless I'm misreading what Glenn claims (i.e. that Maxim and the like are gateway magazines to stem the tide until it's legal to purchase truly pornographic magazines) that's immaterial.
More to sell to a market niche that exists between the legally taboo and the non-pornographic. It doesn't matter whether Maxim buyers later read harder stuff, only that teenagers aren't legally allowed to buy magazines that contain certain content, so Maxim was created to sell a product to that market.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I generally keep it down to those works that have little or no artistic, literary, or technical merit beyond stimulating sexual desire.
Like Lolita or Lady Chatterly?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yellow Silk, Japanese pillow books, the Red Shoes Diaries?
---
*honestly curious, not trying to mock or make a point
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Most straight guys are going to look at nude women. I think the idea that they wouldn't do so if not for Maxim is just silly. Playboy sold just fine before Maxim ever showed up.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I think its purpose is to introduce children to pornography so they'll buy it as soon as they are of age."
Baloney. Its purpose is to attract men to buy copies of the magazine. Ideally men with disposable income, thereby making their magazine more attractive to advertisers. Maxim has zero interest in getting its readers to move on to porn when they become of age, Maxim wants its readers to continue buying Maxim.
Magazines like Maxim tend to aim at making their readers feel as if they don't have enough stuff, since men (to overgeneralize) tend to see their lackings as external things. Buy this cologne, wear this outfit, drive this car and this hot girl will like you.
Magazines like 17 and Cosmo tend to aim at making their readers feel personally inadequate so that their tips, guides, and, above all, advertised products seem invaluble because women (again, overgeneralizing) tend to find it easy to believe there is something wrong with them.
Models are rail thin because that makes the fashions look better on the runway, the same reason fashion drawings are always of women who would be, proportionately, ten feet tall.
The notion that these things determine sex appeal is overblown. Guides it, perhaps, or just reflects it, or a little of both. But in the last hundred years the idea of the perfect woman has changed drastically, with economics having as much to do with it as anything. The only sure thing is that whatever look you have now will be the one everyone likes in 30 years when you can't enjoy it. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Some of you have the most bizarre notions about what constitutes pornography. Maxim is not pornography. Girls in bikinis are not pornographic. Is going to the beach "soft-core"? I don't think so -- others may disagree.
quote:If it's purpose is to arouse sexual interest, it's pornography.
People become sexually aroused every day. Sexual intererst is not an inherently evil or bad thing. There are all kinds of things which can arouse sexual interest which are not pornographic. And when you begin to talk about "purpose", you ascribe motivations to people whose real motivations you have no way of knowing. If something is labeled and sold as pornography, then sure, you can assume the motivations there. But when you call all kinds of things which aren't really pornographic pornography, and your reason for doing so is because of their "purpose" then you are beyond the point of good reasoning.
Maxim is actually a really interesting magazine with terrific articles.
And okay, the pictures are great. What heterosexual man in the history of the world does not like looking at girls in bikinis, for crying out loud. You'll have to take my word for it when I say my interest is more one of artistic appreciation than sexual whatever.
It's actually been a long time since I read Maxim, but I do buy the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.
Now, I'm not arguing against the larger point here -- that certain types of images in media are bad for real people's body images.
I agree with that. And?
quote:Pornography doesn't have to be pictures. "Sex tips that will drive him wild" are certainly pornographic in nature.
Why? How?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Some definitions, maybe?
Pornography is any material specifically intended to arouse prurient interest. That's all. Obviously a tricky thing to determine as people respond differently to different things. So tricky, in fact, that the best the Supreme Court could come up with was a three-part test that is, in itself, pretty vague.
Because of that trickiness, the word itself does not necessarily indicate the quality of the material. To some people, any sexual content is bad and demeaning. To others, sexual content that is "tasteful" or "softcore" or "positive" is considered erotica, a term which is equally subjective and tricky to describe. And to other people, any and all pornography is good or, at least, should be permitted in a free society.
Put succinctly, if the material's main purpose is to get you hot, it's porn. Whether that's a good thing or not and what society should do about it is the Big Question.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:To some people, any sexual content is bad and demeaning.
And that seems to be the case with some of the people in this thread.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There's also the fact that while the intention may not have been pornographic because the writers/photographers don't see it that way, like, say, the QnAs in Cosmo, some people will react to it anyway and so, for them, it becomes pornographic.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Pornography is in the eye of the beholder?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:"I think its purpose is to introduce children to pornography so they'll buy it as soon as they are of age."
Baloney.
Poorly worded on my part. I think I've corrected myself in the last post of the first page of the thread.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think there's more wit in Playboy than in Maxim and Cosmo put together, though I must admit my sample size is quite small: the only issue of Playboy I've ever read cover-to-cover contained, among other amusing pieces, a hilarious interview with Michael Palin of Monty Python fame. I've read more of the other two magazines, but pictures of women aside I found them both very dull.
quote:Originally posted by TL: Sexual intererst is not an inherently evil or bad thing.
