Lads mags

CDfm

Fajitas! wrote: »

Actually, what I meant to add to this is; If it's going to be an online publication, then costs are going to have to be at a minimum, it's very difficult to get people to sign up to online mags, never mind pay for them... never mind something completely new!

thats it really - what keeps a lot of glossies going is the add content and advertising revenue

i mean lots of my girl friends are going gaga about the new jimmy choo collection at h & m

http://www.ireland.com/home/galleries/gallery/jimmy-choo-hits-h-m-dublin

so magazines are used to shift product

there isnt a guy equivalent unless you count a dukla prague away kit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na12OyJEgJ8

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

Now misogyny is a hatred of women whereas lads mags are the opposite. So I dont know what asylum this lady escaped from.

Whether the content of these types of magazines is misogynistic is a matter of opinion, and as such the lady is entitled to her opinion, is she not? To have such an opinion does not imply she's escaped from some asylum, does it?

To imply that the content of such magazines is the opposite of misogyny is hilarious, in my opinion. A lot of the advice is specifically aimed at taking advantage of women, which hardly implies a love of the fairer sex.

All in my opinion, of course.

Yours sincerely
Recently escaped lunatic.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Whether the content of these types of magazines is misogynistic is a matter of opinion, and as such the lady is entitled to her opinion, is she not? To have such an opinion does not imply she's escaped from some asylum, does it?

I don't think a couple of t & a pics contintutes misogyny. Like I dont get the argument that porn objectifies all women.

She may believe what she writes but misogyny is a term much bandied around and means the hatred of women.Its more Benny Hill and saucy seaside postcard and in no way could be called misogyny.Its a bit strong as a descriptionb dont you think. Its nothing like the portrayal of men as the only perpetrators of domestic abuse in womens publications which is misandrist.

Recently escaped lunatic.

lol When did you get over your misogyny.

The_Kew_Tour

I buy 442, FHM and Mens Health i would say 9-10 times out of the 12 issues a year for each

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think a couple of t & a pics contintutes misogyny. Like I dont get the argument that porn objectifies all women.

Misogynists are capable of being attracted to women or finding women attractive. But often it is a very narrow type of attraction that severely limits the role of the woman. If fact, a lot of misogynists see women's only valid role as that of a sexual object. Or also as a virginal being that is supposed to embody all that is pure. ie the madonna/whore complex.

So if these magazines, one of which was rapped on the knuckles for holding a competition where readers could win breast augmentation surgery for their girlfriend, help to perpetuate a narrow, sexist, narrow view of women's role in society then it's perfectly acceptable imo to consider them misogynist.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Misogynists are capable of being attracted to women or finding women attractive. But often it is a very narrow type of attraction that severely limits the role of the woman. I

So if these magazines, one of which was rapped on the knuckles for holding a competition where readers could win breast augmentation surgery for their girlfriend.

OK - the competition is very 90s Men Behaving Badly humour. Wasnt a lesbian group prosecuted under Canada's porn laws for distributing hardcore s&m material. The first prosecution under the new porn laws were a women for women publication.

I don't do porn but if I did I wouldn't find the anorexic women in womens magazines and used as role models attractive. Then thats me. I don't see the distinction about porn being in the eye of the beholder.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

OK - the competition is very 90s Men Behaving Badly humour.

What? You think offering unnecessary physical surgery with possibilities of serious complications like rupture, interference with breast-feeding, post-operative bleeding etc etc is just a bad joke? It goes far, far beyond that.

And do you know how they had to enter? By posting up shots of their girlfriend's breasts that readers would then vote on. Sickening.

CDfm wrote: »

Wasnt a lesbian group prosecuted under Canada's porn laws for distributing hardcore s&m material. The first prosecution under the new porn laws were a women for women publication.

Never heard of it but what does that have to do with this discussion of lads mags?

CDfm wrote: »

I don't do porn but if I did I wouldn't find the anorexic women in womens magazines and used as role models attractive. Then thats me. I don't see the distinction about porn being in the eye of the beholder.

That's hardly the point. These discussions always seem to descend into a debate about what men do and do not find attractive. Personally, I've had enough of hearing what men find physically attractive - it seems to be the only thing that matters sometimes!

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

When did you get over your misogyny.

I never did.

Coz I never was.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

What? You think offering unnecessary physical surgery with possibilities of serious complications like rupture, interference with breast-feeding, post-operative bleeding etc etc is just a bad joke? It goes far, far beyond that.

