How is posing for lad's mags "degrading?"

[HEMI6point1]

1: So it's fine to insult ugly people since your doing it, but if someone insults a attractive person, that is just wrong and person doing it is jealous? Wow.

To be honest, if I think a person is unattractive, I'll say it. Again, I have never seen an attractive NOW member which includes their "Officers" (It guess calling themselves "Officers" makes them more official ).

The whole point was is that I take issue with the NOW members singling out lad's mags and glamour paysites and the models that pose for them as "degrading" and worse, "Masturbation fodder." When the say it all the time, like I said in my closing part of my OP it's tough to explain away and indicates jealousy issues.

[Plaidman]

To be honest, if I think a person is unattractive, I'll say it. Again, I have never seen an attractive NOW member which includes their "Officers" (It guess calling themselves "Officers" makes them more official ).

The whole point was is that I take issue with the NOW members singling out lad's mags and glamour paysites and the models that pose for them as "degrading" and worse, "Masturbation fodder." When the say it all the time, like I said in my closing part of my OP it's tough to explain away and indicates jealousy issues.

Your still insulting the way they look no matter how you slice it. They only doing it because they are jealous. You STILL insult how they look. Then, you go right around, and insult them even MORE if they dare to insult what you belive is attracted.

What is that about?

I don't get why you feel the need to insult people based on their looks, and if they dare /step/ out of line by doing what your doing, they get even more insults.

[Rageaholic]

Well they have a point, it is degrading, since those magazines are based soley on sex appeal. I agree that society judges people too much based on looks and other superficial BS that says nothing about a person's character (one of the many things I hate about job hunting). I understand that looks are the first thing people see in a person and it's human nature to react based on how people look, but I don't have to agree with it. It really isn't fair.

With that said, I'll be damned if I'm going to be labled as a pervert or potential rapist just because I have a dick. Yes, I have sexual thoughts about some women, yes I think some women are better looking than others, but I keep it to myself. I would never humiliate or harass a woman based on how she looks. Besides, sex appeal is subjective, who maybe attractive to one person could be ugly to another, so it's not completely black and white.

[AdminAssistant]

To be honest, if I think a person is unattractive, I'll say it. Again, I have never seen an attractive NOW member which includes their "Officers" (It guess calling themselves "Officers" makes them more official ). The whole point was is that I take issue with the NOW members singling out lad's mags and glamour paysites and the models that pose for them as "degrading" and worse, "Masturbation fodder." When the say it all the time, like I said in my closing part of my OP it's tough to explain away and indicates jealousy issues.

Let me be clear. There isn't anything wrong with publications of women (or men) in various states of undress designed to arouse a person's imagination. But don't try to dress up Maxim and the like. They may be in the supermarket, and the models may be clothed. But it's still pretty pictures to whack off to.

I still don't know where you get the jealousy idea from. Believe it or not, not every woman wants to look like these tiny waisted, big boobed bombshells.

[KnitShoni]

Let me be clear. There isn't anything wrong with publications of women (or men) in various states of undress designed to arouse a person's imagination. But don't try to dress up Maxim and the like. They may be in the supermarket, and the models may be clothed. But it's still pretty pictures to whack off to.

The same could be said of Cosmo, Seventeen, and other women's magazines. It seems to me to be a bit of a double standard to put down men's mags for showing pictures that are strikingly similar to those in women's.

[Fryk]

Maybe they should be going after the modelling agencies rather than the magazines that use their services?

[jackfaire]

A good book to read is "Same Differences" one of the authors is a former/current? member of NOW with interesting thoughts on gender relations.

[Greenday]

Let me be clear. There isn't anything wrong with publications of women (or men) in various states of undress designed to arouse a person's imagination. But don't try to dress up Maxim and the like. They may be in the supermarket, and the models may be clothed. But it's still pretty pictures to whack off to.

As an avid reader of Maxim, that's total crap. Maxim is not a magazine you buy to whack off to. There are fewer pages devoted to scantily clothed women than there are articles about interesting stuff worth reading about.

[guywithashovel]

Funny, I hear all this carry on about men ogling women, viewing them as sex objects and being concerned about their looks, but I hear nothing about women doing it, they do it just as much as men do, they are just as crass and vulgar as men and it's just as many women as men, in fact the worst behavior I've seen has been from women.

This is a very good point, and it's often overlooked.

Everyone's complaining about how the female models in mags always give women a false idea of beauty and thinness. But have they ever looked at the guys in magazines? They all have chiseled bodies, six-pack abs, and basically look like Ken dolls brought to life. And there has been some research done to show that guys sometimes feel unsure of themselves after seeing such models.

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/n...re-too-313404/

Also, there's a degree of hypocrisy that goes on here. Sometimes these women will go on and on about how magazines make women feel like crap about themselves, and then talk about how they won't date a guy who is overweight, under six feet tall, or whatever. Now, if you're only attracted to guys who are in shape and/or tall, then fine, but don't be mad at other people for having preferences, too.

Reading over this thread, I kind of suspect this might be what HEM was trying to get at, at least to some extent.

[Kimmik]

Also, there's a degree of hypocrisy that goes on here. Sometimes these women will go on and on about how magazines make women feel like crap about themselves, and then talk about how they won't date a guy who is overweight, under six feet tall, or whatever. Now, if you're only attracted to guys who are in shape and/or tall, then fine, but don't be mad at other people for having preferences, too.

