Lads mags

Professey Chin · 04-11-2009 04:54PM

Will wrote: »

Never really got into the lads mags type thing, just got magazines every now and then that interested me e.g mbuk (mountain biking).

Dirt was always better:pac:

CDfm · 04-11-2009 05:14PM

Me well it has to be Q or Mojo.

But I used to browze Cosmo until it got rid of its problem pages.

Snowie · 04-11-2009 06:12PM

liah wrote: »

It wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed as a general statement in regards to the "quality" of askmen's articles. I wasn't being insulting towards you, nor patronizing. In fact, the only comment I directed towards you at all is "no offense" and "please don't take those as fact." How was that insulting to you? It was insulting to the mags, sure, but they're equally as insulting to the intelligence of both the men who read the mag and the women the articles are about.

Ok so wel throw this B/S to one side. Apolgies...

I don't think your looking at the picture here from a mass market....socity is effectivly dumbing them selves down. I mean kids now adays talk in text form they dont get involved in debating or the likes there life revolves around girls, look at dat glanza, gettin drunk, and genrally not using there brain. I think most people can see this in any local town they care more about how they look then there intelgence.... Then there the play station xbox... how many young children would sit there button bashing for 9 hours a day if they could. how many of them would sit there for 9 hours a day reading a book?

I can happilly garintee that 50% and the rest would happilly sit there playing a gaming console insted of reading a book.

look at how children beheave now adays.

15 years ago it was'nt as bad while i will say there are intelgent kids they dont appear to be half as intlegent as they where back in the 80s or 90s.

Now take india for example theres been a program on channel four about bringing missbeheaved kids to india for a week and schooling them there way or in other countrys. To be honest i was appauled at how these kids where beheaveing in india. kids in india would'nt dare step out of line because they've got values theyve got honar theyve got all the right things that kids should have...

where over here they don't

they certanly dont have loaded magazine. over there it would be classed as very offensive. My point being the likes of loaded and zoo cater for a market. unfortunatly that market is young/men/men who don't really use there brains.

in 2009 we live in a world wear its more important to look good then have brains in lots of peoples eye's.

Are they really insulting there intelgence or are they outlining how moronic we as a country and many others are becoming ?

This comes into more play not just in magazine this comes from our way to sell our selves as nations, its more concerning then the likes of a mag it shows what where growing into as nations.....

OldGoat · 04-11-2009 06:33PM

Will wrote: »

really wish this forum would let me embed images >.<

It just ain't gonna happen. I can imagine the quality of pics this thread would be hosting. There would be pigeons, and mountainbikes, cars, DIY'd wooden bar-b-ques.

Do fanzines still exist? Real printed fanzines rather then blogs? The underground/subversive/anarchist feeling that came with kitchen sink fanzienes was wonderful, even if it was just a collection of bad poetery or SciFi short stories.

liah · 04-11-2009 06:41PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Ok so wel throw this B/S to one side. Apolgies...

I don't think your looking at the picture here from a mass market....socity is effectivly dumbing them selves down. I mean kids now adays talk in text form they dont get involved in debating or the likes there life revolves around girls, look at dat glanza, gettin drunk, and genrally not using there brain. I think most people can see this in any local town they care more about how they look then there intelgence.... Then there the play station xbox... how many young children would sit there button bashing for 9 hours a day if they could. how many of them would sit there for 9 hours a day reading a book?

I can happilly garintee that 50% and the rest would happilly sit there playing a gaming console insted of reading a book.

look at how children beheave now adays.

15 years ago it was'nt as bad while i will say there are intelgent kids they dont appear to be half as intlegent as they where back in the 80s or 90s.

Now take india for example theres been a program on channel four about bringing missbeheaved kids to india for a week and schooling them there way or in other countrys. To be honest i was appauled at how these kids where beheaveing in india. kids in india would'nt dare step out of line because they've got values theyve got honar theyve got all the right things that kids should have...

where over here they don't

they certanly dont have loaded magazine. over there it would be classed as very offensive. My point being the likes of loaded and zoo cater for a market. unfortunatly that market is young/men/men who don't really use there brains.

in 2009 we live in a world wear its more important to look good then have brains in lots of peoples eye's.

Are they really insulting there intelgence or are they outlining how moronic we as a country and many others are becoming ?

This comes into more play not just in magazine this comes from our way to sell our selves as nations, its more concerning then the likes of a mag it shows what where growing into as nations.....

Hey man, I agree with you, but it's also kind of my point-- if people keep feeding everyone this horseshít, then it just becomes a vicious circle-- ignorance begets ignorance. Maybe if more intelligent, well-rounded stuff started to be produced and popularized.. well, you get the idea.

