I know that the majority of women masturbate, but that much fewer of them use porn- I know, many of you do, but stay with me- because there’s no sentiment in it, just intercourse. Of course, you’ll be apt to jump on me for stereotyping women, but I just said: WOMEN USE PORN, and I’ll add NOT ALL WOMEN ARE SENTIMENTAL/WANT TO GET MARRIED GIRLS WHO NEED EMOTION IN THEIR PORN.
But I think we can agree that a lot, if not most, women steer clear of porn and use their own fantasies (which include sentiment) when masturbating.
Playgirl sells, apparently; now we have a Playgirl channel, if it’s still on; as Tina Fey said, it’s probably watched mostly by gay men. My question is: if there was a maxim-like magazine for women- one that had a hot famous guy on the cover, like Colin Farrell or Ben Affleck, in his underwear, and inside the magazine were… articles like you’d find in a women’s magazine maybe?.. but also with pictures like Maxim, with hot guys in their tighty whiteys, boxers, etc., in sexually alluring poses- would you buy it?
I would not. I can’t think of any way a publisher could market such a magazine to me that wouldn’t make me assume it’s just a cover for a softcore gay men’s mag.
I think Cosmo and their ilk have figured out the version of that formula that works for women already. Maxim was an answer to the Cosmo for men problem. I don’t think you can reverse it directly.
I assume the main part of said magazine would be semi nude/sexually explicit (but no naughty bits showing) photos of men? I’ll pass.
See, I am a totally straight woman. I love men, I really do. Men are great. Man body= TOTALLY hot.
Man body in a little g string? Not cute. Man trying to be all sexy and what not? Icky.
Strangely, I have no issue with looking at women. Heck, given the choice, I’d rather look at the Maxim style photos of women. I’ve discussed this with many females and we agree that: the male body is all jagged and pokey and not easy to look at.
The female body, OTOH, is pretty in all it’s forms. Soft, curvy, neat looking. This is the same reason that my straight female friends and I go to a female strip club- the girls are pretty to look at (plus, being straight, the sexual element is kinda gone and it just becomes fun). Male strip clubs would be creepy. I don’t want some dude’s wang flopping on my face.
What Shagnasty said, the perspectives are too different in character be reversible.
ie
I can’t even comprehend buying a male romance novel. The concept has no appeal on any level whatsoever and yet many women just eat them up. The notion that Men are fromm Mars & Women are from Venus may be trite and sexist in some respects, but there is a grain of truth to the aspect that heterosexual male and female hot buttons are quite different.
No - mostly because guys trying to be sexy is pretty - unsexy.
The hottest guy I ever saw on a magazine cover turned out to be KD lang getting a shave from Cindy Crawford. There’s just something about a guy posing that’s really - feminine. That doesn’t turn my crank at all.
Well, it’s not a direct reversal, (like with the magazines,) but I think I agree with one of my college literature and culture professors who said that the ‘masculine romance’ – ie, the male equivalent to women’s romance novels, are adventure stories, sword & sorcery fantasy, and that sort of thing… all the way back to beowulf, maybe. Of course, in those sorts of stories ‘getting the girl’ is sometimes reduced to a cherry on top (as it were) compared to the ass-kicking and the partying with henchmen and well-wishers.
Does that seem appropriate to the rest of the guys in this thread?
No, and most women won’t for a variety of reasons.
First of all, our culture views female bodies as more aesthetically pleasing than male bodies. Both men and women will testify to the ‘fact’ that women are better on the eyes then men and therefore, better to view in the nude. This is not biologically based but cultural, there have been many cultures where the opposite is true.
Secondly, in our society, women are not supposed to do ‘dirty’ things like viewing porn. Studies have shown that some women are either oblivious to their own arousal or in denial of it.
Thirdly, women as a group as less visually based then males are. That’s why, as other posters have noted, females are more likely to read steamy romance novels and males are more likely to view girly magazines. This is one of the reasons why paraphilias, particularly object fetishes, are virtually unheard of among women, but not uncommon among men. Along these same lines, even if a woman is physically turned on by visual aspects, she is more likely to enjoy a video or a series of pictures which tell a story then the pictures by themselves.
Finally, there is more variation among women as to what is attractive among men than among men towards women. There is suggestion that a waist 70% of the diameter of the hips is regarded as universally attractive by men, while what a woman finds attractive can depend on her time of the month. Studies have shown that while ovulating, women on average tend to prefer male faces that show greater expressions of testosterone than those which do not. When asked to pick a male they would most prefer to have a one night stand with, women tend to pick these males. However, when they are asked to pick the one they regard as most suitable for a long term partnership, women tend to lean more towards men with more feminine features, suggesting less testosterone.
You don’t have to worry about me stealing your idea.
I’d buy it if it had photos in some kind of context. I don’t really have any interest in seeing hot guys standing around with pants on unless I have some reason to believe they’re not just idiot models. Like if it was going to be actors I like and extremely hot photos of them I’d buy it. The thing about photos of guys with their clothes on is that half naked hot guys are kind of everywhere. To make it sexy they need to demonstrate that they have some kind of alpha qualities because otherwise, really, you are really looking at a photo of someone who might make a nice husband or dad for your kids. Modelling is kind of not a sexy male activity and it’s hard to get past the fact that the guy’s just modelling.
I’ve seen Playgirl and it’s so bad. What woman wants to look at flaciddo domingo? It’s the worst.
I was referencing that in my post, I should have said. And to expand, to pick a man you just want to have sex with he shouldn’t look like he spends a lot of time standing around pretending to chop wood in order to have his photo taken chopping wood because that’s not very testosterony either.
Oh, I agree! It’s the posing itself that I find un-sexy. I think the male body is beautiful, but the act of posing is what puts me off the idea of magazines featuring guys in underwear. I realize this is completely cultural. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a guy who poses in his underwear, but it doesn’t do anything for me personally. Even though I lean a little to the frothing feminist side of the fence, it’s obvious to me that I still picked up that cultural baggage of accepting the idea of women as the object of a sexualized photograph and thinking it’s silly and not very masculine when men are featured the same way.
Remember that buzz a few years ago about the commercial that showed a bunch of women in the office getting all hot and bothered by the hunky construction worker guy across the street? (I think it was for diet Coke.) It’s interesting about what a stir that created – I think some people were offended by it, some because they believe it’s wrong for men to oogle women, and not appropriate to make it humorous when the roles are reversed. But I think it was a very successful commercial because it did show something that was true – (some) women will get a kick out of seeing a hunky guy and part of the appeal is that he’s not trying to look sexy for the benefit of the women, he’s trying to build an office building or whatever manly thing it was that he was supposed to be doing. In the narrative of the commercial, that is. Of course, the actor playing the construction worker is obviously a guy who is posing for the camera, but it’s too early in the morning to deconstruct a diet pop commercial.
Both the OP and this post made me think of those teen idol mags. Do they still exist? In my early teens we’d go all goo goo gaa gaa over pix of Shawn Cassidy and Scott Baio and Leif Erickson. And they were presented in the context of follow his career, get to know his likes and dislikes just like you would with a new boyfriend, and enter our contest for the chance to meet him!!! The context wasn’t so much about how much of his flesh you could see (usually enough to get the idea) but how delusional you could make yourself as to whether you might actually have a relationship with him.
