February 7, 2001 7:09 AM   Subscribe

Feminist fun for the whole family: Maxim vs Cosmo. What's the difference, really?
posted by rklawler (52 comments total)
So many links.. brain overloading.. so many scantily clad women..
posted by zempf at 8:09 AM on February 7, 2001

Ummm...half-naked women on the outside and unintelligent articles on sex and shopping that contribute to gender stereotypes on the inside. Sound the same to me. I've never read Maxim though, it's probably better than Cosmo.
posted by crushed at 8:54 AM on February 7, 2001

On a completely unrelated note, the bytchandbytes.com link ("fun" in the original post) looks an awful lot like thinkgeek.com.
posted by jchalmers at 9:00 AM on February 7, 2001

Maxim actually has some good articles. They've pretty much taken many of the ones you'd normally see in Men's Health, and added other things. Some of the articles in Maxim are similar to what you'd find on "When attack."
posted by Cavatica at 9:16 AM on February 7, 2001

Err, When Animals/Humans/Creatures attack, that should be.
posted by Cavatica at 9:18 AM on February 7, 2001

Maxim: "Don't you wish you could touch these tits?"

Cosmo: "Shouldn't you be worried that these aren't your tits?"
posted by Skot at 9:21 AM on February 7, 2001

HAHAHHAHAHAH! Skot! that is *brilliant*, that.
posted by maura at 9:22 AM on February 7, 2001

The former tenant in our apartment failed to forward his Playboy subscription and I have a co-worker who (for some reason) tends to buy Maxim, Gear and a number of the rest of the "lad" magazines, and what I've discovered is that the "lad" magazines are, compared to Playboy, vitriolically mysoginistic and totally obsessed with getting and using women as best as one can, whereas Playboy has, at worst, a sportingly casual attitude toward sex and women (acknowledging that Hef and his "girlfriends" are a cartoon, not a role model), and frequently seems to provide a quite mature and feminist-friendly take on sex, love and relationships.

And the photographry is far more "hardcore" (in the sense of objectivifying the models as sex objects) than Playboy, notwitstanding the partial and/or tasteful nudity there.
posted by MattD at 10:17 AM on February 7, 2001

Hmmm... as a member of a house that has a Maxim subscription.. well, we just think it's damn funny.
posted by tj at 12:13 PM on February 7, 2001

Maxim may be funny to people who can look at it with an 'ironic distance', but I think far too many people take it seriously. Never underestimate the stupidity of humankind, men and women alike.

Literature (if it can be called that), such as Maxim is a dangerous tool in the hands of people who have never had to think about the very real sexism that exists today. I'm not an advocate of censorship and I'm glad that publishers are bold enough to publish magazines like Maxim...because well...it lets me know exactly where I stand, as a woman, and no I haven't come a long way baby.

Misogynist mags such as Maxim definitely promote an unhealthy view of the opposite sex. With some men regarding women as sex objects that have, through the feminist movement, become too clever and thus need to be manipulated, to be kept in line. And on the the flip side of the coin some women now mistrust men who read these mags, even though it be "all in good fun.". I must agree with the writer of the article that when I see a man with a copy of Maxim, my respect for him greatly diminishes, try as I might to 'live and let live'. I may now think of him as a base, sex crazed and dull human being.

Basically and finally, I believe that these magazines, demean the human experience and reduce relationships into struggles between the sexes. When , in reality, our lives are full and rich with a variety of experience, not the least of which is fulfilling interaction with members of the opposite sex.

posted by fiery at 12:52 PM on February 7, 2001

New account just for that, huh?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:54 PM on February 7, 2001

well, if you're a current member who made a new account just to post anonymously, shame on j00! Have some balls! But if you really are a new member, well, then welcome to MeFi :)
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:55 PM on February 7, 2001

I am a new member and that is my first posting.
Thanx for the welcome.
posted by fiery at 12:57 PM on February 7, 2001

Oh, well, I really am sorry. I thought you were someone else, by your wording...
How embarrassing. I really am sorry.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:59 PM on February 7, 2001