I have no problem with lad's mags or women's mags being pretty much softcore porn and used only for the pictures; it's the masquerade of being an all-around mag that irritates me. Like, why do they even bother with articles? Just quit the bullshít.

Life would be a lot better if everything was just face value what it is. Bullshít only makes the ignorant more ignorant and doesn't help anything.

CDfm · 04-11-2009 07:11PM

liah wrote: »

I have no problem with lad's mags or women's mags being pretty much softcore porn and used only for the pictures; it's the masquerade of being an all-around mag that irritates me. Like, why do they even bother with articles? Just quit the bullshít.

But Cosmo is every bit as bad as askmen.com

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/tips/

Wasnt there also something on HIV and unprotected sex??

liah · 04-11-2009 07:16PM

CDfm wrote: »

But Cosmo is every bit as bad as askmen.com

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/tips/

Wasnt there also something on HIV and unprotected sex??

Did you read any of my posts..?

I said both lads' and girls' mags are equal in their lack of intelligence and tripe spouted. Quite a few times, actually:

"Lad's mags and girl's mags of the same nature are all sexist towards both genders, really not worth paying attention to anything that's advertised to one specific gender over the other except to look at the pretty pictures. Outside of the pictures, they're tripe and worthless."

"Which is why I said both genders' magazines are horrible and stupid and sexist towards the gender they're targeted at, nevermind the gender it's objectifying."

OldGoat · 04-11-2009 07:59PM

liah wrote: »

Maybe if more intelligent, well-rounded stuff started to be produced and popularized.. well, you get the idea.

There are plenty of high-brow magazines but they just don't sell in the same numbers to the target audience that the Lads mags aim at. It is their market. The boys want their titillation and the magazines supply it as part of their package of articles and that gives them a market edge.

I have no problem with lad's mags or women's mags being pretty much softcore porn and used only for the pictures; it's the masquerade of being an all-around mag that irritates me. Like, why do they even bother with articles? Just quit the bullshít.

Oh you can't blithly dismiss the articles in the magazines. Take as an example Playboy, tits&ass magazine for decades, pinnnicle of the genre if you will. A quick check of it's history will see stories penned by the likes of Ian Flemming, Arthur C Clark, Vladimir Nabokov, P.G.Woodhouse and Margaret Atwood to mention but a few - (Source). Even more imppresive is the list of interviews (Source) that they have carried out and the interviews are more substantial then the "Whats your starsign" innanaties of most interviewers of popular media.

You realise that I'm gonna have to buy a few of these now just to see how bad they have become since I last read a copy of playboy.

Hand on heart I can say I've never read FHM, nuts, zoo or any of the other new crop of 'lads' mags.

CDfm · 04-11-2009 10:18PM

liah wrote: »

"Lad's mags and girl's mags of the same nature are all sexist towards both genders, really not worth paying attention to anything that's advertised to one specific gender over the other except to look at the pretty pictures. Outside of the pictures, they're tripe and worthless."

But a lads mag wouldnt reproduce an image of gorgeous Fillipa Hamilton Photoshoped to look like a well dressed stick

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/was-the-photoshopped-ralph-lauren-model-fired-for-being-overweight-525248/

And the ever decreasing Faith Hill outed by Jezebel

http://jezebel.com/278919/heres-our-winner-redbook-shatters-our-faith-in-well-not-publishing-but-maybe-god

"Which is why I said both genders' magazines are horrible and stupid and sexist towards the gender they're targeted at, nevermind the gender it's objectifying."

Lads mags are not pushing cartoon images and are fairly tongue in cheek.

I haven't gone down a soup diet yet to watch the pounds peel off

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/The-South-Beach-Diet-Cosmo-Style

I just thnk women take there mags a lot more seriously than guys do.

Like I cant imagine a size zero suit well would Old Goat buy a size zero suit. I think not.

liah · 04-11-2009 10:30PM

CDfm wrote: »

But a lads mag wouldnt reproduce an image of gorgeous Fillipa Hamilton Photoshoped to look like a well dressed stick

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/was-the-photoshopped-ralph-lauren-model-fired-for-being-overweight-525248/

And the ever decreasing Faith Hill outed by Jezebel

http://jezebel.com/278919/heres-our-winner-redbook-shatters-our-faith-in-well-not-publishing-but-maybe-god

Lads mags are not pushing cartoon images and are fairly tongue in cheek.

I haven't gone down a soup diet yet to watch the pounds peel off

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/The-South-Beach-Diet-Cosmo-Style

I just thnk women take there mags a lot more seriously than guys do.

Like I cant imagine a size zero suit well would Old Goat buy a size zero suit. I think not.

I think you're misunderstanding..

