Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Men As "Success Objects" & Women As "Sex Objects" wrote:
 >Gail Thaler ( wrote:
 >: The only difference I see in men's magazines and women's magazines
 >: in regard to women's bodies is that the women in men's magazines
 >: have had breast implants.
 >I think you're just wrong about this, but it would be an interesting 
 >thing to test.  Get photographs from a whole range of magazines and 
 >then show them to men and women and ask them what they think.  My
 >own sense is that men and women see women's bodies in completely 
 >different ways (I'm sure that's true for male bodies as well).  
 >Not only couldn't Kate Moss could ever make it as a Playboy model, 
 >but I don't think Anna Nicole Smith (the Playboy model who married 
 >that rich guy) could ever make the cover of Cosmopolitan (she's too 
 >fat, men don't care).
 Wait a minute. I'm not going to show guys pictures of naked women
 and ask them what they think?  Isn't that sexual harrassment?  And
 besides, would they tell me the truth?  I agree research could he
 helpful in this area, though.
 >: They are extremely thin but have big breasts.
 >A lot of Playboy models are not thin.  Are you going by stereotype,
 >or have you actually read this magazine?  I first noticed this, by
 >the way, when I was home from college during one summer and my sister
 >and I started looking at a Playboy because we were bored.  Her reactions 
 >were completely different from mine.  I'm not talking about physical
 >attraction, I just mean the parts of the body we noticed, facial
 >gestures, etc.  That's not scientific of course, but I have noticed
 >that pictures of men and women are very different in magazines and
 >even movies depending upon whether they're intended for men and women
 >(ie. there are "women's men", "women's women", "men's men", and
 >"men's women", in addition to those who crossover).  I've always
 >thought that Julia Roberts, for instance, was a "woman's woman"
 >(women identify with her or would like to be like her, but her
 >look doesn't do much for guys.  Hugh Grant always struck me as
 >being a "woman's man".  Here's my point.  All of the pictures which
 >show up in women's magazines are meant for women.  Men don't read
 >these magazines.  If an editor thinks that these pictures work 
 >better for the magazine's purpose than some others, then I suspect
 >there's a reason for it.
 So do I!  To get women to buy diet plans, diet pills, etc. Did you
 happen to look at ads in those magazines?
 >: But then I heard a male designer complain that breasts got in the
 >: way of his designs.  Ruined the line of this clothing!!
 >Another interesting theory I've heard, btw, is that the predominance
 >of gay men in the fashion industry (which no one disputes) might in
 >some way be responsible for some of this.  If it's true that each
 >person carries around his or her own aesthetic based upon what 
 >they find attractive (which, let's face it, is at least somewhat
 >related to sexual preference), then it's possible that women's
 >fashion is heavily influenced by the gay aesthetic (ie. designers
 >without even thinking about it perhaps want women to look like 
 >young men).  Or it's possible that doesn't influence things at
 >all.  I'm just suggesting that you have to look beyond the "big
 >bad man" explenation for things, because while this might not
 >seem obvious heterosexual men actually have very little 
 >participation in the women's fashion industry.  They don't