Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lads' mags.... from top shelf to every shelf.

135678

Comments

  • #62
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    DannyKing wrote: »
    Because you have to live within society, and do as society requires,
    unfortunately,

    be creative.

    Society REQUIRES that lads mags be on lower shelves that can be viewed by kids? Really? How so?


  • #63
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    DannyKing wrote: »
    Because you have to live within society, and do as society requires,
    unfortunately,

    be creative.


    How condesending.

    How about instead of making anyone deal with issues they'd rather not, you just reach up to a higher shelf. Simple.

    Society consists of parents and children too.


  • #64
    pikachucheeks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,488 ✭✭✭pikachucheeks


    It's a matter of censorship.

    Personally, I think magazines with adult content should be censored and put on a higher shelf:

    Those who don't want to be exposed to such magazines and content shouldn't have to be. Porn / adult material can be an acquired taste; Some people find it offensive and crude. They have a right to be protected from viewing such material - as do children and minors (these magazines aren't designed for that audience, they cater for consenting adults.)
    On TV, shows with adult content come with warnings prior to the programme starting. They also have ratings. Neither of which magazines come with. The only way to censor these magazines is to put them on a higher shelf, above regular eye level.

    Some people might argue that censorship shouldn't exist and no one should have to be protected from seeing these magazines, as they are "part of life" or "normal" ...
    But what about a child's right to a childhood (ie. detached from adult life, adult content)? What about parents, who don't agree with their children having access to adult content? What about people who don't want to be exposed to pornographic images or content?
    Surely, it's only fair that the rights and requests of these people are listened to.

    These magazines are freely available for those interested in purchasing. Having them placed on a higher shelf won't discourage people from buying them, it'll just shield and protect those who aren't interested.


  • #65
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    pikachucheeks wrote: »


    Some people might argue that censorship shouldn't exist and no one should have to be protected from seeing these magazines,


    Theres a difference between censorship (suppression or removal) and product placement.

    I am completely against censorship, and completely against the placement of the product where minors can see them.


  • #66
    Novella
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,713 ✭✭✭✭Novella


    taconnol wrote: »
    ...who all have about 15% body fat and 34EE breasts, orange skin and display themselves seductively for the male viewer?

    The point isn't that these pictures exist, it's that they're practically the only type of imagery of women's bodies that exist in the general media.

    Yes, the point is what is thought of as typically sexy, or as typically attractive is obviously what the media are going to portray to the public. When trying to sell anything, clearly the most appealing images are going to be used. In advertising, the key is to entise the target market.
    I don't know why big boobed, tanned women are what are selling magazines at the moment, but they seem to be. I'm not saying, "It's great, we should all want our kids to grow up and be these women and so put the magazines anywhere". I'm just saying it doesn't really matter. I've seen hundreds of those magazines, I don't for a second want a boob job etc. I'd just hope my children were innocent enough to think of them as pretty ladies for a while and then intelligent enough to know that it's grand to wear fake tan and get your tits out but you don't have to be like that either.
    Giselle wrote: »
    You're ignoring context.

    Big difference between a little girl in the bath with mummy, and a little girl looking at a pneumatic, pouting, airbrushed, posed and styled image of a hot girl who's only purpose is to titilate.

    It might be subconscious, but she'll know the difference.


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    She's seen my boobs after a swim or while changing & wouldn't bad an eye-lid, however, she hasn't seen me bending over looking back over my shoulder, pouting while wearing 8inch PVC heels, a thong and suspenders - I'm sure you can appreciate the difference! :pac:

    I'm not sure the argument is whether a three year old will/won't notice or will/won't absorb sexualised material, for me anyway - it's that it's an argument that is completely needless and an issue easily remedied with a simple step to spare my blushes. :)