I don't know how to make this clear, maybe it only makes sense in my messed up head, but, here goes:

Lads mags and girls mags are the same thing. They give you eye candy and bullshít content that should never be taken seriously, but unfortunately is taken seriously by some of the ignorant masses.

I not once said girls mags were better. Or that lads mags were worse. I said they're equal insofar as they're insulting to both the gender they're advertising to and the gender they're objectifying.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at as I'm agreeing with you and have held the same point of view consistently throughout the thread..? The only discrepancy I have is that you think women take their mags more seriously-- I'm pretty sure there's an equal amount of ignorance on both sides of the gender border, in fairness.

As for your Filipa Hamilton comment, no, they don't have her stick thin, but they'd probably photoshop her to have massive tits and a perfect tummy, is it really so different? Photoshopping is photoshopping is photoshopping, at the end of the day.

CDfm · 04-11-2009 10:40PM

liah wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding..

I don't know how to make this clear, maybe it only makes sense in my messed up head, but, here goes:

I know you disagree with the content of both genres

Lads mags and girls mags are the same thing. They give you eye candy and bullshít content that should never be taken seriously, but unfortunately is taken seriously by some of the ignorant masses.

I not once said girls mags were better. Or that lads mags were worse. I said they're equal insofar as they're insulting to both the gender they're advertising to and the gender they're objectifying.

Guys aren't objectified in lads or girls mags and lad mags dont sell life style in the same way.I cant imagine saying a guy is being objectified. It wouldnt cross my mind.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at as I'm agreeing with you and have held the same point of view consistently throughout the thread..? The only discrepancy I have is that you think women take their mags more seriously-- I'm pretty sure there's an equal amount of ignorance on both sides of the gender border, in fairness.

I dont know about that

As for your Filipa Hamilton comment, no, they don't have her stick thin, but they'd probably photoshop her to have massive tits and a perfect tummy, is it really so different? Photoshopping is photoshopping is photoshopping, at the end of the day.

Fillipa Hamilton is gorgeous without being photoshopped. She is photoshopped for a womens audience. Kate Moss is hardly lads mag fodder.

minidazzler · 04-11-2009 10:45PM

In fairness, I have read Porn mags with more substance than FHM, Zoo, etc..

Playboy has better advice than these things.

I don't know why people read them.

I had a look at AskMen.com and I have to say the advice is bull**** in our setting.

It might work in California or something but trying to use those lines on Irish girls wouldn't work. It really sucks!!!

So in short, this crap really isn't for me.

Then again I had access to pron from a very early age so maybe that's the difference?

CDfm · 04-11-2009 10:58PM

minidazzler wrote: »

In fairness, I have read Porn mags with more substance than FHM, Zoo, etc..

Playboy has better advice than these things.

I don't know why people read them.

I had a look at AskMen.com and I have to say the advice is bull**** in our setting.

Exactly, lads magazines dont really have substance or credibility. THey are entertainment.

The editorial content of Playboy or Rolling Stone certainly was quite high.

Ask.Men.Com I wouldnt rate as you give a magazine more cred than an ezine which is like TV.

Dr Galen · 05-11-2009 01:58AM

there are differing levels of lads mags out there, as some people have pointed out.

You've got GQ and Esquire, aiming for a higher intelligence level reader, high fashion, big bucks, politics etc. Editorially, trying to raise the bar. Whether they always do or not is another question. As Fajitas pointed out also, some fantastic photography.

Then you've got your FHM, which is imho trying to reach a middle ground. Boobs and bums along with some higher quality content. Fairly decent lifestyle and fashion sections added in with a bit of brainlessness. Recently been overhauled in a big way, to sit above the "lowest common denominator" stuff.

which is like the Loaded, Zoo, Nuts type stuff, which are basically mindless trash. While on my Ibizian sojurn, such magazines were bought and seriously, I'd read the back of a matchbox before going near them again. Even on the beach, toasting in the sunshine, they were muck.

Do I buy any of the above. Well FHM fairly regularly, mainly because I like pictures of hot girls, I like to switch off my brain every now and again, and well, in the bath or on the throne it makes good light reading.

GQ or Esquire are my travelling mags. I spend a lot of time on the road or on airports, so they'll get you through a crappy overnight in a hotel or a few hours of a flight. I only wish I could afford the gear they write about though

Haven't read or seen a playboy in years, but I know it's more than the obvious.

To my mind, if you take this things as a bible, then, thats pretty lame. If you see them for what they are, and don't take things too seriously then sure what harm.

