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

[Plaidman]

edit to add:


I just saw those pics.


Wow.

You must struggle everyday walking down the street.

I'm surprise that your not puking and crying out for god to strike every girl in sight if you think those women are ugly.

I'd date them.

Especially Erin. She's got a great smile.

[Greenday]

I just saw those pics.

Wow.

You must struggle everyday walking down the street.

I'm surprise that your not puking and crying out for god to strike every girl in sight if you think those women are ugly.

I'm sorry but I don't find them the least bit attractive. Not at all.

Do I expect women to all look like supermodels? No. I'm not a moron. I read Maxim every month but I'm smart enough to know what airbrushing is. None of my previous girlfriends would be today's standard for modeling but they were all beautiful to me.

NOW claiming that it's degrading is a load of crap. To be picking this fight, the group must be desperate for attention. I'm all for women's rights but this is a joke.

[KnitShoni]

My question is, who gets to decide if it's degrading? NOW? The readers? The models themselves?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

My question is, who gets to decide if it's degrading? NOW? The readers? The models themselves?

I'd say... the models. Since their the ones who are apparently degraded, I think they're probably in the best position to decide whether or not it's actually happening, or if so, too much.

[HEMI6point1]

Actually, they look like perfectly normal women to me. Y'know, the way 'real' women look in the real world without PhotoShop. I don't swing that way, but I think all four are lovely, handsome, beautiful women. They are not "far from attractive."

I'm just curious, What exactly meets a realistic standard of attractiveness for you? Not airbrushed models in magazines - real people.

It is all about selling magazines and selling fantasy, since an absurdly small percentage of women look like that, with or without surgery. The problem comes when people, especially men, can no longer appreciate the difference between fantasy and reality. Real. women. do. not. look. like. that. Ever. What happens when guys will only settle for the Maxim centerfold?

I did have to look up most of them. Most of them are still very thin, despite being chesty. Gorgeous - no, not to me.

NOW was not formed to crap on men for being men. It was formed in a push for equal rights, something that women had been fighting for since long before the Civil War. We still desperately need these feminist organizations to fight for equal pay, reproductive rights, and yes, to speak out about the position of women in all aspects of modern society.

1. I have seen plenty of women that are far more attractive than the NOW "officers" in real life, every day without photoshop. I live in South Florida, so there's no shortage of good looking REAL women.

2. I know the difference between fantasy and reality, than you very much. And being in South Florida there are many women that look like models. It's nothing new or shocking down here.

3. The first 2 models I mentioned are well-known US models. The other 3 are glamour models from the UK. Very thin? Seriously? They have real curves unlike most models from the US who look like they're going to fall over and die any minute from lack of food (but that's another topic). And I've seen them without photoshop or airbrushing, they are still very beautiful.

First you trashed the hot woman who got fired from her banking job and you called 3 healthy-looking models "very thin" and don't think they're at least very attractive. I bet if I told you I'm a fan of Kim Kardashian, you would probably find a way to trash her as well. Like I said in the last part of my OP, when you make negative comments on every celeb/model you see, it's tough to explain away as in the case here.

4. I will agree we need rights for women, and if NOW stuck to their original objective, that would be okay. But sadly they have went down of a path of.... what I said in my OP, simple.

[Plaidman]

My question is, who gets to decide if it's degrading? NOW? The readers? The models themselves?

Yourself. Like everything else.

No-one would ever agree on anything in this world. So you stand up for what you belive and thoughts are.

I got sick of the majority rule a few years back. It's why I'm no longer beliving when all of a group of people think I'm stupid, or ugly.

Granted, a vast, vast, vast, vast, amount of people still think I'm ugly and dumb.

But I'll defend myself. And I'll defend against any other jackasses and jerks that need to put down people based solely on how they look.

[KnitShoni]

I'd say... the models. Since their the ones who are apparently degraded, I think they're probably in the best position to decide whether or not it's actually happening, or if so, too much.

That's my point. I would think if it would be considered degrading to anyone, it would be the models who are asked (asked. Not forced.) to pose for the pictures. Since they seem to have no problem with it, why does NOW feel the need to raise a stink about it?

[HEMI6point1]

EDIT: @ Plaidman: So? if someone decides to value women by their looks alone, all the time, that's their (IMO, shitty) decision (which HEMI hasn't at any point indicated he does). When you're selling good looks that's what you hire for and screw the other factors in the same way a biotechnology lab looks for skills, intelligence and experience and couldn't care less about looks. Are you suggesting that everyone be forced to never consider looks for any reason whatsoever? as much as it shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of a woman's value, it's not an intrinsically evil thing in and of it's self. People preferring looks over brains is no more an injustice to unattractive people than preferring brains over looks is an injustice to unintelligent people.

This may come as a shock but....

Between a 10 that can't hold a conversation and a 6 that is really smart, I'd take the 6 thank you very much!

It's like one of my buddies that knows I like cars says, "A girl who's a 10 is like a Ferrari. It's really tough to obtain, once you do get it it's really high maintenance, you always have people starring at it and you are in constant risk of people trying to steal it from you."

Would I like a girl who looks like Jodie Gasson? Hell yeah (She said in an interview she likes geeky guys ). But I have to think realistically....

