What is Maxim, and who reads men's magazines anyway.

But it reminds me of a very popular women's magazine I saw recently with an article titled “How to make your Butt look awesome”.

You were doing so well until you mentioned Cheryl Kernot.

This real life media tart sold her story to the gossip mag's, posing in a dreadful outfit and giving an interview that undermined any shred of credibility she may have once possessed.

Worse than that, she beleived that people actually gave a toss.

With the risk of being labeled in the same vain as the mufti, women could take a stand against the fashion of the day and dressed modestly. Despite the protests men will actually respect you more. Mothers are guilty often of dressing their young girls in the latest slinkiest outfits. It really does not hurt that much to cover the parts that mens eyes are naturally attracted to. If you dress like a prostitute you will viewed that way. Men will score you out of 10 whether they want to admit it or not. Blame the media all you want but a little personal responsibility and facing reality goes a long way.

I was all poised to make the comment that these lists are generally only of interest to women. Just look at the myriad of women's magazine all obsessing with looks, then along comes runner.

Runner, there have always been sleazes like you who, on seeing a woman, wants to have a peek at the 'naughty' bits. There are women too who will, on seeing a man, straight away look at the 'naughty' bits and judge you. Hope you are wearing baggy long pants.

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with you runner - men like to look at women dressed as tarts (its in the genes, right?) but they don't take the same women home to meet their mother. They'd be frankly uncomfortable.

I"m pretty embarrassed by how young women dress these days but then I'm ancient at 38. Back when I was a teenager it was what you DIDN'T show that was the intriguing part. Call me old fashioned, but women enjoy the chase as much as men do. The greater the challenge, the more valued the prize in the end.

I feel that if you want a guy to value you, dress as you wish to be valued. Very few women would be ok with taking a man home to mother that is dressed in a skimpy lifesaver top and a pair of budgie smugglers, but the same females think they have the right to dress as they choose. I think this is a double standard. The bulging feminine stomach overlapping a pair of hip hugging jeans over fat thighs is to me the epitome of leaving NOTHING to the imagination, or even generating much respect in the eyes of the viewer.

As I'm bi, I love the feminine form as much as the next guy.

C'mon girls, show a bit of mystique!

Sadly, this is really nothing new. This bias does permeate the media and with that our lives in subtle and not so subtle ways.

You only have to look at newsreaders to see that not only does a female newsreader have to be reasonably intelligent (okay okay some of them do not appear to be as intelligent as we would like) but good looking as well.

On the other hand male newsreaders do not seem to suffer the same prejudice if the number of balding, overweight men with glasses is anything to go by. Not that there is anything wrong with that - the point being that in a perfect world, talent should always override more superficial attributes.

And quite frankly I don't care who is the most sexy or the least sexy - and in the words of my teenage children I can only say "get a life". Are there not more important issues facing the world now that we need to get on with?

"Media outlets need to be much more reflective about the role they play in fostering this kind of self-scrutiny among women. They must abandon the practice of uncritically promoting sexist material about women, of the kind we see in the Maxim poll. Because, as a woman, I can only do so much to avoid such harmful nonsense."

this author really must have her nose out of joint.

So i suppose it OK for women's magazines to have bachelor competitions and to diss men in general, but it is not OK for a mens mag to take the micky out of some stuck up women.

Funny thing when I hear women talking about other women, sometimes they are just plain bagging the other women critising shoes, hangbags, nails, the hair do etc.

Focussing in on such minor details that I do not even notice.

Mens mags just do not have the same level of readership that the women's mag's enjoy. This mens mag may have sold only 100,000 copies when compared to 250,000 or more of the popular womens mags.

Rather than wringing our hands about such things perhaps we should just turn the tv off .

It’s just a billboard anyway .

The skanky images & juicy (non) stories are only to intrigue the viewer (us) with titillation so that we watch more tv , Thus availing ourselves to more advertising of more consumer products that we don’t really need .
It’s simply a matter of sex being used as a tool to market stuff .

Methinks the bimbolititians also using similar method .

So if we'd prefer less of this trash , simple ,

Pull the plug on the tele .