Maybe a gap exists in the market for a new magazine, aimed at the modern gentleman. Someone who isn't hugely flush with cash, but wants to read a stylish, uncluttered lifestyle magazine, without fart jokes and beer swilling competitions. Obviously, every edition MUST contain Megan Fox

Warfi · 05-11-2009 12:43PM

I used to read FHM years ago if I happened to find it lying around. I found that it gave me an insight into how men think that I wouldn't have had beforehand.
I passed over the naked pics (I don't think I was part of their key demographic

), but I found the articles very funny and self deprecating. Which gave me a good idea of where most men are coming from e.g. slagging matches aren't taken seriously.

The articles about gadgets and so on, however, did give me the impression that men are fascinated by shiny new things that supposedly make your life easier (just like the gadgets section they have on Something for the Weekend on TV, I automatically assume that section is aimed at men). I wouldn't think any less of a man if he liked 'useless' (I admit I think they're useless :eek:) gadgets though, just as I wouldn't like a man to think the less of me for my quirks or habits.

DM_7 · 05-11-2009 09:52PM

cruizer101 wrote: »

I'd actually like to see some of these topics covered in your typical mens magazine.
Why not put in a DIY section and a proper one not one of those 10 ways to be a proper man, where it just tells you things without telling how.

I find there is a gap between lads mags and more special interest magazines.
Ideally I want a mix of Men Health, Time, National Geographic, Empire, Top Gear, New Scientist, and some DIY one, throw in abit of sport there too although I'd skip that section

I have tried plenty of magazines but the magazines out there are too specific so you end up buying what your in the mood to read about. For exapmple I buy 4-4-2 if I want to read football or I buy Mens Fitness if I want to read about exercise.

Thats a good sugestion you make. I would buy a magazine like that. Thats the type of magazine you could buy every month.

CDfm · 07-11-2009 10:47AM

I was looking up something in the internet and came accross this gem on the decline on sales of mens magazines.

I came accross this beut

Lads' mag sales have been plummeting for a while now, and it's hard to mourn the losses. The mistake would be to think that the decline of these magazines reflects a decline in misogyny. It's likely readers are migrating online, where they can find much more hardcore material, much more cheaply.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/04/maxim-lads-magazines-sexism-misogyny

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

I would put it down to content really. You know -I have a 19 year old son and its like me producing a magazine for his age group based on a market demographic. Thats where I feel lads mags fall down.

Womens mags are very much produced by contemperaries of the women they serve. Guy mags are not.

The picture element -well it wouldnt bother me but if the content is puerile and the pics are saucy Benny Hill style who wants to know.

Lots of womens magazines grew out of housekeeping mags and the sucessful ones have been around -some for a century or more.

Maybe if lads mags were more like DaveTV.

I wouldnt buy a lads mag -even at an airport. I would want a more genuine read and the pics well ...... now if the were in the Sunday Times Magazine.............. ( memo to self - I shall write to The Times)

Fajitas! · 07-11-2009 11:38AM

Maybe a gap exists in the market for a new magazine, aimed at the modern gentleman. Someone who isn't hugely flush with cash, but wants to read a stylish, uncluttered lifestyle magazine, without fart jokes and beer swilling competitions. Obviously, every edition MUST contain Megan Fox

While it'd be a fantastic idea, it just wouldn't work out in the long run, unfortunately. The Magazine industry is a hard one to crack, and an even harder one to keep going in

To be honest, that's why a lot of publications are moving to being an online only presence, which has it's pro's and con's.

Maybe if lads mags were more like DaveTV.

I don't think I could handle Top Gear on every page...

CDfm · 07-11-2009 11:46AM

Fajitas! wrote: »

While it'd be a fantastic idea, it just wouldn't work out in the long run, unfortunately. The Magazine industry is a hard one to crack, and an even harder one to keep going in

Whats this with women wearing clothes in Magazines - I just don't get it.:D

I don't think I could handle Top Gear on every page...

LOL - But at least we would have no green issues.

Thinks article for a girl section - Flatulence - What every girl should know:pac:

Fajitas! · 07-11-2009 12:39PM

Fajitas! wrote: »

To be honest, that's why a lot of publications are moving to being an online only presence, which has it's pro's and con's.

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!

But at least we would have no green issues.

Thankfully

CDfm · 07-11-2009 02:27PM

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 · 07-11-2009 03:18PM

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 · 07-11-2009 03:44PM

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 · 08-11-2009 01:49PM

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

Macha · 08-11-2009 02:29PM

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 · 08-11-2009 03:24PM

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 · 08-11-2009 03:50PM

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 · 08-11-2009 03:56PM

CDfm wrote: »

When did you get over your misogyny.

I never did.

Coz I never was.

CDfm · 08-11-2009 07:46PM

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 · 08-11-2009 09:05PM

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

Lads mags

Comments