Helluva good first post. Welcome, fiery. :-)
posted by frykitty at 1:02 PM on February 7, 2001

sonofsamiam, i hope you can now read my post without the original bias you had placed on it. you made me chuckle.
posted by fiery at 1:27 PM on February 7, 2001

Well, now I am afraid to reply ;)
I dunno. The scandal-y clad women in Maxim are not forced to be there. I do not see why the mag is any worse than pornography or even Cosmo (now I know you did not explicity say this, but I'm thinking it :) .
Ok, here goes... you don't like this because it demeans the subjects' humanity (right?) but they are willing participants in the deal. They get paid. Are you against prostitution? Or do you feel that adults have the right to do what they want with their own bodies?
I sort of feel that if these men didn't have a certain worldview already, they wouldn't be attracted to material that promotes that. The magazine is just trying to make money, and they've found a successful niche. (I predicted they would fail)

MattD -- would you say there are certain poses of women that are "too hardcore"? That are simply not appropriate?

posted by sonofsamiam at 1:42 PM on February 7, 2001

Who cares if anyone is getting paid or not? Sure women willfully pose and aren't being forced, nor are the people buying it. The publishers aren't exploiting the models directly, just using them in an exploitative fashion to sell as many magazines as possible, by simply going against the grain of treating women equally, and with respect.

This in essence is the problem, because of maxim's popularity and reach, and the way relationships are dealt with within its pages (from fiery's comment above):

Basically and finally, I believe that these magazines, demean the human experience and reduce relationships into struggles between the sexes. When , in reality, our lives are full and rich with a variety of experience, not the least of which is fulfilling interaction with members of the opposite sex.

Very thoughtful stuff.
posted by mathowie at 1:52 PM on February 7, 2001

I didn't say it and I won't. The one thing we can't be stripped of is our humanity. We are human, no matter how disgusting and hateful. No matter what is 'done' to us or we do.

I understand about willing participants and if I was to dispute that I would run out of arguments very quickly. I just wonder if thats what people want their reality to look like. I mean, is this 'Maxim' world really the world we want to live in? Do we believe that 'Maxim' girls are happy and fulfilled in their objectification? Do we care? I think we should.

Anyway its not so much the pictures as the over-the-top sexist dialogue.

As to men who read the magazine, already having a certain world view. That may or may not be true, a large portion of the people I know who read the magazine are very young and still in their 'formative' years. Why reinforce a negative view?

I said I wasn't against it. I mean it, I don't want to candy-coated world (like the one Maxim provides) but I certainly don't want people with these views to be hidden from sight. I just really think its a shame that we seperate ourselves so thoroughly by such silly things as difference of sex.
posted by fiery at 2:06 PM on February 7, 2001

right on mathowie, liked your comment about being paid.
posted by fiery at 2:07 PM on February 7, 2001

Very thoughtful stuff
Is it?
Okay then, here's some thinking. What actually is the human experience? Is it running through fields sniffing flowers and making passionate love to your favoured soul mate or is it something else? What is it like to actually work for a living? is it more demeaning to mindlessly pack stuff on shelves or to mindlessly pose for a camera? Or to work in soot and shit down a coal mine for a pitance of pay? Is being sexualised more demeaning than being turned into an automaton whose function is to align bread and say "have a nice day"?
I believe that sexuality is part of life. I don't see how being objectified as sexual is particularly different from being objectified as a device for removing coal from a tiny, poorly lit tunnel 2 miles underground except that it's better payed and has better hours and doesn't give you crippling lung disease.
Those are my thoughts. Thankyou.
posted by davidgentle at 2:09 PM on February 7, 2001

Sonofsamiam -- it isn't for me to say what is "too" hardcore -- just that these, nominally mainstream, publications have both from their articles and their photos a distinctively more predatory / objectifying approach to women and sex than does soft-porn mag Playboy.