Then maybe go read a book , or if it’s fine outside, have a chat with the neighbor , or take the kids fishing , or plant a few veggies in the back garden . Quality stuff .

The trashy displays only work so long as we watch them .

actually, pelican, not.

the social idealization of beauty is how homo sap maintains species unity. by tending to breed back into a central ideal, we have remained one species even though we are spread all around the world.

since we choose mates visually, rather than by smell, young men, and old, like to look at women's bodies- it is in our genes.

the process is slap-dash and often drifts into dysfunctional behavior. none the less, it is vital.

lot's more to be said, we're talking about the core of life here, but i think well-educated professional women lose sight of biological reality when they try to impose a cool unisex ethos on business life. since they often have 'do-me' stilettos peeking out at the bottom of their business suits, there's a element of hypocrisy as well.

Men choose mates by appearance (initially)

Women actually choose men by their smell. If they have nothing else to go on, a woman will select a potential mate who smells the least like her own body odour - apparently personal scent is directly related to the health of your immune system, so a woman who subconsciously chooses a man that smells nothing like her, is choosing a genetic combination that (hopefully) produces a child with a hybridised immune system and a greater chance of survival.

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230696

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1210487.htm

This of course may change when you get to know the potential partner more personally, because the other aspects of attraction also play an important part. But its interesting, nonetheless.

I agree with Kate's comments and also those of runner and spritegal.

The media does obsess over women's looks but women themselves are becoming increasingly obsessive as well. It's become a vicious cycle with both feeding each other.

We need more women prepared to break this mould. Julia Gillard comes to mind as one such example. She's a woman you listen to; you're not distracted by what she's wearing or flaunting. Her dress style is low key and you soon realise there's much more to her than the sum total of her looks.

I disagree with DEMOS's statement that "well-educated professional women lose sight of biological reality when they try to impose a cool unisex ethos on business life." To me, it's the very adoption of a trend towards this unisex ethos, and not just in business, that is necessary if women are to ever shake off the lingering bimbo tag. But I do agree, the stilettos will have to go!

DEMOS

I agree with you about biology but if someone is reading the News do we need to be thinking about the perpetuation of the species even on this subliminal level?

I have nothing against femininity but I also don't want to buy into the media, pop-video version of woman as only sexualised beings. Some of the latest teen music videos are enough to make your hair curl with the lip pouting gyrating antics of teen idols whose primary target market are older children and young teens.

You only have to look at the sexualisation of children as a real problem which is being promulgated in the both print and electronic media. There was a great discussion on this issue on ABC's 'Difference of Opinion' recently and the bottom line, unsurprisingly, was this is not healthy for our children or for society as a whole.

As someone else said in an earlier post, it is a self feeding cycle

All Sheilas should look like the babes in Ralph or at the very least in porno.

That's wot real men like.

Well I suppose if women do not want their looks to be commented on they could always wear a burka!

When it comes down to judging looks, personal preferences always play a part. For example if Marilyn Monroe were alive today it is possible she would never be noticed.

From the article “naysayers: if you don't like lists like these, don't read them. And I agree. But even if — like me — you don't actively seek out polls like these, assessments of women permeate every aspect of our culture.”

Since I was about to say just that (ignore them) I stand-up and admit, I might be a “naysayer” but at least the author agrees with me.

As for “assessments of women permeate every aspect of our culture.”

As do assessments of men, children, pets, politicians, barnyard animals, TV shows, toys, houses, cars, food and every other artifact which might catch our interest.

As “reasoning adults” we each assess everyone we come into contact with against a personal standard or expectation. So where do we get that standard or expectation from?

From “assessments” either in polls like these or other sources, such as mothers, sisters and friends, the opinions of others etc.

The only way to control “assessments of women permeate every aspect of our culture.” Would be to remove the free choice of individuals to read, assimilate and consider for themselves.

I would suggest a “state” where individuals are denied the right to read, assimilate and consider, has been tried several times and the poor folk who lived under Stalin and Hitler found life somewhat lacking in quality.

As for “Maxim”, never read it but who on earth buys a bloke magazine for the articles? The purchasers are, invariably more focused on the pictures of the girlie “bits”.

