We all see those magazine stands in petrol stations, convenience stores and the like (racks of racks). The magazines with names like 'Ralph', 'Zoo' even 'Girls gone Wild' (whooo-hooo!). They feature (in case you live under a rock) provocative pictures of nude and semi-clad women, along with a few lowbrow articles.

The claim is that these magazines are the equivalent of the female lowbrow zines like Womans Day or Cleo. But the content is very different there are rarely any shots of provocatively posed, well-honed young men. Stories about the lives of celebs and recipes are very tame compared to the raunch in Ralph.

My question is why?

Would sexy magazines aimed at women sell? I rather doubt they would sell at the same rate as the men's zines, if at all. I don't think I would buy one.

What do other people think?

Dear Fractelle,

Women have typically been portrayed either as
sex objects, in an attempt to market various
products to men, or as domesticated housewives,
in order to market home-maintenance products
to women.

Why do these magazines target women? Because market
research has shown that one of the most effective
ways to reach a male audience is by a seductive
or smiling female. These magazines sell - big time.

The females are gorgeous - and attractively
"packaged." They fulfill the male fantasy. Imagine
a guy can collect these glossies - and make a montage
out of them on a wall in his home, if he so chooses.

I'm actually speaking from experience here. Don't
laugh, but I actually did that as a surprise "gift,"
for my husband for his Birthday one year. It took me
a little over a year to collect these "pin-ups," (I
had friends helping), mainly from Playboy and Penthouse.
But the look on his face was worth it!

That wall has long gone - however it was a great
talking point while it lasted.

Foxy

My you are always surprising me. I'm sure your husband adores you.

My reason for asking about equivalent raunchy magazines for women, was on the Susan Boyle thread a number of male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way, that the male desire to see naked ladies was equal to women wanting to see naked men. Quite frankly I found these claims to be laughable.

If their claims were true, one would expect that the capitalist society we live would respond by producing as many raunchy magazines for women as there are for men. But I can't think of any - maybe there are some in sex-shops, but I am reasonably sure those zines are aimed at gays.

I am aware that there are brothel services and strip clubs for women, but the number of them are far eclipsed by the plethora of such services for men.

I don't really care that men are more visually cued for sex than women and that for women to be sexual is a little more complicated - there are evolutionary reasons for this. However, where it causes problems is when women are defined on appearance alone. Women over a certain age regarded as 'invisible' whereas men are perceived as 'distinguished'.

I know I am risking another 'battle of the genders', but I am seeking some honesty here. Men and women are entitled to equal rights and responsibilities, but we are not exactly the same, anymore than all men are a single homogenous group and ditto for women. What I found astounding was the denial that the image of women is portrayed as sexual more than the image of men is.

We see women draped seductively over everything from cars to beer, for a reason, the advertisers want to sell to men. I admit that advertisers are starting to realise that women buy cars and drink beer but most advertising is still dressed up with a beautiful woman.

However, if I make the above claims I am subjected to attack, innuendo and outright insult. For stating the truth no less.

I just typed "sexy magazines for women" into Google and got 4 hits, whereas typing "sexy magazines for men" garners 149 hits. Hardly a groundbreaking discovery - but why are women's desires not catered to the same extent as men? There would be money to be made. Its the 21st century and still the male gaze dominates our society.

I suspect that you already answered at least one of your questions, Fractelle.

>>why are women's desires not catered to the same extent as men? There would be money to be made<<

I refer you back to your opening post.

>>Would sexy magazines aimed at women sell? I rather doubt they would sell at the same rate as the men's zines, if at all. I don't think I would buy one.<<

Your best bet for an answer to all this is a female anthropologist, who could perhaps explain in coruscating detail how men have evolved with different mental wiring to women.

Beyond that, I have nothing to offer on the topic of "Men's" magazines. The last time I bought a magazine in this genre was when I was fourteen, and my brother charged me sixpence 'cos he was fed up with me borrowing his.

I do think it might be worth asking that anthropologist, though, how close to the truth it is that "these magazines are the equivalent of the female lowbrow zines like Womans Day or Cleo". We may find that they satisfy similar corners of the brain, or something like that.

'male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way'

I was still waiting for the evidence of this on the other thread. I think most if not all posters said they DO assess women in a sexual way. Didn't stop you deciding they were 'dishonest' and telling porkies though.

I even clarified myself after this accusation, and stand by my assertion, that while I do look at and admire women in a sexual way, I do not categorize women into those I believe to be f*ckable and those who I believe are not.

'that the male desire to see naked ladies was equal to women wanting to see naked men.'

Actually that wasn't said at all either. People said women notice mens appearance and judge them on it as much as men notice womens appearance and judge them on it.

But you go on and make up your own story. It's good you have your own thread now to discuss your confused comprehension of what some of the male posters were saying.