I agree with this, but I'd go further: neither is pornography.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
As much as it's a standard joke, Playboy does have excellent articles. Lots of news, opinion pieces, humor, stories, and interviews, and all of very high quality. Besides, as far as "pornography" goes, Playboy is very tame and generally very tasteful.
Posted by abysmalpoptart (Member # 10061) on :
congratulations to the person who WIKIPEDIA'd the term to find that pornography means "any representation of the human body or activity to induce sexual arousal." however, i believe many of you are misrepresenting the term altogether
i'd like to start with the dictionary definition: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
technically, if sexual depictions are artistic or presented in a very correct and meaningful way, they are, by definition, NOT pornographic. but i don't view porn to be this way
i read that someone mentioned "how to please someone sexually" being in these magazines, and that makes it pornographic. how is that pornographic? because it has to do with sex? pornography isn't just something you dont want your kids to read - just because it involves sex, that does not make it pornographic.
do radio talk shows that occasional involve talking about how to satisfy your partners pornographic? or TV shows? if they say, maybe you should try this, in a helpful and meaningful manner, is that pornographic?
just think about that for a second, and if you truly think that all of those are porno, then i... i dont know i sort of find that entertaining
back to more of the point, ive been a 3 year subscriber to maxim, and i find it to be a very insightful read. sure, there are scantily clad women, but most of the people i know, myself included, look at them when i pick up the issue (i mean they're hot, cmon), but i find myself reading the articles over and over because they are actually interesting.
the funny part is, for maxim the cover girls are the attention getters, but the actual articles are what the magazine is there for
except with the last issue - lacey chabert... outright gorgeous
and for a second i saw that someone said cosmo has had nudity and i was excited, but then i remembered that the cosmo girls mostly look like ten year old boys, so i stopped caring
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
The problem here is that you're assuming Maxim celebrates curvy women with meat on their bones. No, they celebrate women who have meat in two places- their breasts and their buttcheeks. The reason why young women feel inadequate is because- surprise! Not all women are thin in the waist with perfect hour-glass figures. Not all women have tight asses and perky breasts. Not all women are devoid of stretch marks and cellulite. Not all women have perfect smiles and luxurious hair. And yet the minor fraction of those who fit that criteria are celebrated on the cover of Maxim.
So, while stick-thin models shouldn't be a goal for your students- neither should Maxim models. Also, don't you think that having young women read Maxim is just a little f***ed up? I mean, have you READ Maxim?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think people are seriously missing the original point that Glenn was trying to make, which, if I understand him, was that the standards of beauty propogated by mens' magazines is very different and arguably healthier than that propogated in the ones marketed towards girls. He's not seriously saying girls should be reading Maxim as a good thing or that it would be optimal if they held the Maxim standard as something they should hold themselves up to.
Rather, it was that, if they did, it would be 1) more in line with what many guys actually find attractive as opposed to the stick-thin anexorexic look, which frankly disgusts many guys I know - myself included - and 2) would be somewhat healthier.
It's not a "They should be doing this." It was "If they did this at least it would be somewhat better."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I read it even different. It's not "They should be doing this" It was more "If they look at this, they should be able to see that what they are doing will probably not get them what they apparently want.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think people are missing that point. I think most of the responses have been from people who would agree with that point, and so didn't have anything to add to it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Yeah, that's actually a good way of phrasing the second part and was something I neglected to include.
It's somewhat complicated because, a lot of times, girls don't dress up or starve themselves for guys. They do it for each other. I don't have the insight into the female mind to say if they actually think that doing these things will attract men, but I'm pretty sure the promixal cause/reward-punishment system is all about what other women say and do.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Then try this question.
16 and its advertisers sell their merchandise by fostering unlikely and unhealthy body image.
Maxim and its advertisers sell their merchandise by fostering promiscuity.
Which is worse?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
C) Advertisers should have open season declared on them such that it is legal to shoot them on sight.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by abysmalpoptart: congratulations to the person who WIKIPEDIA'd the term to find that pornography means "any representation of the human body or activity to induce sexual arousal."
absymalpoptart, I find your tone rather offensive, and I can't tell whether that is deliberate or not. It reads as surly and mocking to me.
I wouldn't claim you have to change your tone to suit me, of course, but I'd like to know if this was the intent.
Additionally, it may be useful to know that standard English capitalization, punctuation, and other matters of grammar are the norm here. Not only is it a matter of respect and readability on a published author's site, but we have many people who speak/read English as a second (or third, or fourth) language, and it is a courtesy to them to be as readable as possible.
Of note, I am not a moderator, nor do I have any enforcement standing or powers. It's just a request from another member.
And welcome to Hatrack, if nobody else has offered that to you.
---
My standard of what counts as porn is broader than most, but (other than issues of consent, including the involvement of minors) I have no desire to regulate what I consider to be porn. I think it can be quite a good thing in certain circumstances, and those circumstances may vary widely from person to person. But it's a tool, in my mind, and thus not inherrently good or evil.