As for Sarah Jessica Parker, yes she has a long face, a little horse like but I like horses and would certainly not stand her up if given the opportunity of a date with the filly

DEMOS

1. Humans are one of the few creatures that have sex regardless of fertility cycles and advanced ageing. That is, sex is recreational as well as procreational. Therefore, sex is not governed solely by the imperative to reproduce.

2. It would be interesting to study how many men having sex actually want children. For years family sizes have been shrinking, fertility rates have been dropping and increasing numbers of men are happy to have vasectomies. I would say that less sex occurs out of a need, desire or even a drive to procreate than it does because of the simple pleasure of the act.

3. To say that women should be satisfied to be judged primarily according to their appearance as compared to some mythic, airbrushed , usually porn driven ideal, is to negate everything else that women contribute, even only towards perpetuation of the species. That includes: capacity for nurturing; sufficient intelligence to care for and teach offspring; good health and all the wide range of skills that we see applied in almost every field of endeavour. Even IF women were limited to the function of reproduction there is still more to that than attracting a bloke for a bonk.

4. Indeed, on the matter of conception, I have yet to meet the woman – regardless of looks – who hasn’t been propositioned. It would seem to me that looks have very little to do with enabling the species to continue. Any number of examples of bestiality, the use of objects, child and elder rape can be found even throughout the porn industry to
further bear witness to the fact that men are not invariably inspired by the visual appeal of women.

It seems clear to me that men are not driven by some biological imperative to view women only as reproductive organisms, devoid of any other value that makes them completely human and worthy of human respect.

COL - points out that all aspects of culture are subject to “assessment” by reasoning adults, so women should just accept that they are going to be assessed as well. Col almost gets there with a good feminist argument, but not quite.

The point is not that women object to being “assessed”, but that the assessment of any human being should extend beyond their utility as an object of base gratification.

Blokes are assessed on talents and abilities, their skill in negotiating in the workplace and so on – they succeed on merit by default. (- and good on them) Nobody cares too much about a pot gut; baldness and other deviations from a Brad Pitt image.

In contrast, women are valued primarily on whether they are sexy or not – and a decision either way is anathema to being taken seriously in a career or any other aspects of living for that matter.

I see somewhere where another writer refers to women wearing Burkas as one solution; perhaps they were joking. Nevertheless, that is no solution. Women and girls in countries where this form of dress prevails continue to be subjected to rape and are still required to stay indoors and away from public scrutiny. This is just an extreme of the matters that we’ve been addressing – women seen as the repository of blame for men failing to govern or be accountable for their impulses and the values and worldview that guide them. If we are thinking and reasoning adults, surely we can expect that women be regarded as all that they are – complete humans – and nothing less than that - regardless of what they are wearing.

Pynchme, somewhere in one of the testements is a reference to the power of attraction, women have to men. I cant remember the exact pharsing and cant be bothered to find it.

So it has been a problem for an extremely long time and not some new creation to do with porn.

"If we are thinking and reasoning adults, surely we can expect that women be regarded as all that they are – complete humans – and nothing less than that - regardless of what they are wearing."

Usually the criticism I hear of what women are wearing comes from other women. Whether it be shoes, handbags etc, stuff that as a bloke I do not even notice, much less care about.

The media is made out to be the ogre and male dominated at that, yet it appears the vast majority of the media's obession with womens looks, comes from the female gender in the media.

Mind you the occasional bloke suffers from foot in mouth disease and then virtually everyone decides to jump on him.

Pynchme ”In contrast, women are valued primarily on whether they are sexy or not”

I would suggest, women are primarily assessed on the values which momentarily predominate in the motivations of the assessor.

Doubtless, women assess other women, just as men assess other men, as much each gender assesses the opposite sex..

Your assertion that women are valued primarily on whether they are “sexy”, presupposes you can actually quantify what is “sexy”.

What I may define as “sexy” might well oppose what you mean by “sexy”

By “sexy” do you mean

“Pretty” or “Sexual” or “Sensual” or “Erotic” or what?

You see, it really is all a matter of subjective assessment.