    I do appreciate the difference, but I do also think a three year old does not realise what context the photographs of these women are being used in. I just don't believe anything negative is going to come from a little kid catching a glimpse of a lads mag in a shop. I'm perfectly fine with not having big boobs and what have you and I'm sure no one made any effort to shield me from these kind of things.
    As I said before, I would much prefer my child to see a magazine in passing in my company and question me about it, than for it to be made into a big deal that he/she felt was 'dirty' and needed to be hidden. That's just my opinion.
    Keep the magazines on the top shelf, if you think it'll spare parents blushes. I'm cool with that. Like I said in the very beginning, I'm not personally bothered by it but I also don't have a child so I guess I can't really understand where you're coming from.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Novella wrote: »

    Keep the magazines on the top shelf, if you think it'll spare parents blushes. I'm cool with that. Like I said in the very beginning, I'm not personally bothered by it but I also don't have a child so I guess I can't really understand where you're coming from.



    Its not just sparing the parents blushes.

    It can only be a positive action to delay the inevitable bombardment of overly sexualised images that little girls and boys will have to deal with over their developing years, their developing self-image, their developing sexuality and their developing confidence and identity.


  • #68
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,129 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    I don't suppose our Nanny State will do anything about this matter.

    They are first out of the traps when it comes to protecting society by banning smoking, over regulating off license sales, ordering night clubs to close at a ridiculous hour (compared to Madrid anyway!), and lots lots more.

    But when it comes to a simple thing like putting such magazines out of the sight and reach of those who do not WANT to see them, well that is too easy, and goes against the PC version of personal freedoms doesn't it?

    Compare and contrast to the above measures taken, and also, the fact that cigarettes are fully out of view.... to protect the young from temptation. I ask you!

    I would prefer they were on the top shelf. I hate looking at these excuses for women. But then again we have every newspaper reporting on that marblehead with the pneumatic knockers who broke up with a guy called Andre. I wouldn't even give her the civility of a mention. So we are bombarded every day in mainstream media with this absolute crap. And it is in the "news" papers!

    A lot of people obviously love reading about these airheads, I cannot figure out why. Most of them are airbrushed, polished, coiffed, dressed to the nines, and full of sh 1 t

    ooops rant over!


  • #69
    pikachucheeks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,488 ✭✭✭pikachucheeks


    Giselle wrote: »
    Theres a difference between censorship (suppression or removal) and product placement.

    Not particularly. Censorship covers a quite spectrum of ideas and concepts.

    Censorship and product placement are very much the same thing when it comes to adult magazines - they are placed on a higher shelf in order to censor and protect.

    It's a different ball game to the likes of soft drinks, where products are deliberately placed in special order and on certain shelves, to shift more volumes.


  • #70
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,385 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Novella wrote: »
    Yes, the point is what is thought of as typically sexy, or as typically attractive is obviously what the media are going to portray to the public. When trying to sell anything, clearly the most appealing images are going to be used. In advertising, the key is to entise the target market.
    I don't know why big boobed, tanned women are what are selling magazines at the moment, but they seem to be. I'm not saying, "It's great, we should all want our kids to grow up and be these women and so put the magazines anywhere". I'm just saying it doesn't really matter. I've seen hundreds of those magazines, I don't for a second want a boob job etc. I'd just hope my children were innocent enough to think of them as pretty ladies for a while and then intelligent enough to know that it's grand to wear fake tan and get your tits out but you don't have to be like that either.
    Well...if the most typically attractive sells, where are all the typically attractive men on these magazines? I come back to my earlier point that it's almost all women. And it's all one particular type of woman. Men's preferences are not that synchronised.

    You can't just hope that your child can see the wood from the trees - kids see everything that's going on around them and we can't expect them to have the sort of cultural filter than quite frankly many people my age don't seem to have acquired.

    And so what if this sells? If this is definitely having negative impacts on society, why not do something about it? Why do we leave it up to the market, and advertising execs and big business to tell us how things should be? And we just throw our hands up and say "sex sells".


