Fractelle,

While it is true that men and women differ in their expressions of sex however anthropologically speaking this is demonstrably a cultural effect rather than a biological one. As are the differences of gender choice of sexually stimulated material.
I am loathed to wallow in unqualified generalities as your question seems to be but I would suggest a few contravening facts for you consideration.
There are wiring differences between men and women but it isn't as prominent than one might think. That is apart from males drive to promote his genes and women to ensure the best genes for her offsprungs.
It is a commonly observed point that at gender specific strip shows it is the women who are shall we say more aggressively involved i.e. Col etc. are essentially right women do check males out but express it in different ways.

I suggest you consider why male homosexuality was for many year but lesbianism wasn't.
Apparently the legal biases are based on Judeo/Christian mores but when Queen Victoria was consulted on the laws of prohibition she refused to accept that women would engage is such acts but had knowledge of men doing so.

The idea of cultural influence on issues like this are supported by many primitive tribes where sexuality is equally solicited or even some where the women take the lead.

On an even more biological basis the Bonobo lives in groups that are largely matriarchies and sex is so widely practised and with combinations that would offend our current moral perspectives.

I would agree that both Sancho and Pericles have accurately describe the nature of our culturally dominated views on sex are expressed. One should be careful not to confuse the cause with the effect as you seem to be doing here. Consider both facts that men aren't all the same neither are women but most of all don't confuse your experiential knowledge on others.
I would submit your stated relationship may be the exception rather than the rule this *observation does not offer any prejorative conotations.*

Sorry if it offends if so it is unintentional

Yabby, Yabby, Yabby, - steady on, ole son. How on earth did you extrapolate this "But it seems that you and Romany want real stick books for girls!" from my post? Ho hum - yet more wild guesses about my sex life, it seems!

So o.k....now for those at the back who weren't paying attention:- Fractelle commented on the fact that there appears to be a disproportionate amount of nudey-cutey type mags for guys, where an Internet search brought up the grand total of 4 for women.

Without taking any particular stance on hitherto propounded reasons for this I merely wondered if consorship regulations which conspire to rob the male nudes of thier sexuality - to the point where, at times, they become risible - may be a contributing factor?

That's all. No admissions about personal needs/wants/likes/desires. No stated preferences. No word at all in fact on whether I admire or condemn, lust after or am appalled by, the nude in any way, shape or form.

Just the confession that a particular photo shoot I once saw missed the mark so much it ended up being funny.

And anyway "stick mags for girls"? Given the reason such publications got the name in the first place I question indeed whether such a thing is biologically possible!

But now, moving right along...yeah. I consider the images provided by Foxy and Fractelle provocative.

But, I ask myself, does this in fact move the discussion along in any way, though?

*Ho hum - yet more wild guesses about my sex life, it seems!*

Romany, that is highly unlikely, for I could pass you in the street
and not know you from a bar of soap.

Silly me, I read your first post and got the impression that
you wanted pictures of men "ready to go", not just with dangling
"witcherty grubs."

I think your first mistake was to assume that a naked female
is "ready to go". Clearly not, for they still have headaches,
they still say no, they still are amazed when men sleeping a few
inches away from them, have sexual urges.

So a naked female is a bit like a naked male, naked, but not ready
to go at all alot of the time.

Therefore my assumption, that you were after a stickbook. For it
is stickbooks that go into the more sexual aspects, ie. erect penises,
swollen nipples, swollen labias or even an enlarged clitoris.

But then perhaps being female, you also simply changed your mind
between your first post and second post. That is of course a well
known female attribute :)

Dear Romany,

You asked whether mine and Fractelle's provocative images
move the discussion along? Gawd, I hope so!

The point was that the male doesn't necessarily
have to be naked for women to get aroused.
That's part of the point that Fractelle was making.
Magazines for women of naked men - don't
sell - the publishers still don't get what actually
turns women on. It's not about naked apendages either -
even erected ones.