It does bother me a bit to see such views given such prominence in the magazine distributing world. Unlike porn (which I think is fairly universally intended, and intepreted by all but idiots and perverts, to represent an unreal fantasy) Maxim and like ilk seem to posture as "service journalism" (a la Cosmo), instructing an audience on actual ways to live their lives. This is a poor, poor service they perform for young men who don't know any better, and the women who get within their radar.
posted by MattD at 2:11 PM on February 7, 2001

fiery, I can hardly disagree with you now. So I aim this at the roof :)
I do think, however, and this is a crucial point, in my eye, (wow, enough clauses?) that as long as all participants are willing, we have very little room to object. Simply because the actions in question can promote bad behavior that can harm others does not mean the actions in question are "bad." It's a slopery slip and all that :P
We can not hold the publishers accountable. We each have free will, and distasteful as it may seem to some, the writers, readers, models and advertisers all have the right to print,read and make money off of trash.

(Eh, maybe it should be said that I have only read the magazine a couple times myself, it never interested me.)

I think everyone does know better, MattD. You know better than treat other people badly, unless you are a genuine sociopath. Poor excuses for selfish behavior.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:19 PM on February 7, 2001

davidgentle, not so gentle, I'm not quite sure why you are so offended? It seems you are reading a lot into the text that wasn't even hinted at. I never said anything about objectification as the ultimate evil or sniffing daisies.
??? I'm sorry you hate your job.

MattD, very good thoughts.

sonofsamiam and all, just to be absolutely clear....I am not blaming or holding anyone accountable. I think that the trouble with 'lad' mags is that they tout themselves as informative, learning tools. And while they may have a few good facts and pretty pictures, I fear that they are the quintessential and therefore only form of contemporary information sought by many people.

And its not the biggest problem with the world today, but one of many that we should regard, study, discuss and GET OVER IT!:)

I'm laughing, really.
posted by fiery at 2:38 PM on February 7, 2001

Misogynist mags such as Maxim definitely promote an unhealthy view of the opposite sex. With some men regarding women as sex objects that have, through the feminist movement, become too clever and thus need to be manipulated, to be kept in line...

I posted the question as an extension to the subtopic on the feminism thread yesterday, basically because I wanted to get some input on how boy magazines and girl magazines are viewed. So I did a quick search of articles that mentioned Cosmo and Maxim and presented a collage of viewpoints on Maxim's societal impact. However, I was quite surprised at how quickly the question (in most of the articles and in this thread) was turned from a simple comparison to the damnation of Maxim and similar boy magazines.

While Maxim is, yes, a magazine that promotes an unhealthy view of women, I personally do not see how different from Cosmo it is in this respect. I don't quite get how Cosmo's weekly lists of 101 ways to catch a man and keep him sexually pleased are any less demeaning to women than Maxim's equally predatory (but often shorter) lists of how to catch a gal and be sexually pleased. Except in respect to readership, the content and pictures are eerily similar in their degradation of women.

So my basic question is why is Maxim targeted for promoting unhealthy sexual attitudes so much more than Cosmo?
posted by rklawler at 4:01 PM on February 7, 2001

So does this make me a troll?
posted by rklawler at 4:14 PM on February 7, 2001

We just talked about this briefly in the Farrell/feminist thread, but I guess I'll post my thoughts here. As a happy Maxim subscriber, the basic argument I use to defend the mag is very simple: don't take it seriously. I read it, there's pretty women, and funny articles. Yes, Maxim actually has funny articles, though the majority of its bashers don't bother to try reading any of it after seeing the cover. In fact the writers for Maxim are mostly very witty, and inside there is everything from sex tips and beautiful women to reports on current events like the Russian sub sinking. And women can't complain TOO much; at least a number of them write in every month saying how those sex tips have improved relationships throughout the country. ;)

I do not think that Maxim itself promotes any bad views of women. It is the ignorance of people who think the editors actually mean everything they say seriously that should be blamed. It's obvious that the editors of Maxim aren't telling everyone that men own women. They are just having some fun. That's what the magazine should be considered: pure fun, and nothing beyond that.