  • #71
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Novella wrote: »
    I do appreciate the difference, but I do also think a three year old does not realise what context the photographs of these women are being used in. I just don't believe anything negative is going to come from a little kid catching a glimpse of a lads mag in a shop. I'm perfectly fine with not having big boobs and what have you and I'm sure no one made any effort to shield me from these kind of things.
    As I said before, I would much prefer my child to see a magazine in passing in my company and question me about it, than for it to be made into a big deal that he/she felt was 'dirty' and needed to be hidden. That's just my opinion.
    Keep the magazines on the top shelf, if you think it'll spare parents blushes. I'm cool with that. Like I said in the very beginning, I'm not personally bothered by it but I also don't have a child so I guess I can't really understand where you're coming from.

    If you don't think little people take it all in, then we'll have to agree to disagree. She does notice, she asked what the woman was doing, she giggled and pointed at the ladies "huge big huge boobies" before bombarding me with questions. It's just so unnecessary when a bit of cop on in terms of product placement (thank you Giselle, that's the word I was looking for!) would make it a non-issue. She's three ffs - sometimes I think I really shouldn't have to be dealing with those kind of questions, especially not those triggered by viewing such fakery.

    The mags don't bother me either, I've stated that already. I also don't think bodies are dirty or that soft/hard porn is dirty or wrong & nor that it should be "hidden" or censored. I don't think moving the mags up a couple of shelves will cause some kind of conservative tidal wave resulting in swathes of youngsters with sexual issues! :pac: Moving them does what? Stops youngsters being confronted with such images in that environment and the guys/gals that read them have to reach a bit higher, hardly the end of the world now, is it?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    pikachucheeks wrote: »
    Not particularly. Censorship covers a quite spectrum of ideas and concepts.

    Censorship and product placement are very much the same thing when it comes to adult magazines - they are placed on a higher shelf in order to censor and protect.

    It's a different ball game to the likes of soft drinks, where products are deliberately placed in special order and on certain shelves, to shift more volumes.

    Well, no.

    According to Oxford dictionary online:
    • noun an official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security.
    • verb suppress or remove unacceptable parts of (a book, film, etc.).


    Now, I think all adult material should be available to its target audience provided the production of it doesn't involve exploitation or harm to anyone.

    I do think that products should be placed away from its non-target market if inappropriate. As these magazines are.


    Its not censorship, its commonsense.


  • #73
    pikachucheeks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,488 ✭✭✭pikachucheeks


    Giselle wrote: »
    According to Oxford dictionary online:
    • noun an official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security.
    • verb suppress or remove unacceptable parts of (a book, film, etc.)

    Censorship has a larger, ideological set of meanings aside from it's "proper" definition/s.
    Giselle wrote: »
    Now, I think all adult material should be available to its target audience provided the production of it doesn't involve exploitation or harm to anyone.

    True. Adult material is desired by many and provided people are of age to buy such material, they should be allowed do so. By the same token, people who DON'T want access to such products should be sheltered from it.

    It's hard to establish whether or not the production of porn or adult material though involves exploitation or harm though.
    For example, There have been countless women who have given their consent and signed forms to pose for adult magazines - only to wind up in situations and positions they're uncomfortable with and find it's too late to go back.
    In those circumstances, one could say there's no exploitation because they consented ... but on the other hand, they were naive and didn't fully understand what they'd be expected to do.
    So, where does the line form? - and how is it drawn?


  • #74
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    pikachucheeks wrote: »
    Censorship has a larger, ideological set of meanings aside from it's "proper" definition/s.



    True. Adult material is desired by many and provided people are of age to buy such material, they should be allowed do so. By the same token, people who DON'T want access to such products should be sheltered from it.

    It's hard to establish whether or not the production of porn or adult material though involves exploitation or harm though.
    For example, There have been countless women who have given their consent and signed forms to pose for adult magazines - only to wind up in situations and positions they're uncomfortable with and find it's too late to go back.
    In those circumstances, one could say there's no exploitation because they consented ... but on the other hand, they were naive and didn't fully understand what they'd be expected to do.
    So, where does the line form? - and how is it drawn?

    I don't get whatever point your making.

    The part I've highlighted is basically repeating what I said. Censorship and product placement are different things.

    If you want to buy porn, it should be there. On a high shelf. Away from kids.


  • #75
    BroomBurner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭BroomBurner


    The fact of the matter is, society isn't decreeing that lads magazines are on the lower shelves, the way the shop is run is deciding that.

    As for persuading young girls to dress trampily to boost their confidence (which is a simplified basis of the psychologist's argument), that is not a product of lad's mags, but is a product of a much more subversive element.

    Take a look at the clothes Girl's Aloud wear, The Saturday's, PussyCat Dolls, etc. These are what prompt young girls to want to want to dress like that. These are what causes girls and women to worry about their image.

    Also, the women in lad's mags are never set as the ideal, they're never something a girl will aim towards with a level of innocence and naivity that they will get when trying to emulate a pop star.

    It is up to each parent to educate their child/ren as to how these pictures come about, and I'm talking of both mags like Nuts, etc. and also the images of perfection that women's magazines and advertisements push.

    Blaming lad's mags for girls having a poor self image, or for dressing trampily, is like blaming the dept of agriculture for welfare fraud.


  • #76
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,884 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    These mags along with More, Sixteen and Cosmoplitan should also be placed higer up the magazine stand. These contain more sexually explict articles than any lads mag and usually have a naked male centrefold or run special naked male editions.

    ******



  • #77
    pikachucheeks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,488 ✭✭✭pikachucheeks


    citytillidie wrote: »
    These mags along with More, Sixteen and Cosmoplitan should also be placed higer up the magazine stand. These contain more sexually explict articles than any lads mag and usually have a naked male centrefold or run special naked male editions.

    I've read Cosmopolitan for years and they only run a naked male centrefold once a year, in aid of charity. Usually, for testicular cancer.

    The men posing are always hiding their manhood using props, so there isn't any full nudity at all. It's done in quite a tasteful way.

    Also, while it might be deemed "sexually explicit", the centrefold is always sealed. You have to buy the magazine and use a scissors to open the section before you see anything remotely naughty.


  • #78
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,884 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    pikachucheeks wrote: »
    I've read Cosmopolitan for years and they only run a naked male centrefold once a year, in aid of charity. Usually, for testicular cancer.

    The men posing are always hiding their manhood using props, so there isn't any full nudity at all. It's done in quite a tasteful way.

    Also, while it might be deemed "sexually explicit", the centrefold is always sealed. You have to buy the magazine and use a scissors to open the section before you see anything remotely naughty.

    So because its not full nudity on show its ok. In those lads mags your talking about its not fully nudity on show the females are topless. The same was you get in Daily Rags.

    So would you complain if these lads mags started to use props to cover female breasts or side ways pics that showed just their bum?

    More has a position of the month and very explict letters to the agony aunt, as does 16 which is aimed at 16 year olds.

    ******



  • #79
    vicecreamsundae
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭vicecreamsundae


    I hate those magazines, and the ridiculously altered sexualised images, but to be honest i find women's magazines just as offensive.
    at least those men's magazines are aimed at hetero men..they're a bit of masturbation fodder and while they are unrealistic, it's soft porn, and men DO realise that's not what women really look like or are supposed to look like.

    frankly i think the AMOUNT of sexualised and airbrushed images women in women's magazines are far more damaging to girls, because they ARE aimed at women. I just don't get it. at least when men's magazines are full of pictures of women it makes sense, but the fact that women's mags encourage women to constantly look at pictures of other women -skinny, airbrushed, unreal women..ugh i just think it teaches girls that they are the always going to be the ones looked at and never the ones looking.
    also, the way the women in women's magazines aren't as cartoonish as those in men's magazines is more dangerous because a lot of women don't realise how altered they ones in fashion mags really are. when did you last see leghair or stubble for that matter or blue veins or anything NORMAL in a magazine? it's practically censorship, and it's scary.

    i see somebody mentioned Girls Aloud, and that's the thing..apart from actual porn, [which is really only online, not "everywhere"] it's media aimed at women [pussycat dolls, gossip girl, designer commercials] moreso than media aimed at men, that sexualises women.
    all in all, i think the real problem is that the images of women in all magazines are not representative of real women's shapes/ages/races, more so than the cleavage and cheesy sex faces in men's magazines.