Unfortunately, in this instance, the increments and measures of "assessment" are filtered, ranked and re-arranged depending upon a lot of other subjective values, derived from qualitative, rather than quantitative, quotients.

What you see as “sexy”, might well appear as “dog” to me and what I assess as “sexy”, to you might seem “unattainable”.

I recall the a well known throwaway line

“what is the difference between a dog and a fox ?”

2 x beer and whisky chasers.

As for “surely we can expect that women be regarded as all that they are – complete humans – and nothing less than that”

I know a lot of men who would be happy if the women in their lives treated them solely as a “sex object”.

How “contrary” are the genders !

Ah well, back to watching reruns of “Men Behaving Badly”

By blaming the media aren't you blaming the messenger? The media, and by that I presume you mean the popular media (tabloid newspapers, some magazines and commercial television), simply give their market what it perceives it wants. It's people who have the "ugly obsession with women's looks". And from where does that arise? From those who profit from it of course. Namely the global body image industry incorporating, among others, the clothing, cosmetics (pharmaceutical) and "diet" (processed foods) industries. Worldwide these vast conglomerates pay the media billions every year to foster this obsession. Perhaps their most debilitating fraud is the contrivance of the so called "perfect" or "ideal" body. Women particularly are suffering from the relentless pursuit of this myth. Low self esteem, stress, depression, eating disorders, financial hardship, relationship breakdown, drug/alcohol abuse, absenteeism even suicide. The "push em up" bra, the "squash it in" underpants or wearing the optically illusory black are a complete fraud! Like a bald man wearing a wig they fool nobody! The only possible solution is body acceptance. Shift the goalposts. Reject the myth of the "perfect" body. As nudists my wife and I often wish we had a dollar for every time a "new chum" has remarked at their first experience of social nudity at the hundreds of resorts and beaches around Australia, "I feel as if an enormous weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Why didn't I do this years ago?".

I was stuck in an unusually queue at Wollies last night and browsed the covers of the rack of womens magazines on display next to the checkout. At the time I was thinking of another thread discussing maternity leave and womens mental health and thinking that concerns about mental health might be better focussed on the messages in the womens magazines.

It was quite staggering just how negative the covers of most of the magazines were. Mostly about women not liking their fat bodies, women with relationship issues, womens psycho ex's, women fueding with former friends, the need for the perfect home etc.

Better stuff can be found in newsagents but it's interesting to see what is apparently popular enough to warrant being at the checkout.

I didn't see any magazines targetting hobby type interests for men or women (no mens magazines at all that I could see although at the time I was in the the store I would guess that 60-70% of customers were male).

I've wondered if the quality magazines are too expensive compared to their trash cousins and thats why the trash is the most accessable.

R0bert

TIBBS “It's people who have the "ugly obsession with women's looks".”

And most of the complainants are women with ugly looks lacking anyone who is remotely "obsessed" with them.

The whole thing is about women who were used to seeing themselves in terms of “appearance”, resenting the effects of aging on that “appearance”.

As a male, I find the great thing is, the “balance of power”, in terms of eligibility and attractiveness stakes tends to favour older men and younger women, resulting in the older women and younger men being at a comparative disadvantage.

The difference between younger men and older women? – simple, older women know their best days are past and get resentful about it whereas younger men know no better.

Col Rouge “And most of the complainants are women with ugly looks…”.
“Ugly”? “Attractive”? Who decides and dictates the meaning of these terms?
Firstly I believe a desire by both women and men to appear attractive, or at least not ugly, is a perfectly natural biological instinct. Unfortunately, it is simply because this desire is “built in” and thus irresistible that it is so infinitely exploitable by those who profit from it, i.e. the clothing, cosmetics and “diet” industries.
It is for this reason they have contrived, distorted and packaged the criteria for “attractiveness”, particularly for females, to become a deliberately difficult, for some impossible, goal. Only achievable of course by the purchase of their products. It is the pursuit of this “carrot” that appears to have become an “obsession” again particularly among women. But why among women and not men? Because, whether we like it or not, women have become the purchasers of the overwhelming majority of consumer goods. The media incessantly dangles the carrot in front of them through advertising, not because it is obsessed by it but, simply because it is paid handsomely to do so.