I'd say the publishers ARE catering to women's and men's different desires quite well, men tend to want such rags, so they are provided, and women want other things, and they get them. Whenever I look in a news-agents, I see far more mag's for women than men, by quite a degree, covering evey possible subject women seem to be interested in.
Ever looked in the mag pile in any public place, quacks office etc, you rarely find anything other than womens mags, don't you?
Why would they publish men's style mags for women, or women's style for men, they know there's no money in that approach.
Offhand I'd say most of the posts here make valid points, and don't seem all that far apart overall, it's mostly in how they've been phrased.

>>>We may find that they satisfy similar corners of the brain, or something like that.*<<<

Both Pericles and Sancho made this point.

At first glance this appears true. Both types of magazines are light weight with short pithy articles that are easy to read.

BUT (deliberate big BUT) (and a pun now I think of it), women are sexual beings too. Duh.

Now I may be completely wrong, BUT I very much doubt that New Idea has found use by women as a masturbatory aid. Whereas I am 100% sure Penthouse, Ralph etc have been. Willing to bet my last $ on that.

I think Romany has made a great point that the permissable photos of men have a bashful look to them - not remotely sexual or arousing, in fact, as Romany said, laughable.

Also Sancho made comment that the articles catered to the sexes. I say they cater to stereotypes. For in depth articles on cars, I recommend Wheels over Ralph, for some entertaining but substantial human interest reading Harpers Bazaar is hard to beat. And I'd just like to point out that my last discussion thread was about vehicles.

Contd

*BUT I very much doubt that New Idea has found use by women as a masturbatory aid.*

Perhaps not New Idea, but Cleo certainly goes into detail about
how women can get their rocks off, care of the internet. Do not
confuse the two.

I buy such unusual papers and magazines as the Economist,
Weekend Financial Review and Weekend Australian, but I once asked
my newsagent what sold most. Girls buy New Idea, boys buy the
Auto Trader.

But it seems that you and Romany want real stick books for girls!
Would you buy them? There are plenty available for gays, so
why don't you buy those? I find it hard to believe that if
girls were keen to spend their money on stick books for girls,
that some enterprising entrepreneur would not have picked up the
trend and taken your money.

*When guys look at stick-pics, such is the anatomy of the female form that she is ALWAYS ...well...ready for action.*

Well perhaps, perhaps not :) Desmond Morris was a pioneer in all
this stuff and he explained that in nature, when females are keen,
their labias swell up and turn bright red or pink. Given that
human females cover up those bits, instead pouting lips have
been claimed to be sexy, women even have botox treatments to
have that look. Then they cover their lips with bright red
lipstick!

So every time I now see a female with bright red lipstick, I have
a bit of a chuckle :)

Contd

Its the pictures between the pages that are the defining difference, the airbrushed, silicon enhanced sexually ready babes. And for women, pictures of celebs and promos for movies, tv soaps. I dunno, but I feel kind of gipped. I admit that in my teens and early twenties I did read the Cleos and the Dollies, mainly because I didn't know very much. These magazines told me how to apply makeup and attract a man. Something that young women want to do, just as much as young men want to attract women and for the same reason..

What Might Work

I don't see why nudes of men can't be arousing for women instead of laughable. Presenting women as sexual is very easy - but it is not so easy to depict men as sexual. We'd probably need a little personal info about the male being depicted, he would need to convey more than just sexual readiness - we (women) need to know a little bit about the personality, even it is illusionary. I do casual work as a film extra/actor and I know it is possible to convey a world of meaning in a single glance.

There wouldn't even need to be the numbers of different men as there are women in the nude mags, just higher quality photos, some kind of visual dialog that women can relate to and a sense of connection to the male nude.

http://elizabethdarvill.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hughjackman.bmp

Tell me Romany, Foxy does the image above make you laugh?

Yabby - if you had simply waited for the rest of my post you wouldn't look quite so ignorant now.

Warning! Warning! About to point out bleeding obvious:

Women are not Gay Men. If you require more explanation ask your partner, you might even learn something.

Dear Fractelle,

Does the image of Hugh Jackman make me laugh?
No. Smile - maybe - but for the right reason!

And talking about arousal - the pictures
in magazines like, "Men Australia," of
those "cute" boys actually does nothing for me.

On the other hand - the following website:

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/david-beckham-emporio-armani-underwear-ad-is packing/

Does quite a lot!

So, I guess it's all subjective.

Ah Fractelle, according to Romany it seems that the witchity
grubs were the problem, but not according to you.

I mentioned to a female friend recently that women were not
the easiest creatures to figure out and she responded by saying
that even she, did not understand herself.

Perhaps I'll just go by the bright red lipstick in future :)