Posted by abysmalpoptart (Member # 10061) on :
i'll try to stop using my internet jargon, but i will have trouble getting over the whole correct capitalization situation... punctuation will be easy.
i wasn't trying to be offensive, it just seemed like that was the angle that certain people were taking, and i scoffed at the concept that a wikipedia definition was taking much of the air of the conversation, when a completely different view could be looked at. i'm basically saying i disagree, and i know i was being a bit sarcastic, but i didn't mean to sound as aggressive as you're saying.
hopefully you read more of my post than that, though?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't want to get drawn into the discussion of what is or isn't pornography - I want to comment on the original post.
I agree.
A whole lot of dressing up for teengage girls is to be pretty so boys will think you are pretty. That's not inherently bad - that's doesn't necessarily mean dressing skanky. Jeez, it was a plot point in the latest CHarlotte's Web when Fern showed up in her pretty yellow dress wanting ribbons in her hair because she discovered a boy. I think it's very sweet and very natural.
The point of being stylish is to wear clothes well and to facilitate social manueverings among other people who care about fashion. I don't think that's bad either - stylish clothes can be very pretty, and I'm a fan of pretty things.
However, as for body type, in fashion the idea is to highlight the clothes, and in men's magazines the idea is to highlight the girl.
This is relying on generalities and I apologize, but you know the stereotype of the man in fashion? That's he's gay? If I want to look attractive to straight men, why on EARTH would I look to gay men for pointers?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by abysmalpoptart: i'll try to stop using my internet jargon, but i will have trouble getting over the whole correct capitalization situation... punctuation will be easy.
*grin
All efforts count and are appreciated. Thanks.
quote:i wasn't trying to be offensive, it just seemed like that was the angle that certain people were taking, and i scoffed at the concept that a wikipedia definition was taking much of the air of the conversation, when a completely different view could be looked at. i'm basically saying i disagree, and i know i was being a bit sarcastic, but i didn't mean to sound as aggressive as you're saying.
That's great. I had a sense I might be misreading you.
I think this whole thread might make more sense in light of the many many threads we've had on this in the past. That is, there have been so many extensive conversations about what porn is and isn't (or could be constrained by terminology to indicate, or what have you) that some of the oldtimers here just use a sort of verbal shorthand with one another.
For example, the person you were responding to himself has been active in these discussions abotu trying to demystify porn and argue for its inclusion in the world around us. I have, too, and there is a third person (can't remember who) who joined in with us.
So, when Chris quotes Wikipedia, it is in the context of those prior discussions, of online magazine articles he has written on this topic (yes, seriously), and so forth. Not that you should be expected to know that, of course, and neither would many of the others reading and posting right now. Unfortunately, though, all those past conversations aren't and can't get recreated all over again every time it comes up, so we kind of muddle through.
quote:hopefully you read more of my post than that, though?
Oh, sure! Just getting ready for work and a slew of new papers to grade. I haven't time or inclination right now for in-depth analysis -- maybe later, if things slow down.
[ January 08, 2007, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:hopefully you read more of my post than that, though?
If that's going to be your standard reply anytime you don't get a point-by-point response to a post of yours I'd put that sentence on your clipboard. 'Cause you're gonna be using it a lot.
quote:i'll try to stop using my internet jargon, but i will have trouble getting over the whole correct capitalization situation... punctuation will be easy.
No one's going to put red marks on your posts if you don't, but I don't think that starting every sentence with a capital letter is too much to ask.
There are 3 a's in the word 'capitalization', after all, and I make it about a half an inch from the 'a' key to the 'shift' key.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually that's the definition that's been whittled down in my head over 20 years of discussing the subject, in the interests of getting a non-judgmental statement that still accurately defines the subject matter. Wikipedia was not invoked. Just sayin'... Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Over the holiday, we saw a lot of adds for one of those weightloss programs where you buy the food. The adds for the men focused on how weight loss had improved their sex lives, and the adds for the same company that targetted women focussed on women talking about how great it is to feel pretty.
That was when I realized that I come from a culture where any woman under 300lbs with her original teeth can get laid without hardly trying. I think for women it's less about sex and more about competition with other women.
Men, on the other hand, probably could benefit from learning how to be attractive to the opposite sex, since sex itself is a primary motivator.
Just a thought.
Men's magazines are just as goofy in their own way as Cosmo and the like. It's all lowest common denominator marketting. It may be pornographic, but it is definitely SSDD.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
For those of you that tried to re-rail the thread. Thanks.
I really liked these points:
"If they look at this, they should be able to see that what they are doing will probably not get them what they apparently want."
and
"C) Advertisers should have open season declared on them such that it is legal to shoot them on sight."
That said, my grandfather was the V.P. of McCann Erickson Corporation, first under Mr. McCann, and later under Marion Harper.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)