Undercover journalism
As ever, I'm a bit late in picking this up, but here's a great piece on those horrid lad's mags.
Now, of the many, many interesting points that I could discuss, there's just one that I can't resist.
"When you become a celebrity," explains FHM editor Ross Brown, "you automatically tick the box saying 'Are you prepared to be photographed in your knickers and pants?' "
Which begs these three questions:
1. When, exactly, was this rule created?
2. Has anyone told the men? The male stars, I mean. Not the readers. We all know what they think.
3. Most intriguingly: knickers and pants*? What an odd idea. Are two pairs of lacy drawers sexier than one? I must try to keep up with these boudoir trends.
[...twitches, presses lips together, jiggles knee...]
Okay no, I'm sorry, there is just one other thing. At the risk of being a humourless feminist, I have to take issue with this:
"My readers are ordinary blokes - squaddies, students, bricklayers, lawyers - and to them Loaded is pure escapism," says Daubney. "They have girlfriends and wives. They know real women aren't like that."
Bollocks.
Or, if you prefer, non-gender-specific gonads. Whatever you call it, it's still a lie wrapped in a confusion.
The confusion is that while the readers - being adults of presumably at least moderate intelligence - may know women aren't really like that, they are encouraged to believe women should be. And sigh, and cast resigned glances at the flawed, inadequate specimens they are forced to settle for.
The lie is that many of the readers are not, in fact, adults, and are easily misled as to what "real" women are like. True story: I once had a heated argument with a chap of university age and intelligence**, who insisted that there really were women who derived complete sexual satisfaction from fellatio. Now, giving pleasure may indeed deliver pleasure in itself, but I think we can all agree life is not Deep Throat. Right? ...Right? Suffering Sappho, am I revealing my freakish sexual inadequacy here?
I've also had plenty of conversations with men of an age and experience that should have led them to know better, who whined plaintively that surely those were real breasts? Surely? Or who said, at least half-seriously, that they knew women liked [insert sexual practice here] because they'd seen it in the movies.
Or as Gendergeek so neatly puts it:
"...the lads' mag promulgates a male fantasy of adult sexuality that falls hopelessly short of reality. This is acknowledged even within their own pages, where instruction is provided on how to attain the dizzying heights of sexual pleasure that the magazines appear to be offering.
A typical sex Q&A feature in Zoo had four questions about how to persuade a reluctant woman to have anal sex, three on how to get her to watch hard-core porn and "How can I get my girlfriend to give me deep throat?""
So, I'm not going to argue about these bloody magazines' right to print whatever they want. There wouldn't be much point. But they shouldn't imagine they don't have an impact on how real women are perceived and treated, and what is expected of them.
That is all.
_____
* Note for Americans and Saffers: pants=underpants, not trousers. Yes, always.
** Edit: there was a nasty and unfair jibe here. There isn't any more. Apologies to those who read it.
13 comments:
there really were women who derived complete sexual satisfaction from fellatio
I think the misleading adjective in that statement is 'complete'. I can personally cite numerous examples of women who gain some or even much sexual satisfaction from (performing) fellatio but I doubt any of them would consider it a grand night's romp without some kind of reciprocation.
My point exactly.
So are you upset that some men want to have anal sex and watch porn with their girlfriends or that "lad's" mags talk about it?
Anyway it is not if those dreadful women's magazines and trashy chick lit books don't perpetuate an unrealistic and unachievable fantasy image of men... and women for that matter.
I notice after complaining about insulting stereotypes you make one yourself. I know some very sexy men who play role playing games.
ifjudu: The consequences of one of Jude Law's decisions.
I don't think that the magazines are encouraging the readers to believe that women should behave in a certain manner, and anybody who seriously does think that women should behave in the way they may be portrayed in those magazines needs to lose their virginity.
The thing is that everybody has a fantasy, and these magazines are just playing into common male fantasies to net themselves some cash-money. That's probably what the boy Daubney was trying to say, and ended up making his point in an extraordinarily poor fashion.
Granted, there will always be people that will try to make their fantasy into reality, and I'll risk a castration by saying that it's probably the male equivalent of a woman asking her man why he doesn't buy her flowers and trying to get him to. She's heard that the perfect man buys her woman flowers and calls when she least expects it, and she wants her man to be like that.
Anyone intelligent with experience of dealing with women — shit, dealing with people — will know that there's no way they can force someone to completely fit their ideals; anyone who thinks they can has some serious issues. It doesn't stop people from dreaming, though, and it also doesn't stop people trying to make some change off the dreams of those people.
Daubney really doesn't give a damn for whatever stereotypes he might be propagating about women — Daubney's just on his grind. All he cares about are the numbers at the end of the month. Your beef shouldn't be with the magazines; it should be with anyone stupid enough to have their belief system based upon what they read in Zoo.
Seriously, though, Scroob, you've decided to take issue with the actual words-and-writing journalism in publications that are mostly pictures?
---X
Not upset that they talk about it, just that they talk about nothing else. There's room in The Meedja for all kinds of representation of men, women and sex - yet strangely, most of it (all of it, in Nuts and Zoo) takes one form. I find that at best, boring, and at worst, highly oppressive. As I tried to point out, the relentlessness of these images and ideas does have a real effect on real people, and it's not an effect that most women appreciate.