On the original topic, I don't read Cosmo regularly (heh), but I have read it before, and rklawler is pretty much right. There's just as many articles in there to help women "manipulate" men as Maxim has the other way around, but again it's not something to take offense to. And Cosmo is a whole lot more boring to read.
posted by swank6 at 4:32 PM on February 7, 2001

fiery:I'm not offended. I'm asking a question. I don't hate my job (I'm unemployed). I'm using other jobs to suggest that we place an undue focus on unpleasent (assuming that you find those jobs unpleasent) jobs that have something to do with sex.
posted by davidgentle at 5:01 PM on February 7, 2001

I personally do not see how different from Cosmo it is in this respect.

Me, neither. They are both really lame and flip-sides of the same coin.
posted by amanda at 5:14 PM on February 7, 2001

Cosmo, I think, is actually a better example of demeaning sexist junk than is Maxim. Now, I haven't actually read Maxim, but from what I know it's fairly sexist and saying that isn't in some way causing damage is a little optimistic and myopic. However...Cosmo is definitely demeaning and sexist not only for women but for men as well. How they manage to pull that one off, I'm not sure.

fiery: I think I'm gonna like you. :)
posted by crushed at 7:00 PM on February 7, 2001

welp, here's my base response to the whole thing.

i'd read maxim over playboy anyday. playboy's fucken dull these days. the pictorials are sanitised, the articles are even less interesting than they used to be. it's the girlie mag that went pc. fuck that.

maxim has sexier girls, looking hot, not what would be sexy girls if they weren't so airbrushed and expressionless. and the reading content is lively and humorous.

and cosmo's pretty good too. i'll read that one.
posted by titboy at 10:10 PM on February 7, 2001

I completely disagree with titboy. "Content" in Maxim consists of mostly misogynist jokes and rather vapid articles. Cosmo: pseudo-surveys, "authoritive" lists on inane subjects, and inane babbling that serves to make any woman feel utterly inadequate. The idea that a woman can't satisfy her man without reading a list of "what to do's" only serve to obliquely tell her: "you're too ignorant" or "you're not good enough as you are." Much of Maxim's "content" on flirting ("You're not interesting/creative enough") and sex ("You're doing it wrong") falls in a similar vein. I will concede that Maxim regularly makes me laugh out loud--sometimes at their jokes, and sometimes at their "content"--and that its irreverent tone makes it that much more readible than Cosmo. Cosmo can be amazingly depressing, despite the pretty colors: utterly depthless without the entertainment value of Maxim to redeem it, and pictures and articles that seem hellbent on convincing the reader that she needs the products they advertise.

Playboy is strange: it treats you like an adult on one page, and then slaps you with adolescent humor the next. The effect is schizophrenic. This month's issue has a nifty interview with Vince McMahon--it's insightful in how masculinity is constructed by entertainment, though more through an analysis of his assumed persona than anything else--and also an informative article about various details behind the Survivor phenom. But then, most of the remainder degenerates into lewd jokes/cartoons, or fawning over women and Hef's playboy "lifestyle." I'm always on the verge of dismissing Playboy as mere trash and cancelling my subscription, but it never fails to have at least one article that intrigues me in some way. And it's very popular with my friends--no surprises.

If "interesting content" is the criteria, I'd pick Playboy any month. Maxim is little more than "The Man Show" on paper, except with better-paid models. I see no redeeming quality whatsoever in Cosmo. This isn't a jab at readers of any of these publications; it's just that many of the cited articles (and the columnists who write them) are wholly bent on using them as fodder for their own agenda, rather than speaking about the magazines themselves.

For example: "As a woman, but first, as a thinking, hyper-analytical, introspective person, I wonder if the missive of Maxim is to confuse and confound members of the female persuasion. " No, it's to sell magazines. Isn't it transparant? And why is she so eager to qualify herself? (Cosmo: "15 ways to make men listen to you"?)