Thats hardly the point you are using the exception to use the rule.

And do you know how they had to enter? By posting up shots of their girlfriend's breasts that readers would then vote on. Sickening.

Readers wives.That stuff has been around for years. Its laughable and sad. How many do you know? Its a voyeur market.

Never heard of it but what does that have to do with this discussion of lads mags?

It is relevant. You have Sex Poistive Feminists like Susie Bright , Gayle Rubin on one end and Andrea Dworkin et al on the other side of the Feminist Sex Wars of the 1980's.

Sex positive feminists view pornography as their right and see themselves as normal and women who work in it as being entertainers. They also don't buy into the objectifying argument.

The Canadian case related to the prosecution of a lesbian business over the sale and distribution of hard core sado masochistic material for lesbian use.

That's hardly the point. These discussions always seem to descend into a debate about what men do and do not find attractive. Personally, I've had enough of hearing what men find physically attractive - it seems to be the only thing that matters sometimes!

Surely thats your own insecurities - but I doubt if guys define women by some porn pics in a lads mag. I don't think so.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

Thats hardly the point you are using the exception to use the rule.

Hardly. The competition was entirely in keeping with the sort of nasty messages of these magazines.

CDfm wrote: »

It is relevant. You have Sex Poistive Feminists like Susie Bright , Gayle Rubin on one end and Andrea Dworkin et al on the other side of the Feminist Sex Wars of the 1980's.

Sex positive feminists view pornography as their right and see themselves as normal and women who work in it as being entertainers. They also don't buy into the objectifying argument

The Canadian case related to the prosecution of a lesbian business over the sale and distribution of hard core sado masochistic material for lesbian use.

But we're not talking about pornography - are we? I have zero problem with pornography. I do have a problem with mainstream mags that send out terribly misogynistic messages about women (and anyone else for that matter).

CDfm wrote: »

Surely thats your own insecurities - but I doubt if guys define women by some porn pics in a lads mag. I don't think so.

Oh lovely. This reminds me of when women didn't vote for Palin and they were told they were just "jealous". No, I'm genuinely just tired of the constant conversation and catering to what men do and don't find attractive in women physically. I'm tired of it.

As for guys defining women by some porn pigs in a lads mag, did you see some of the responses to the size 14 woman who posed in Glamour? The outpouring of disgust and outrage by many men was simply shocking. I'll show you a few choice extracts:

She's a big girl - but seems a pretty healthy weight for someone of her height and build. Evidently a tad out of shape (don't kid yourself that rolls of fat on your stomach are 'normal' or 'healthy', it's a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, stroke and type2 diabetes), but some photoshopping could get rid of that if the gym couldn't.

t's not the stomach fold that catches my eye, it's her enormous legs that almost look like they've been Photoshopped on as a joke. Scroll up in your browser until you can only see the top half of the photo. Lovely isn't she? Now scroll down to just above the aforementioned fold, and it seems like a completely different model has been used. Look at those thighs!

To all of those saying everyone has that kind of fat stomach - GET SOME EXERCISE! I'm not an athelete, a teenager or a catwalk model, but there's no fold of fat at any angle on my stomach and my waist os 11 inches smaller than my hips - this is what is known as healthy. The reason - i don't eat too much and i exercise every day. Trying to normalize an unhealthy appearance, be that ultra skinny or fat, is dangerous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/02/lizzie-miller-model-fat

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Hardly. The competition was entirely in keeping with the sort of nasty messages of these magazines.

I didnt see the competition - but it does seem like a ruse to increase circulation.

But we're not talking about pornography - are we? I have zero problem with pornography. I do have a problem with mainstream mags that send out terribly misogynistic messages about women (and anyone else for that matter).

What type of messages

Oh lovely. This reminds me of when women didn't vote for Palin and they were told they were just "jealous". No, I'm genuinely just tired of the constant conversation and catering to what men do and don't find attractive in women physically. I'm tired of it.

Huge jump to Palins election campaign. Womens magazines define what women view as attractive. Anorexic chic.

As for guys defining women by some porn pigs in a lads mag, did you see some of the responses to the size 14 woman who posed in Glamour? The outpouring of disgust and outrage by many men was simply shocking. I'll show you a few choice extracts:

Hang on -you are selecting shock comments and isnt Glamour a womans magazine and not a lads mag.

But your back to saying that mens magazines define how women look - ever heard about free choice.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

I didnt see the competition - but it does seem like a ruse to increase circulation.