Women's magazines* are by and large very dreadful indeed, and I can't bear to read them, but I don't think the image of men and/or women that they convey is anywhere near as one-dimensional - and certainly not as dangerous.
Lastly, you're 100% right about the roleplaying stereotype**. I do too. Know sexy ones, that is. And I was worrying about that unfair throwaway line just 10 minutes ago, on my way home. In my defence, I wrote this whole thing in a rush during a very busy work day, and... well... I don't think I'm *entirely* wrong about the general sexual experience of 18-year-old roleplayers, okay?
Anyway, thanks for stopping by, thanks for joining in the argument, and thanks for your very cute word verification def.
_____
* I'm going to pass over the "chick lit" argument because I think it's a false categorisation. Too many books get lumped in that supposed genre and it's impossible to pass judgment on the whole lot.
** Also not entirely sure that my point was to complain about "insulting stereotypes". More about how annoyed I was, and am, by the argument that "it's all just harmless fun". But Gendergeek and indeed Janice Turner have really said it all better already. As one might expect.
And X: fair point about the foolishness of my beef! Except that the pictures are part of the problem, and the real problem is the attitude of these editors.
No, I don't accept that it's necessarily okay to try and cash in on natural human desires*, because (a) that way extreme nastiness lies, and (b) the fantasy is at least partly created, not "natural". And it seems that these days the fantasy is getting more and more artificial, putting more and more pressure on women to at least try to match up. I'm not just talking about the idea of a woman as an always-on sex toy, but about the standards of looks and grooming that are applied.
And if you really doubt that the male idea of what women "should" be like is affected by the magazines (I could quote your own blog at you extensively, but that would be mean, and probably way too literalist), then I'm not going to talk to you until you've read The Beauty Myth. Now. Go go go. It's in the library under W for Naomi Wolf. What are you waiting for?
So while my beef probably should be, and also is, with the readers, they have less responsibility for being manipulated than the editors do for manipulating. Seriously.
_____
* Although you are also right about women trying to convince their men to buy flowers because they've heard that's what Nice Men Do. And yes, by the way, I do have issues with the culture that promotes a relationship model based on the man buying stuff, and the woman putting out as a reward. Although that's yet another digression I'm trying not to make...
Demosthenes, I'm confused. I just checked Glo and Cate's blogs, and neither of them have posted anything remotely like this today. Not remotely. Now, on Wednesday Cate posted a comedy quote about blokes, and on Tuesday Glo had a brief moment of confusion over a Trojan ad. But I'm not really understanding what's so negative about that. I'm sorry. I'm just not.
As for my post, again, sorry that you find it so very negative. I'm not sure exactly what part you claim you'd expect from lads. The knickers/pants investigation? Or the admission that lad mag readers are led to have unhealthy expectations?
Really, I don't think this is a negative post. I'm not complaining about men - at least, that was not my intention and I didn't mean it to seem that way. I am complaining about lad mags and the unreality they peddle, and the impact that has on real women. This is an issue close to my heart (not the lad mags so much as The Meedja generally, but this particular issue happens to be the conversation I was joining in). If you think I'm being unfair, I'll repeat my advice to X: go read The Beauty Myth, and then we'll talk.
But then I do think that should be prescribed reading for everyone, everywhere. (Maybe not in Tibet so much, or Amish villages, but pretty much everywhere.)
Don’t get me wrong I do agree with most of what you are saying there are plenty of derogatory and damaging images and representations of women in the media and recently there has been a downward spiral in content of “lad’s” mags. I just wanted to make the point there is a fine line between trying to stop these things and coming across as just trying to repress aspects of male sexuality you find distasteful. A lot of men get turned on by pictures of good looking naked/ scantily clad women and want to have causal sex. I don’t think anything in the media is going to change that.
Men’s magazines targeted at (ehem) older men like GQ and Men’s Health generally have better representation of women. So it is not all of them.
Good point about the pictures. Maybe you should post some pictures of muscled half naked Adonises holding babies or maybe firemen with big hoses – ironically of course.
Udtyv: The grown made as Liv Tyler sits on you.
Hey, a lot of *women* - straight ones even - get turned on by scantily clad girls and want casual sex! I have no desire to repress or change anyone's sexuality. (Nor do I find it "distasteful". Honestly.) It's unfortunate (and a bit weird, to me) that I've come off sounding like such a prude.
Adonises holding babies - who's stereotyping now, eh? Baby-cuddlers aren't a turn-on for all women. But I'm with you on the firemen. Your wish is my command.
Nope, no negativity here. At least not visible from where I sit.
Tough, complicated subject? Yes. These aspects - "lad mags and the unreality they peddle, and the impact that has on real women" - that's the focus I see. That impact, and the somewhat less obvious impact on men as well, is what's negative, imo.
A thousand scroobious blessings on you, Jam. I really needed a little support. (Apparently I'm a bit of a debating wuss.)
I agree with you. My husband suffers badly from the porn effect - thinking that women should be just like the ones in those magazines, and that porn is an accurate depiction of what real sex is supposed to look like.
Thank you! All these men telling me I was being negative, pfffft. I brought this up at my bonfire night party and was surrounded with a chorus of loud agreement. Huh.
Post a Comment