The articles which approach the issue from a "sexism is bad" perspective add nothing new to the argument, and even worse only polarizes the genders even more. Men and women in our consumer-driven "The Sims" culture will continue to objectfy others and themselves, no matter what kind of trash they read. Blaming the other half of the population isn't going to change that.
posted by DaShiv at 1:06 AM on February 8, 2001

I apologize for the length of what eventually became a minor diatribe--I caught up to the thread late and was trying to address everything at once. Note to self: bite-sized pieces next time. :)
posted by DaShiv at 1:08 AM on February 8, 2001

rklawler: i agree with you about cosmo and maxim. i don't endorse either and didn't mean to damn maxim more than any other. i'd also like to point out that my comments on maxim can be applied to any number of publications which may promote bad views of the opposite gender and even worse views of your own gender.

swank6: "I do not think that Maxim itself promotes any bad views of women. It is the ignorance of people who think the editors actually mean everything they say seriously that should be blamed"

well, obviously swank , but then thats the whole prbolem isn't it?

thanks crushed.
posted by fiery at 1:10 AM on February 8, 2001

Hmmmm, sorry, got to butt in here.

After living with someone with an eating disorder, it struck me how much of her behaviour was exactly the same as almost all of the women I have known (just slightly more extreme)

The daily calorie count that they carry in their head, reading the fat content of every food that they buy)

This is how many women see themselves, as objects.

Do I objectify women? Of course I do. Why? Because I was taught how to.

Why does it bother me? Well, I care about my friends and it hurts me to see them in pain, pain that I am partly responsible for.

Before all the men's lib guys jump down my throat (oo-er), Two things to remember;

Chances are your mother feels the same way about herself as most of my freinds.

Imagine a world where the size of your penis was all that mattered.
posted by fullerine at 1:45 AM on February 8, 2001

My problem with Maxim/Cosmo is not the objectification thing itself as much as the very constricted range of that objectification. In their definitions of 'beautiful', as in pretty much every other aspect of their journalism, Maxim and Cosmo are middlebrow and cowardly. They cover predictable music, predictable films, predictable cars, predictable 'kit', predictable bodies and predictable people and they do it in a boiled-down predictable way - in Maxim's case, using every tired old trope of sub-sub-sub-gonzo journalism.

All I ask from a magazine is a fresh perspective and a little surprise: MaximCosmo style writing feels dead from the first sentence.
posted by freakytrigger at 2:54 AM on February 8, 2001

i don't want intelligent articles in my titty mags, i want light hearted chuckles and sexy girls. when i want something grittier to chew on, i'll pick up time magazine or something.

what i find so droll is how people spend so much time trying to hide their base instincts and desires, in the hope that people will think them a better person. but they'll still walk down the street, and check out the arse on the girl or guy walking ahead of them, and think to themselves "damn that's some fine arse, gimme somma that!"

i'm not interested in arguments about whether objectifying the opposite sex is evil or not. you can talk about how wrong you think it is all you like, but you'll still do it.

posted by titboy at 3:04 AM on February 8, 2001

If base instincts is all it's about, why do you want articles in your 'titty mags' in the first place?
posted by freakytrigger at 3:16 AM on February 8, 2001

freakytrigger: Exactly. The banality of Maxim/Cosmo's content selection is striking.

titboy: Nowhere did I try to "hide [my] base instincts and desires." Regarding my generalizations of "men and women," "our consumer-driven culture," "objectfying others and ourselves"--if you see a way for me as a man (1) subscribing (2) to a pornographic (3) magazine to escape those 3 charges on my own part, please show me how. I certainly didn't include it for myself in what I had written, and I wasn't trying to dodge any bullets.

The initial post asks, "Maxim and Cosmo. What's the difference anyways?" If they both sell sex through pictures of attractive, overidealized, and scantily clad women, then the only remaining difference lies in their textual content and how their ads function. (Maxim's ads are lifestyle-related, Cosmo's ads are beauty-related.) And ultimately, both magazines exploits how the culture objectifies and sexualizes women to rake in the mighty buck. Why, then, is Maxim more guilty than Cosmo, when Cosmo does it in a much more insidious, overtly commercial, and witless way by systematically inculcating inadequacy upon women?

