to think there should be pictures of semi-naked men on the front of womens' magazines...
divastrop · 12/08/2007 21:24
..or b*k naked but airbrushed to within a milimetre of being pornographic?
i have accepted that 'lads mags' are here to stay,but what i cant accept is that there are no equivalent magazines aimed at women.
i only have eyes for one man now,but i know that when i was 18/19 i actually liked looking at picture of fit blokes with few clothes on,and would have much preferred reading articles about male slebs and fun sex stuff than reading about how much weight victoria beckham has lost or how many times paris hilton has been arrested.
is there really no market for such magazines,or is it a conspiracy to continue to repress women?
policywonk · 12/08/2007 21:27
Do we really have to accept that lads' mags are here to stay? I'd rather think that we can turn the pornification tide, than subject men to the same level of vile objectification. I think the answer is to stop regarding women's bodies as tradeable commodities, rather than to start regarding men's bodies in the same way.
At the moment, however, I am just a leetle too tired to do anything useful about it...
WideWebWitch · 12/08/2007 21:29
I don't want to accept that lads mags are here to stay. I hate this normalisation of pornographic images of women. I don't know how I'm going to explain to my dd when she's older why Zoo and Nuts etc exist.
It's misogyny, pure and simple. This 'women are all continually gagging for it and dying to take their clothes off for you' stuff is vile and outrageous. It attempts to mould female sexuality into something resemblibng a frat room/porn movie idea of what women want.
divastrop · 12/08/2007 21:31
i have tried writing letters to retailers and other stuff re lads mags but it just seems to me that britain has accepted them and anyone who thinks they are top shelp material is just a miserable old prude.
i just wonder how long it would be before the small-willied fat men of britain were up in arms if magazines with toned,well-hung young men started appearing on the shelves
divastrop · 12/08/2007 21:36
WWW-my dd1 who is 8.9(going on 14)asked me about those 'disgusting' magazines.i told her the women in them arent very intelligent and cant get a proper job,and the men who buy them are sad perverts who cant get girlfriends
not strictly true i suppose,but i said it for the benefit of the man in front of us in the queue who was buying nuts.
divastrop · 12/08/2007 21:39
i think 'for women' was mostly read by gay men(alot of the men who worked at butlins used to order it from the shop i worked in).it was a porno,though,wasnt it?im talking about 'everyday' magazines with articles of interest to women,but just with pictures of men in.like the lads mags in reverse.
gibberish · 12/08/2007 21:41
D'you think if there WERE mags like that for women, that they would take off? Do you think that women would actually buy them?? I personally couldn't be arsed... I think I prefer good looking blokes to keep their clothes ON in pictures - imagination is SO much better than reality.
mabelmurple · 12/08/2007 21:45
I believe that when women's magazines have put men on the front cover, they don't sell as well as with a women on the cover! Something to do with wanting to see people we aspire to look like, apparently. That's why even mags such as Cosmo still have pics of women on the front.
sorkycake · 12/08/2007 22:17
I wanted to know why adverts for shower gels always had naked women in them, then Dh pointed out that the gentle curve of a breast is infinitely preferable to say the gentle curve of a bollock... I have to say I think he has a point!
These magazines will stay until there is a market I suppose, I'm mighty glad my Dh finds them as low-brow as I do. He regards them as the acceptable face of porn.
If you want to look at porn then look at porn I say, but then I have issues with Cosmo and their ilk as well.
zippitippitoes · 12/08/2007 22:32
the top half of men is nice though..I can only like the bottom half in a personal intimate context
i have pondered recently whether thinking/guardian reader type intellectual people use the term erotica as a euphemism for porn or whether it really is something different..perhaps that is another thread though
divastrop · 12/08/2007 22:55
thats what gets on my nerves,though,the attitude that women would rather look at women they can 'aspire to'.is it just me who thinks thats a load of bollocks?why cant men be on the front of mens magazines,so that the sweaty bald fat blokes can 'aspire' to look more like.
havent there been threads on MN where piccies of attractive men have been posted for women to oogle?
if thats the case then im sure there must be a market.
i didnt mean pictures of men with their todgers hanging out on the front of mags btw,i meant bare-chested-hinting-at-large-trouser-buldge type photos.or peachy bottoms
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.