Of course it was, just like any competition, but that doesn't remove the main point which is that it was disgusting.

CDfm wrote: »

What type of messages

The portrayal of women as nothing more that sexual objects. Personally, I think they also send out crappy messages about musclular "alpha" males and obsessions with gadgets.

CDfm wrote: »

Huge jump to Palins election campaign. Womens magazines define what women view as attractive. Anorexic chic.

My point was that when I complained about our fixation on what men find attractive, you actually tried to pin that complaint on my own insecurities - something that was also tried on by the Republicans to deflect criticism of Palin.

CDfm wrote: »

Hang on -you are selecting shock comments and isnt Glamour a womans magazine and not a lads mag.

Glamour is a woman's magazine but those comments were from the Guardian website that were posted after the Guardian reported on the shock waves caused by the photo of a woman appearing in a mainstream magazine that wasn't photoshopped to hell!

CDfm wrote: »

But your back to saying that mens magazines define how women look - ever heard about free choice.

I didn't say they define how women look, I'm saying they help create unreasonable expectations in the minds of some of the men who read them. They also don't do much good for the women who have to see them in magazine racks in every supermarket and newsagent in the country. The message is not just an unrealistic image of what women should look like but also part of the general fixation with women's appearance in general. ie, where are all the half-naked buffed up men for ME to look at?!

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Of course it was, just like any competition, but that doesn't remove the main point which is that it was disgusting.

so you are against breast enlargement/augmentation surgery. I mean the only women I know of who have had them done are celebreties. Jordan and Posh Spice.

I mean they are mainstream media personalities

The portrayal of women as nothing more that sexual objects. Personally, I think they also send out crappy messages about musclular "alpha" males and obsessions with gadgets.

The women who sell their photos to the magazines - what do you think of them.

My point was that when I complained about our fixation on what men find attractive, you actually tried to pin that complaint on my own insecurities - something that was also tried on by the Republicans to deflect criticism of Palin.

How do you know what men find attractives. Glossy photos in a glossy magazine or real women in real life.

Glamour is a woman's magazine but those comments were from the Guardian website that were posted after the Guardian reported on the shock waves caused by the photo of a woman appearing in a mainstream magazine that wasn't photoshopped to hell

I like women and have never felt moved to post comments or even ask a girl could I post pics of her on line.

This photoshopping is in womens magazines that women buy into. Kate Moss is not a pin -up.

I didn't say they define how women look, I'm saying they help create unreasonable expectations in the minds of some of the men who read them. They also don't do much good for the women who have to see them in magazine racks in every supermarket and newsagent in the country. The message is not just an unrealistic image of what women should look like but also part of the general fixation with women's appearance in general. ie, where are all the half-naked buffed up men for ME to look at?!

OK - a guy is born has a mother, goes to school has women teachers, has female classmates, buys in shops with women shop assistants, goes to a doctor who may be a woman, goes to college on a bus with women passengers, has women lecturers.

Now how are his expectations of women unrealistic.

And if you want guy pics I am sure you can access them in the internet and in magazines.

Thought Bubble

*Iz a girl throwing her 2cents in*.

I could never justify spending my hard earned spandusals on the tripe that are zeleb mags like Heat, OK and Hello etc etc. But back in the day I used to really enjoy reading my Ex's FHM's and Playboys (yes I READ PLAYBOY for the articles). Playboy in particular used to have some phenomenal people writing articles like Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal. It's been a while since I've went top shelf, but I imagine the standards are slipping a bit.

What there doesn't seem to be are any gender neutral mags. As in little of that 'Brangelina are adopting another child isn't Posh so skinny' bullsh*t of the zeleb mags and less of that 'i'm a hard man that's shagged his wife, her sister and am eyeing up the ma' cr*p'.

You could still keep the Highstreet Honies, as long as there's some High Street Hotties (menz that is!). No harm showing that REAL people can be hot without airbrushing and photoshopping! And get some intresting / relevant special guest authors. And gadgets! Keep the gadgets! As well as fashion and anything else people find as relevant.

Am thinking maybe a mag version of boards. You know, a 'well rounded' discussion with lots of intresting and informative contributors peppered with the right amount of controversey and tasteless jokes

Any takers???

CDfm

Thought Bubble wrote: »

*Iz a girl throwing her 2cents in*.

That was at least 5 euro worth;)

Thought Bubble

CDfm wrote: »

That was at least 5 euro worth;)

Well, I'd like my future readers to get their monies worth!

* Is a rambler! *