And lastly: yes, people do read Playboy's articles and refer to them as "content." But the objective ones do not deny that the magazine is pornographic.
posted by DaShiv at 4:29 AM on February 8, 2001

In the beginning Cosmopolitan and Playboy were considered very fresh and cutting edge indeed. The problem is Cosmo and Playboy just got tired in a marketplace where we are so overexposed and
gluttonous for more, more, more.

I'm don't know about Maxim but you can bet I'll have one by this afternoon to see what the fuss is all about. I surely hope no one would promoting that we do away with any type of good frivilous bathroom reading material. That would be shocking! :)
posted by oh posey at 5:55 AM on February 8, 2001

i don't want intelligent articles in my titty mags, i want light hearted chuckles and sexy girls.

First of all...ew. How did a discussion concerning the differences between a men's mag and women's mag turn into learning about someone's sexual habits? Second of all, why do you feel the need to be so defensive, titboy? We were, as I said, having a discussion about the differences between two magazines and which was more demeaning, and you take it as an attack on your right to look at half-naked (or fully naked) women.

Third of all, I wasn't aware Maxim was trying to sell itself as a "titty mag". I was under the impression it was trying to sell itself as a fairly mainstream men's mag, like GQ or Esquire, only with less intelligence.

I have no problem with men's porn mags just as I have no problem with women's. When you attempt to pass off completely demeaning material, demeaning to both sexes, that contributes to even more problems in male/female relationships, as a mainstream publication however, it's different. Cosmo I believe is actually worse than Maxim in this sense, because while Maxim is a men's mag that reinforces male stereotypes and objectifies women, Cosmo is operating under the guise of a "modern woman's" mag but doing the same thing as well as reinforcing female stereotypes. It's telling women that all they need worry about is satisfying their man and how they look. With the occassional article about a well-known "hottie". (Ugh.)

Not only that, but, from what I've seen, Maxim tends to put women on their covers who are actually pretty as well as being closer to the average body size of most women. If your going to objectify women at least make sure they've got the looks for it. ;)
posted by crushed at 6:12 AM on February 8, 2001

Tit : you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that checking out someone's arse is in some way our "animal instincts" and not learned behaviour.

Doesn't the fact you are doing this on a debate about the objectification of women conducted through computers over the World Wide Web make you think that perhaps, you know, we might have, ummm, moved on.

Why is it, that I am called an "animal" every time I stove the head in of some Men's Lib tosser, yet he's being true to his "instincts" when he has wank over a picture of Katie Holmes' arse?
posted by fullerine at 6:12 AM on February 8, 2001

I find it rather amusing that everyone here that thought the Curious George W. link awhile ago thinks that the writing in Maxim is vapid. True, it is far from high literature, but they do no take themselves too seriously like GQ, Esquire, etc. (consequently, that's why it does so well)

Maxim is actually not as mysognyistic as it's reputation. (although some of it's readers are) The funniest(and probably most accurate) description I've heard of it is "GQ for straight men"

as an aside... you people are taking 'titboy' seriously?!?!
posted by tj at 7:34 AM on February 8, 2001

Imagine a world where the size of your penis was all that mattered.

I would be a kind and just king.
posted by thirteen at 7:43 AM on February 8, 2001

Not only that, but, from what I've seen, Maxim tends to put women on their covers who are actually pretty as well as being closer to the average body size of most women.

Being size 14, of course. Maxim's got a long way to go. :)

The "pretty" thing is subjective, but one of the reasons I stopped reading the mag a long time ago was due to the proliferation of "barely legal" - fairly young - stars of stage and screen being featured on the covers.

Anyway, some of the content is worth a glance, perhaps, but the majority was just crap to me.
posted by hijinx at 7:59 AM on February 8, 2001

Without intending to pick on anyone, I think the phrases "GQ for straight men" and "some of the content is worth a glance" qualify as, at best, damnation with faint praise. Which is more than I can muster.