[Plaidman]

That's my point. I would think if it would be considered degrading to anyone, it would be the models who are asked (asked. Not forced.) to pose for the pictures. Since they seem to have no problem with it, why does NOW feel the need to raise a stink about it?

Simple, and likely like all people say, Kids.

They see it screaming on TV LOOK HOT! NO-ONE WILL LOVE YOU IF YOUR HOT!

Yeah, it's parents job to raise kids, but really, in this day in and age where most people have two-three kids, and have two jobs each just to make means meet, likely means they don't have as much time to raise their kids right.

So they see how much attention they get versus what they have now. So yeah, they make themselves look hot. Of course they don't have a problem. They are rich. Popular. and HOT.

The three things that people judge everyone on first. Their looks. How rich they are. And if they are /cool/ or not.

[KnitShoni]

If that's true, if this is about the children, then why only go after men's magazines? Why not the entire entertainment industry? I haven't noticed any outcry from NOW about scantily clad men or those sexiest man lists being degrading. Where is the outrage over that?

[HEMI6point1]

That's my point. I would think if it would be considered degrading to anyone, it would be the models who are asked (asked. Not forced.) to pose for the pictures. Since they seem to have no problem with it, why does NOW feel the need to raise a stink about it?

See, when guys pay for a subscription to a lad's mag or a glamour paysite like Onlytease (and just because it's a paysite doesn't make it porn, the pictures are maxim-style), they want to look at women that are at least very attractive. After all, we're paying money for a subscription aimed at heterosexual men!

It's simple Freudian psychology. The NOW members know these women are beautiful and getting attention, and... they're not. So they want to lash out and say what they're doing is "degrading" and that us men are pigs for wanting to look at them.

[Plaidman]

If that's true, if this is about the children, then why only go after men's magazines? Why not the entire entertainment industry? I haven't noticed any outcry from NOW about scantily clad men or those sexiest man lists being degrading. Where is the outrage over that?

Because NOW stands for

National Organization for Women. They are trying to protect WOMEN and GIRLS from becoming objects to men, to have equal pay as men, to have same rights as men in all areas. They want people to see pass the girls breasts and asses and value who they are, rather then what they look like only.

Which is basically what most people here just view them as. As HEMI6point1 states, he is paying for a magazine and those women better be hot and attractive.

[HEMI6point1]

Because NOW stands for

National Organization for Women. They are trying to protect WOMEN and GIRLS from becoming objects to men, to have equal pay as men, to have same rights as men in all areas. They want people to see pass the girls breasts and asses and value who they are, rather then what they look like only.

Which is basically what most people here just view them as. As HEMI6point1 states, he is paying for a magazine and those women better be hot and attractive.

Last post before I go to bed....

NOW is fighting a losing battle if they want to "protect women from becoming objects to men." ALL straight men will look at a girl they find attractive (either in real life or in print/online), and envision kissing her, stripping her, and having sex with her. It's called "sex by eyeball."

It's how men are wired. If you think otherwise you're kidding yourself and so is NOW. Like I said, they want to crap on men for being men.

A very attractive woman called into a local radio station some months ago when they were talking about the sex by eyeball thing and she said, "When I go out in any sort of tank top or skin-revealing outfit guys ogle me and do the sex by eyeball thing. It's gross." What did the one of the DJ's say to her? He said, "If you don't like it go to a gay bar. You can't ask straight men to stop envisioning having sex with you."

Should men look beyond the looks? Of course. But when you first meet someone, you have to be attracted to them because you have nothing more to go on other than what you see. The other stuff (personality, etc) comes next.

[HYHYBT]

"What happens when guys will only settle for the Maxim centerfold?"---The guys in question will be very lonely indeed.

"No. Your acting like a jackass that only values women for how they look."---This is where I have a problem: the word "only." Where do people get the idea that, because someone enjoys looking at beautiful models, looks are all they care about? Even when that's all they're thinking of at the moment, that doesn't logically even *imply* that it's all they care about in general.

[Rebel]

Well, I guess I'm going against the grain a bit.

I'm a straight girl and I actually like some lads magazines.

In my experience, lads mags (Zoo was my favourite) tend to portray girls in a stronger sense than most girls magazines on the market. They are strong and independent, standing in front of the man in the position of power. And if they are scantily clad, it is usually in a way to taunt the guy, to show the power they have over them.

I hate girls magazines because after reading one I know that I don't wear the right clothes, my hairstyle and colour is pathetic, I need to use tricks to catch and keep a man, I need to wear cute little heels so guys will notice me, and that I need to wear makeup because a bare face is an ugly face.

Beyond that, guys mags are funny and witty and they usually cover topics that are actually interesting.

I actually think that girls mags are far more degrading and harmful to girls these days than mens mags will ever be. Why isn't NOW going after them?

The models chose to pose for the mens magazines. Anyone can choose to read the magazine, or they can simply pass it by. And for the most part, there are age restrictions to buy them, there isn't for girly magazines.

As for the NOW officers; they look nice. Some people would be attracted to them, some won't. It's just a matter of individual taste.
I think Robert Patterson is really kinda gross, but I think Misha Collins is yummy. Some people would disagree.