It is subjective. Very, - we want "real" men. Not
male models - not men who look "cute," air-brushed
and sun-tanned. If there was a magazine out there
with guys like - David Beckham, George Clooney,
Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig et cetera. Simply being
themselves - yeah, I reckon I'd buy that mag.
I'd bet most women would. You don't need to show
your rear end or be "buck naked," (unless you're a
porn star), to be sexy.

Arousal is after all in your mind - isn't it? Or at
least that's where it starts, and goes from there.
So its a matter of "different strokes, for different
folks." It's whatever your fantasy happens to be, - and that's
not the same for everybody. We can't generalize about
all men or all women. Although most men do appear to
like their females "ready for action," as Romany described.
Hence the popularity of men's magazines that sell - big time.

Women would possibly also buy men's magazine's if the
right formula was found - with the right appeal. My theory
is - "make it earthy," and see if it sells.

Foxy - you misunderstood - or I wasn't being clear. I meant does the fact that I, personally, find the images provocative move the discussion along.

Yabby had for some strange reason assumed that because I posited another possible reason for the lack of women's magazines that equate to Zoo etc., I personally was possessed of an urge - shared by Fractelle - to read/buy stickbooks. And that I was posting to lament this fact.

I was responding to him by trying - and obviously failing, judging by his next post - to explain that I was hazarding an objective question as my contribution to the topic, not being personal. Thus, I went on to try to illustrate that my personal preferences would not provide a particularly pertinent post to further the discussion.

Yabby - What? Where did I change my mind?

And I think perhaps I was being too delicate. My point was: physically a women does not have to be in a state of arousal herself for the sex act to take place. The vagina is always penetrable.

Conversely, a man has to be in a state of arousal to be able to contribute to the sex act. Pictures of naked men, however, in comparative mainstream magazines, show them in a state where the sex act is not possible.

Therefore a picture of a naked woman, headaches and mental attitudes notwithstanding, depicts a sexually available being.

A picture of a naked man does not show a sexually available being.

I was wondering therefore if this biological fact had any bearing on the difference in attitudes towards pictures of nudity and, hence, the different composition of men's and women's mags.

If that is not any clearer then its time I went to bed. These days I am so tired I sit and weep from exhaustion at times. Perhaps I should not even try to express myself clearly at all. Its obviously not happening.

It would be interesting to see a study of what (apart from the obvious) is advertised in the various 'men's magazines', in comparison to what is advertised in 'women's magazines'. Not only as to the variety of products, but as to the proportion of sales volume generation that can be attributed to particular magazines, or even this genre of magazines.

Not that I have consciously thought about it before, but now that you mention it, I would have thought (if I had) that 'men's magazines' catering to the visually-cued presumably largely male readership would be the last place you would try to advertise anything other than sex, or sex aids, itself. The content would surely be a distraction from the advertising, rather than a subliminal cue linking sexual phantasy/gratification to the purchase of an advertised product.

It would also be interesting to know, of the numbers of magazines of this genre displayed in outlets, what proportion get returned unsold to the publishers/distributors. This ratio to be compared to both those of 'women's magazines' and other magazines (eg. bike mags) which attract a significant female audience. Also, a study of the amount and nature of product advertising in 'women's magazines' using visual (or textual) cues that would seem to be directed toward men.

Could the 'men's magazine' genre be a smokescreen or diversionary action for what may really be desired to be going on, advertising-wise, subliminally or otherwise, elswhere? Often the distributors of the 'men's magazines' and all others are the same. So is it an overall marketing of advertising that is the distributor's focus, with this genre existing only to ensure its content does not distract readers of the more general interest magazines, was it to otherwise have to appear there as its only outlet?

Do men's magazines only exist because of a level of illiteracy amongst males? I guess I am supporting the view sexual desire starts in, and is sustained by, the imagination. And for that, word pictures seem so much better suited, IMO.

Helpful?