Cosmo/Maxim/Vogue/Details/ad nauseam sell everyone short. Literally. Most of the "articles" are either reheated vamps on some tired, half-baked sexual theme, or are complete blowjobs for their advertisers ("What's Hot In Wristwatches This Fall?"). The rest of the "content" is, of course, advertising.

If that weren't bad enough (and it is), they sell a less-than-complete picture of actual adult sexual relationships. It might be easy to make sweeping generalizations that men are fuck-hungry dolts and that women are marriage-hungry greedheads, but it doesn't make it fucking smart to say so, over and over.

Muh. Here I go again posting before morning coffee. Cranky boy signing off.
posted by Skot at 8:25 AM on February 8, 2001

Are you guys sure you are actually looking at the entire Maxim magazine, or are you just flipping through it at the newstands and only noticing the pictorials?

In my hands right now I hold the current issue of Maxim, which includes pictorials, of course, but other things too. For example, page 92 begins a parody version of Monopoly called Dotcomopoly, which pokes fun at the fairly recent Internet bubble burst. Several pages later there is a spread on Dream Machines, with cool pictures of cool cars. And again a little bit further, there is a serious report on that incident where some teen went nuts on a plane, and the other passengers ended up beating him to death before they landed. 1 or 2 issues ago I remember an interesting account of the Kursk accident (remember that?) based on the information that we've learned since it happened. No major news outlet seems to have covered it recently. Yes, Maxim has some lewd humor about sex and the like, but they also have clean humor such as microwavable food reviews. If you actually read the entire magazine, you'll see that scantily clad women are only part of it, and there is actually a lot of reading in each issue. So Skot et all, there are more articles (yes articles) than just sex surveys (which are also pretty funny to read and by no means serious) and ads. All magazines have ads, what do you expect?
posted by swank6 at 10:31 AM on February 8, 2001

Yes, pretty is subjective. I just happen to think that women who don't resemble rakes in dresses and that don't look like they just stepped out a fashion ad (the scary skinny druggie look, in other words) are prettier. I wasn't aware of them using extremely young models though, that bothers me a bit.

Either way, basically I think we've all decided that Maxim is crap but Cosmo is worse. Right?

Oh and btw, thirteen?...do you promise? ;)
posted by crushed at 12:25 PM on February 8, 2001

I don't agree. ;P I love Maxim.

As for the youngest girl they've had, I think it's probably Kim Smith at 17 (maybe 18 now). But she looks about 20 something, heh. Jessica Alba at 19 comes next, other than those I think everyone is "average model age". If you're wondering, Kim Smith also the girl in all those 'N Sync videos, and Jessica Alba is the girl in Dark Angel.
posted by swank6 at 1:53 PM on February 8, 2001

swank6: I don't subscribe to Maxim, but it's hard to find a guy who doesn't have at least a few issues at their place. I guess it's time for me to do some more research. :) I certainly hope I was too quick to jump the gun at denouncing them, since the handful of issues I've read didn't have any articles that piqued my interest at all.
posted by DaShiv at 4:01 PM on February 8, 2001

crushed: i wasn't being defensive at all, i was just stating my opinion of the magazines for the sake of bluntly putting them in their places. these magazines function on fairly base levels, so i figured a base response couldn't hurt. and i'm pretty sure i didn't mention any of my sexual habits, although if you're asking ;)

i actually agree with you that cosmo is probably more harmful than maxim. it certainly does more to place physical stereotypes into the minds of young women.

and DaShiv: i wasn't attacking your opinion at all, i'm actually not even that sure that i read it. i was just attacking the intellectualising of base instinctual issues in general. and hey, if we all agreed, then what would there be left to discuss? :)
posted by titboy at 5:02 PM on February 8, 2001

Can't wait for the MeFi discussion when they launch Loaded in the US... You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
posted by flimjam at 2:59 AM on February 9, 2001

« Older Election Night at CNN called 'debacle' by panel   |   A good explanation of why a missile defense shield... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments