Women are losing again...

Megara, can you really look at SI's swimsuit issue and NOT think the underlying message is that womyn are there ONLY to look good, and ONLY for sex? WHAT is the message of this issue, then? What do bimbos in swimsuits have to do with Sports? (aside from the fac that the majority of their readers are men) What is the message of a womyn with a body that is humanly impossible for most womyn to acheive, strutting around, in basically no clothes, in sexually provacative positions? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE of this issue?

If it isn't "skinny big titted girls are the only important ones, and all they are good for is sex." PLEAE enlighten me on just WHAT the message of this issue is? If that isn't what the message is, than why don't they have heavy womyn in suits. hairy womyn in suits, womyn over the age of 40 in suits, pregnant womyn in suits ect?

 

I'm not arguing that their purpose is to look good. Obviously it is.

As i said, should i look at a waitress and come to the conclusion that women are only good for serving men?

You are saying that is ALL they are good for. I'm disputing that. You seem to look down on women who use their beauty to EARN A LIVING. Why do you believe that is so horrible? I agree that women who sleep their way to the top of an organization are morally detestable..but i dont see anything wrong with models. A job does not completely define a person. Do you look at a janitor and say "jeez, that man is ONLY good for cleaning poop stains off a toilet"? A job is a job. It brings home the money and puts food on the table. That is all.

Why are only thin women on sports illustrated/playboy? The same reason that only hot, muscled guys are in playgirl/every female magazine. Society doesn't want to look at a fat guy(or chick) in a speedo/bikini. The fat, hairy gut is not attractive to most people. The hairy pits on women are not what turn most guys on. Backhair thicker than a carpet doesn't get most women going. I'm sorry if those 'ideals' are unattainable to most people. Should we admire a great writer less because his level of writing ability is unattainable to most human beings? We can still enjoy something even if we may never reach it ourselves. That is why.

 

Playgirl is a magazine for GAY men. I know of no womyn's magazine which features muscled dudes for womyn to look at. Checkin my Martha Stewart Living, my Mothering, my Woman's Day. No, no muscle dudes.

Why? Because they have been conditioned by shit like SI swimsuit issue, and they hold womyn to an impossible standard.

 

I agree with Maggie on the SI issue.

Women are objectifyed in that issue...and in most men's magazines. It might put food on the table, but that doesn't make it right. Women who strip do it to put money on the table, too...and taking your clothes off in front of people is demeaning and sad.

personally, I don't want to see any guy in a speedo, either...

Saying that...women's magazines such as Cosmo also objectify women. Articles like "how to please your man" or "make up tips that make you look hot" or whatever, don't help out the situation...and how often do you see heavier or older women on the cover? RARELY and if you do...they are airbrushed to look like their twenty five.

I believe it's media in general.

 

"
Playgirl is a monthly erotic lifestyle magazine published in the United States that features seminude or fully nude men. The magazine was founded in 1973 during the height of the feminist movement as a response to erotic men's magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse that featured similar photos of women.

Marketed as a magazine for heterosexual women, Playgirl editors acknowledge at least 50 percent of its readership are gay men."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playgirl


Read the last part. Playgirl maybe be "read" by gaymen, but it was made FOR WOMEN.


"Playgirl
With its appearance on the stands in May 1973, Playgirl magazine became the first magazine for women to focus on men. Although Helen Gurley Brown's Cosmopolitan had featured the first nude male centerfold, Playgirl, first published by Douglas Lambert and edited by Marin Scott Milam, was more of a female counterpart to Playboy. While Cosmopolitan may have pushed at the far edges of women's magazines, Playgirl went over the line in its effort to bring a newly blossomed feminism to the realm of popular reading material. "

http://www.bookrags.com/history/popculture/playgirl-sjpc-04/


Now come on, lets not joke around here. You are honestly going to tell me that female magazines do not picture muscled men? Right?


As i said, i dont think any job dictates what a person is only good for. Are lawyers only good for bickering? waitresses for serving? cab drivers for chauffeuring? Certainly not.

 

Playgirl may have started as a womyn's magazine, but it iis NOT one now. It is clearly for GAY MEN. Playgirl did NOT sell well to womyn, so they changed their format to appeal to Gay men.

I can't think of one that does. Can you? The only mags which feature muscle dudes are those weight lifting mags, and those are aimed at men.

Do you know a womyn's mag which has nekkid men or muscled men in it?

 

Just Googled "Playgirl." It is undoubtably a Gay Men's magazine. I read stuff I couldn't post, about Playgirl, from Gay Men, with naked pics of thier favortire centerfolds.
Here is from the Google Page

Almost TWO MILLION sites, linking Playgirl with Gay Men. Even the editor admts "at least" 50% of their subscibers are Gay. Womyn don't read this mag, even at bookstores, it is shelved next to BlueBoy and The Advocate.

Anyway........

 

playgirl is clearly a female magazine that attracts the gay audience as i'm sure playboy attracts a lesbian audience. I cant believe you're even disputing this.

Edit: Your google thing shows nothing...but..

