posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
C) Advertisers should have open season declared on them such that it is legal to shoot them on sight.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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'... Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