  • #80
    Raze_them_all
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,477 ✭✭✭✭Raze_them_all


    Just out of curiosity have many of the women who've posted on this thread actually read any lads mags outside of nuts and zoo (front and loaded for example)? The ration of women to other stuff in "lads mags" is usually quite small with most of the mags been taken up by fashion, sports, cars and technology


  • #81
    epgc3fyqirnbsx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭epgc3fyqirnbsx


    It's been long proven that men and women get off on different things.

    Males have a sense of voyeourism, they like to look at things. Hence the pics of scantily clad girls on their magazines.

    With women its more sensual and thought driven, which the written word provides.

    So Cosmo and FHM are really the same product, just targeted at different markets.
    (And both magazines can carry interesting and insightful articles, perhaps cosmo shouldn't be compared with nuts or zoo)

    But, to be on-topic, for the convenience of parents with kids in tow, it wouldn't be too bloddy hard to put the lad mags a little higher. It will save on such arguments and most lads are tall anyway


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    vicecreamsundae
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭vicecreamsundae


    Ayden Echoing Raindrop wrote: »
    It's been long proven that men and women get off on different things.

    Males have a sense of voyeourism, they like to look at things. Hence the pics of scantily clad girls on their magazines.

    With women its more sensual and thought driven, which the written word provides.

    So Cosmo and FHM are really the same product, just targeted at different markets.
    (And both magazines can carry interesting and insightful articles, perhaps cosmo shouldn't be compared with nuts or zoo)

    long proven? stereotypical myth more like. show me a woman who masturbates by lighting some candles and reading mills and boon and i'll show you twenty that get off by watching actual porn.

    you have one thing right -Cosmo and FHM are the same product in that they both have far more images of women than they do of men. However, the women in Cosmo are not intended to turn their readers on. it's more about giving women unrealistic images of beauty to aspire, which lowers their self esteem and encourages them to buy the **** being advertised in the magazine and keeping the billion dollar fashion and beauty industry booming. getting women wet has never been as profitable as sending them out shopping.


  • #83
    epgc3fyqirnbsx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭epgc3fyqirnbsx


    From my experience of reading ladies magazines from both work and at home, there are some EXPLICIT stories in there. I amn't a parent but I would think that I would much prefer one of my kids to see a lad mag (whcih don't show fully naked women actually) than a magazine where you are instructed on how to achieve the best orgasm, what to do with your partners 'cheese' buildup etc.

    They are much of the same, perhaps lad mags should be kept high because of the pics, but I wouldn't like to see a 7 year old kids read cosmo...


  • #84
    vicecreamsundae
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭vicecreamsundae


    citytillidie wrote: »

    More has a position of the month and very explict letters to the agony aunt, as does 16 which is aimed at 16 year olds.


    there's a really big difference between girls being bombarded with sexualised images of women, and girls being provided some useful and accurate information about sex, or even a position of the month article which *gasp* actually adresses sexuality as something a girl can actively enjoy healthily. 16 is the legal age in england, where that magazine is published.
    factual information about sex is not dangerous. teens are better off making informed choices about sex, than only knowing how to dress and act sexy like they see in magazines while still believing that you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up and other such myths.


  • #85
    vicecreamsundae
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭vicecreamsundae


    Ayden Echoing Raindrop wrote: »
    From my experience of reading ladies magazines from both work and at home, there are some EXPLICIT stories in there. I amn't a parent but I would think that I would much prefer one of my kids to see a lad mag (whcih don't show fully naked women actually) than a magazine where you are instructed on how to achieve the best orgasm, what to do with your partners 'cheese' buildup etc.