"[size=-1]Results 1 - 10 of about 1,230,000 for PlaygirlmagazineGaymen"

"[/size][size=-1]Results 1 - 10 of about 1,320,000 for Playgirlmagazinewomen"[/size]
[size=-1]
[/size][size=-1]That's about equal.. Go to www.playgirl.com and see what it says. "Entertainment FOR WOMEN"

Um. Playgirl and cosmo are clearly two of them. Are you seriously going to argue that men dont get 'objectified' like women when there are things like Chippendales out there? There are a plethora of muscle laden calendars of professions like firemen etc. But let me guess, those are ALL for gay men? What is your objective here? Why are you denying that men pose in next to nothing for women? Are you trying to maintain that only women do that(the subtle oppression theory)?


Either way, you've been disregarding what i was originally getting on about. [/size]i dont think any job dictates what a person is only good for. Are lawyers only good for bickering? waitresses for serving? cab drivers for chauffeuring? Certainly not. So i dont see why models are only good for sex. I certainly dont believe that.

 

It is more common to see women objectified than men. You cannot deny that.*sidenote* I have a coworker that dances with the Chippendales and when parents find out about it, they go right to my boss and pull their kids out of the class (I'm a dance instructor, as is he). It's really taboo. But if I was a bathing suit model....they wouldn't think two thoughts about that. That's why I think it is a shame...because they virtually do the same thing. But to think of women half naked it is nothing. BTW, Chippendales do not strip down naked. They almost always wear pants.[/size]

 

Overall, I agree with you, but personally I think stuff like the SI swimsuit issue is not only harmful to women, in that some women try and achieve that body because they think they need to in order to win a man's attention; but it's also harmful to men, in that it provides a shallow way of looking at women. However, I also see the viewpoint that it's merely celebrating beauty. All women can't look that way, and all men can't be Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt either, yet I know they're what many, many women think is attractive. It's simply asthetics. I think it's more important to take a larger viewpoint, because the problem is with society... how men and woman interract, the ways in which our behaviors are formed, how it's harmful for anyone, man or woman, to judge the value of another person based upon their looks. People like having sex, and the way in which the media markets to that desire is where it seems many have a problem. Ultimately, if pornography is evil, then recognizing anyone as being beautiful is evil as well, and I don't think that's the case. It's much more complicated than that...

A purely hypothetical question, but what if the SI swimsuit issue did feature heavy women in them? Would you still have a problem? Personally, I think the entire underlying direction this point of view takes is dangerous, in that it's teaching that beauty is bad. It's teaching that a good looking woman should hide her beauty so that she's not objectified. What I think you're probably saying is that societies definition of what is beautiful is where the problem is, when in reality, it wouldn't matter what the definition was... objectification is objectification, whether it's with today's skinny model type or an obese 80yr old gramma.

Also, are not Martha's Stewart Living, Mothering, and Woman's Day magazine's all reinforcing the female gender role, as well? Is that wrong, or does it depend upon the reader and how they process the message?

 

and in sports illustrated/muscle mags etc that show women they never go below a bikini.

Are there more women than men dancing around/posing in skimpy clothing? Absolutely. That's not what i'm arguing though. My argument goes for men too. Chippendale dancers are not 'only good for sex' just as hooters girls(who wear more) are not only good for sex. Its a job, it plays for college or credit card bills. I dont think anyone should look down on them becuase they choose to pay the bills this way. Especially with the economy we have now, people need to make ends meet and this is an excellent oppurtunity for girls/men to make some cash to help cover their costs.

 

Is there a place where I can see Johnny Depp objectified? Damn, I'd really like that. LOL

 

Gosh, you make it sound like prostitution.

 

haha... see, all that needs be done is merely mention his name and people get excited... I don't see anything wrong with that, nor with his photo's that turn up on google images... but if someone thinks I'm a lesser of a person because I don't have the same sex appeal as Johnny Depp... well then I have a problem...

 

If everyone looked like Johnny Depp, what fun would that be???

I think maybe that's part of the appeal.

But it was just a joke anyway LOL...maybe :H

 

Right.

I just dont agree that models are 'good for only sex.' I think that is an awful thing to say about a human being. And just because someone is a model doesnt make them a 'bimbo in a bathing suit' as some have let on here. Models have basically been dehumanized here. I think that is digusting.

 

exactly. Except that holds men to unattainable standards and is thus EVIL!

 

I don't think Maggie intended the "only good for sex" thing...I think she just sees it as people objectifying women and it's wrong. Magazines know, that if they put a beautiful woman on the cover of their magazine, they're going to sell magazines. If they put someone like me on there with a little chub, hairy legs, dreads, zits and a few wrinkles...they won't sell as many. THAT'S the part that is a shame and it makes women who look like me want to be thinner, prettier, wear make up and dress better...instead of just being who we are.

 

I would never compare Johnny Depp to my current mate.

I think a lot of men (not ALL, but A LOT) compare women to other women...and it sucks for us.

 

sure, they're selling a product though. I wouldnt want to buy a Muscle Mag with a fat guy on the front. It makes no sense, right? So why would women want to buy a female magazine about makeup and fashion from someone they don't see as beautiful? Would you honestly want to buy a magazine that has a picture of an average(overweight or OBESE) person on it selling bathing suits or underwear?