I did a test recently at work, inspired by this topic. The toilet block always contains at least one copy of Zoo or Ralph or Streetcar that seems to get changed irregularly but fairly frequently. By the time it gets thrown out it usually look pretty dog-eared and tatty. What all these mags have in common is a set of short articles/stories with a lot of lowbrow jokes and pictures of cars and women.

I thought I'd see what would happen to a copy of Wheels.

Apart from one or two articles, it was left well alone. the difference is that wheels is analytical (minimally, but it's there), articles are often lengthy, it doesn't contain women much and there are no jokes.

The toilet block is shared between my business and a heavy engineering manufacturer. That business employs about a dozen or so boilermakers, welders and labourers, few of whom I suspect, got passing marks in English at school before going off to do their apprenticeship.

Is it really any surprise, as Forrest says, that these people like to look at the pretty pictures? If I did a similar test in the toilet block of a professional chambers would the result be similar? I'd suggest that is very unlikely.

Comparing the reading interests of professional feminists with working class men is fatuous, I'm afraid.

As this nation is moving swiftly towards a "female professional/male tradie" model, I'd suggest that perhaps the sales of Ralph/Zoo are likely to remain steady or climb, while those of the less low-brow men's magazines will inevitably wither.

We've already seen the converse phenomenon in women's mags, with Cosmo/Cleo and their upmarket clones taking over from Women's Weekly/Womans Day/New Idea.

Well I am a women and I don't buy women's magazines and to answer Fractelle's question, nor would I buy a nudie male magazine aimed at women.

Would many women? Given we make up 50% of the population it would be hard to generalise within such a non-homogenous group even if we are all wired somewhat to our gender biology as examinator stated.

It has nothing to do with sexual appetite more that I would rather the real thing than a picture. I guess sexy pictures might stimulate the mood for sex a bit, but not enough to go out and buy a mag. I would get as much satisfaction from viewing nudie females as nudie males for some reason and I am pure heterosexual.

I used to read New Idea, Women's Weekly many years ago before they turned into celebrity gossip rags with shallow content and ambiguous sensationalist headlines.

I read mainly political/current affairs focussed papers and magazines, and for personal reading stick to Earth Garden and Grass Roots and books of all persuasions.

Dear Romany,

Sorry for misunderstanding, and thanks
for explaining. It was a late night
for me as well.

Intresting comments from Forrest and
Antiseptic.

I don't buy Cosmo/Cleo, although I'll flip
through the pages in doctor's offices etc.

What I do treat myself to every now and again is
Vanity Fair - which I enjoy. Now if they had
centrefolds it would be just luverly.

So what that says about my taste, I'm not sure.
I guess it probably confirms that I need more than just
provocative pictures as you suggested.

Given this discussion, when I picked up the papers today, I spotted
a copy of "Zoo", so I bought one!

Frankly its alot tamer then I had expected. No girls even topless,
all wearing bikinis or underwear. So it could not even be defined
as a "stickbook".

Lots of jokes, lots of cars and bikes, lots of amusing stuff,
like "The 10 funniest ways to spend Rudd's 900$.

Adverts are for Optus, JB Hifi, Samedi energy drink,a new Channel 10
cooking show, then pages of ads for chat lines and hot videos for
peoples phones.

There is a "housewives corner" kind of section, so you are all free
to send in photos of yourselves in bikinis. Mind you, most of
those are 18-24, so you might just be considered over the hill :)

Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful and provocative responses.

Humans can't simply be categorised into the generalisations I deliberately made. However, I had to start somewhere and I don't think I am wrong in saying generally men are easily aroused by just the sight of female flesh, whereas women need a more emotional connection.

Nor am I wrong in saying that women's appearance is usually evaluated first, by men and women. Just think of how much attention has been given to the clothes Michelle Obama wears. This is the culture we have created: men are more visually aroused and our books, films and advertising reflect this. Most publishing firms, film makers and advertisers are owned by men. It would be amazing if the reverse was true - that the female gaze would dominate when business and politics are still controlled (for the most part ) by men.

It is interesting that I aroused such hostility on the Susan Boyle thread for even raising this truth about our culture.

And thanks to Yabby, I now know what a 'stick mag' is and no, I wouldn't buy one. Nor do I think there is a market for a magazine based only around pictures of sexualised males and, considering Forrest's point, I wonder what would be advertised? Gels to tighten one’s vagina?

Cont'd

Cont'd

However, to assume that an increase in photos of men such as Hugh Jackman, George Clooney looking seductive, is not possible, is to ignore the visual aspect of female sexuality. We are visual creatures too, we just need some context, men we can somehow relate to.

As the female gaze takes in more than mere physical appearance, is it just too difficult to consider the sexual needs of women? Or simply because we are accustomed to the magazines as they are, we do not demand any more than they deliver? The women’s magazines still sell regardless. We women think we’re lucky if we see a shirtless Beckham. Men would demand their money back if Penthouse featured only articles.

Yes, our sexuality is more complicated but no less demanding. Once aroused we are as focused as men on our sexual needs. However, we need to feel more engaged and in connection with our partner. Otherwise, it is simply easier to masturbate. How does that saying go? "Women need to feel loved to make love and men need to make love to feel loved."

Is it possible to meet halfway somewhere? Acknowledge that although mere appearance of flesh inspires male desire, but that the flesh so lusted after, belongs to a living and feeling human being; a mother, a sister or a daughter?

Or even after the beauty has faded, that the human being is still there, be she 8 or 80?