Reading over this thread, I kind of suspect this might be what HEM was trying to get at, at least to some extent.

Hehe my hubby is not the "perfect" man.. My friends mother lovingly refered to him as one of those cute troll dolls.

He is perfect for me.. but then again I fell for him before I ever saw him.. I fell in love with who he was not what he looks like.. but to me he is the handsomest man I have met.*sighs* I would never want a GQ guy.. to much work lol

But yes women who oggle men and men who oggle women.. both are in the wrong if they leer to the point that the leerie *leeree, the one who is leered at* is uncomfortable.

Me and my husband can walk through the mall and I will go wow did you see that woman.. she had a nice X and he will look and either agree or not... I do that with men to and my hubby will comment.. but leer.. no drool no cat calls no... because I wouldn't want that for myself.. and I am of the opinion that if it wrong for one gender it is wrong for both.

[HEMI6point1]

With that said, I'll be damned if I'm going to be labled as a pervert or potential rapist just because I have a dick. Yes, I have sexual thoughts about some women, yes I think some women are better looking than others, but I keep it to myself. I would never humiliate or harass a woman based on how she looks. Besides, sex appeal is subjective, who maybe attractive to one person could be ugly to another, so it's not completely black and white.

People don't get that's one of the reasons why I dislike NOW. Let's make one thing clear: Like I said before if their core values were like it was in the 60's I would have no issue with them. But now they have evolved into a bunch of unattractive man-haters that have nothing better to do than bash us guys and complain about models "degrading themselves" and demonize the guys that like to look at them.

Let me be clear. There isn't anything wrong with publications of women (or men) in various states of undress designed to arouse a person's imagination. But don't try to dress up Maxim and the like. They may be in the supermarket, and the models may be clothed. But it's still pretty pictures to whack off to.

I still don't know where you get the jealousy idea from. Believe it or not, not every woman wants to look like these tiny waisted, big boobed bombshells.

Like the other guy said, that's a load of crap. Many prefer to read Maxim for the articles than look at the pictures.

The same could be said of Cosmo, Seventeen, and other women's magazines. It seems to me to be a bit of a double standard to put down men's mags for showing pictures that are strikingly similar to those in women's.

Especially Cosmo. Many of their pictures are racier than the lad's mags. What makes them different than a lad's mag?

[HEMI6point1]

Speaking of NOW and NOT talking about their views on Lad's mags, a NOW member recently talked about domestic violence.

She said men who commit domestic violence have no excuse and should be locked up for a long time, but she also said women who commit domestic violence "must have a good reason" and should only be served probation.

One-sided much?

[Plaidman]

Speaking of NOW and NOT talking about their views on Lad's mags, a NOW member recently talked about domestic violence.

She said men who commit domestic violence have no excuse and should be locked up for a long time, but she also said women who commit domestic violence "must have a good reason" and should only be served probation.

One-sided much?

No more then you are.

[Plaidman]

I really tried to be silent today. But I'm tired of this.

There are always more then just one side.

They don't hate the the Maxim's top 100 list because it's half naked women that are /hotter/ then them.

They hate it because the entire list is of women who are known for their bodies rather then anything they did and that they are typical protrayed as sexually submissive rather then dominate. They even made their own top 100 list, based on what women did rather then OMG BOOBIES, other then that, nowhere on web did I read anything on how they hate any other type. Where did you see this again?


http://openjurist.org/267/f3d/687/na...ph-m-scheidler Here is the 15th year they been trying to put up lawsuits against these /rescue/ groups who chain themselves in front of abortion clinics to /rescue/ the poor women who don't understand they have life. They don't care if the women have been raped, or incest, or anything like that. Though some here may think the women deserved it if she's hot. *cough*. Doesn't sound like a bunch of women that are anti-beauty to me. Sounds like they are trying to do what they can.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html From there own webpage. They even talk about how they're trying to stop domestic violence, even against men. Far from your "Men deserve it" stance. Surely they wouldn't put that they want to protect males from domestic violence too. They never said (that I seen anywhere) that men that do it need to be locked up. They feel that men should learn if they have anger issues and get help with anger management. (Some of the chapters in states give them out for free too).

There biggest projects right now is stoping female genital mutilation.

[Anthony K. S.]

Just a minor point :

They even talk about how they're trying to stop domestic violence, even against men.

Plaidman, the only thing that that proves is that they're not stupid.

Of course they're going to say that they oppose violence against men.

What did you expect them to say, that they support violence against men?

One of the most common criticisms made of modern-day feminism is that they have lost sight of their original goal, which was to achieve equality between the genders.

Today, many feminists (not all, but a good number of them, from what I can see) don't care in the least about achieving equality. Their goal is to give women as many advantages and as much power in society as possible, whether it's fair to men or not.

But they would have to be idiots to actually come out and say that that's their goal. If they have any sense at all, they will continue to insist that they're fighting for equality, and they'll occasionally throw out some press and do a project or two that favors men, to combat the impression that they're not.

I do support at least some of the work that the National Organization for Women does, but over the years, I have grown increasingly wary of their intentions.

She said men who commit domestic violence have no excuse and should be locked up for a long time, but she also said women who commit domestic violence "must have a good reason" and should only be served probation.

That doesn't sound like any official stance that N.O.W. would take on domestic violence . . . but it sounds very much like what I think a lot of N.O.W. members are probably saying behind closed doors, when there are no cameras around.

Whatever else you may say about that N.O.W. member, at least she was willing to say it to a person's face.