    They are much of the same, perhaps lad mags should be kept high because of the pics, but I wouldn't like to see a 7 year old kids read cosmo...

    haha not trying to start an argument with you or anything but i super disagree with you! i think it's a LOT healthier for girls to know how to achieve orgasms, alone or with a partner and know how to deal with stds and smegma than just knowing that looking sexy is really important, in fact more important than actually having responsible and rewarding sexual experiences!

    in the same way that comprehensive sex education works, and abstinence education doesn't.


  • #86
    epgc3fyqirnbsx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭epgc3fyqirnbsx


    not trying to argue with you either :)

    but keeping woth the opening posts of the thread it was about young kids being able to see images of scantily clad 'babes' at their own eye level, and the sexualisation of thses kids by so being exposed
    the said young kids could be equally exposed by reading cosmo, if its the preservation of innocence you are after then I think that both are as bad

    Once they're 11/12 in fairness, you're fighting a losing battle anyway, I got most of my preliminary info on the playground


  • #87
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Ayden Echoing Raindrop wrote: »
    but keeping woth the opening posts of the thread it was about young kids being able to see images of scantily clad 'babes' at their own eye level, and the sexualisation of thses kids by so being exposed the said young kids could be equally exposed by reading cosmo...

    My three yr old is pretty smart, she had enough questions about the mags she saw but reading cosmo is a bit beyond her, and most "young kids", capabilities... :P


  • #88
    shellyboo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,883 ✭✭✭shellyboo


    Ayden Echoing Raindrop wrote: »
    From my experience of reading ladies magazines from both work and at home, there are some EXPLICIT stories in there. I amn't a parent but I would think that I would much prefer one of my kids to see a lad mag (whcih don't show fully naked women actually) than a magazine where you are instructed on how to achieve the best orgasm, what to do with your partners 'cheese' buildup etc.

    They are much of the same, perhaps lad mags should be kept high because of the pics, but I wouldn't like to see a 7 year old kids read cosmo...


    There's a difference (a massive difference) between purchasing and sitting down to read a sexualised article - which is a choice that you freely make - and being bombarded with the images when you go to buy the publication of your choice at the newsstand.

    Nobody is discussing the existance of sexualised images and material - we all know they exist, and they should exist. There's nothing wrong with adults looking at or reading sexually explicit material. The problem lies when people who DON'T CHOOSE to partake in it - basically, anyone who's ever been in a newsagent - is exposed to it.

    Here's the *best* illustration I've ever seen of how womens' bodies are allowed to be objectified in the media where men are not:

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/07/yeah-this-makes-total-sense.html

    brunomag2.jpg


    Naked Sascha Baron-Cohen? Not ok, has to be covered up. Naked Bar Rafaeli? Well, that's ok.


  • #89
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,385 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Great find shellyboo! The other point I'd make about Baren-Cohen's magazine cover is that his pose is mocking the idea of a man presenting himself as a sexual object and therefore reinforcing what a ridiculous idea it is for a man to do so.

    Women would probably look just as funny in all their "come-hither" poses but we're so used to seeing them, they appear normal.


  • #90
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    taconnol wrote: »
    Great find shellyboo! The other point I'd make about Baren-Cohen's magazine cover is that his pose is mocking the idea of a man presenting himself as a sexual object and therefore reinforcing what a ridiculous idea it is for a man to do so.

    Women would probably look just as funny in all their "come-hither" poses but we're so used to seeing them, they appear normal.


    Not only normal, but emulated!

    Even something as seemingly innocent as the KYL thread has plenty of ''come-hither'' wannabes!

    Not only is it promoting the pouting vessel as a male ideal, girls are adopting it for themselves, which begs all kinds of questions about how they value themselves, and what they see about themselves as valuable.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Yeah, there's certainly more than one sig or avatar about boards with a pouting/on all fours/some kind of sexualised image -deliberately to attract male attention, I presume...


Advertisement