h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>they'll fantasise about being the glamorous women in the pictures, not about having sex with them.<

That makes sense. Women do have porn though, it's just not of the visual kind. And they call it erotica so they can still look down on regular porn.

Ooooooo, all the anti men stuff is coming out now,lol!

Funnily enough, I went into well-known piping maker/repairer recently on works business and I was actually shocked to see their own company-made topless calendar in A2 on the front of the customer counter.

Now, I dont actually really mind the odd calendar or picture here and there on 'shop floors and so on, so long as there's a level of respect about the place, too... (though I'm becoming more uncomfortable with it as I get older... Dont know why, I think I'm just more aware now of what it means when women become objects not human beings. And I dont like feeling like some men think that all women should want to be like those models) but on the front of the customer counter? I was extremely uncomfortable about it.

See, working for the PO has made me soft

As a male, neither do I!

I used to w*rk with a chap whose wife was stone deaf. So he used to speak in a loud booming voice, which could be embarrassing at times. Anyway, one of hs sayings was (booming voice), 'IT'S NO USE UNLESS YOU CAN FEEL IT' - a sentiment to which I have total sympathy .
Also, many TV programmes and satellite stations are nothing much better than soft porn, where the girls are moving around. Much more 'interesting' than a magazine

It is quite correct to point out that lads mags are crap , Its difficult to see why anybody reads them . However it is also fair to say that celebrity gossip mags aimed at an entirely female readership are also crap .
Its more a case of why would anybody read any of these magazines ?

Why is it that women so adamantly refuse to take the hint and sexually objectify men right back?

If you had ever seen me naked you would know !

What is the fascination of pictures of people's weddings ?

My newsagent seems to have reams of books devoted entirely to the nuptuals of famous people.

>Why is it that women so adamantly refuse to take the hint and sexually objectify men right back?<

Most men would be flattered to be sexually objectified. We don't couch our identities in our sexuality, it's just a fun thing that we like, it doesn't have any deep meaning.

It's why the lads mags sell. Nice s on one page, motorbikes on the next.

> It is quite correct to point out that lads mags are crap , Its difficult to see why anybody reads them . However it is also fair to say that celebrity gossip mags aimed at an entirely female readership are also crap .
Its more a case of why would anybody read any of these magazines ?
<

Exactly the point I was trying to get at.

I wouldn't put Vogue in the catergory we are discussing here. Although I do appreciate that comment was probably a joke.

.. now .. I read lads mags -of course, and like the rest of the world- at the dentist, more generally in waiting rooms.
I read those mainly because I like looking at nice s, big motorbikes, and shiny red sports cars. I know that it's not likely I'll come close to any of those; I know wouldn't like to own a sports car, and I traded in my big motorbike some twenty years ago but it's nice to look at the pictures and dream a little dream

and Hati doesn't mind me reading magazines .. I think

I's worth noting that the lads mags are struggling. We can expect some of them to disappear immininently.

I just want to pick up on:

>>His excuse is: 'It's a rather good piece of art'!

Isn't that a quite reasonable excuse? Or is it wholly illegitimate to express aesthetic - or even sexual - appreciation of images of naked women? The conventioan wisdom is that there are different categories of image, from art to erotica to porn. I'm not at all how to make the distinction, though. For example - Liverpool's Walker Art Gallery has many (godawful) pieces of Victoriana by the likes of Alma-Tadema and Burne-Jones depicting 'Scenes from a Seraglio' etc. etc. Is something like this:
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/collections/19c/moore.aspx
anything other than Victorian softcore?
(The same Gallery also has some gay soft porn by a well-known artist/ national treasure: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/collections/20c/hockney.aspx ... and here's some C19th gay softcore I've just noticed: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/collections/19c/thornycroft.aspx )

And then there's my favourite piece of Greek statuary in the British Museum:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/galleries/ancient_greece_and_rome/room_23_sculpture.aspx
I challenge anyone to find me a nicer arse!

OK - so I'm being provocative (and rather obvious) here - and I certainly not intersted in the ladmag convergence of laydeez, cars, binge drinking and gore myself - but: *serious question* What's wrong with pictures of and ass? What's the dividing line between art and porn?

('If it's in focus, it's porn.')

My typing's crap today.

<>

what?? the guy with the beard and the bedsheets?

What's wrong with pictures of s and ass?

Well, nothing. I like 'em as much as the next chap My point above was that I can't see how (2-Dimensional) images in Lad's Mags can compte with the moving images of TV.

My favourite Lad's Mag used to 'Mayfair'. It had very tasteful (non-gynaecalogical) shots of pretty girls (girl next door type) with big s. It also had features of vintage cars, motor bikes, aircraft, hang-gliding etc etc. And then there was the Carrie cartoon

>>what?? the guy with the beard and the bedsheets?

No. No.2.

>>It had very tasteful (non-gynaecalogical)

So is the dividing line between 'taseful' and 'tasteless' whether the genitalia are in clear view? If so - why?

In general, IMO, genitalia (male and female)are ing ugly; s are beautiful

And yet the paintings of Georgia O'Keefe, in which she portrays flowers as allusions to genitals are generally deemed tasteful and beautiful.

And see also :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardthebonobo/2681201588/in/set-72157606243691580/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardthebonobo/11189376/in/set-305298/

Forgot the O'Keefe example:
http://humanflowerproject.com/images/uploads/okeefe-canna.jpg

'...in which she portrays flowers as allusions to genitals are generally deemed tasteful and beautiful.'

Well, yes flowery allusions are beautiful - and conjure up a nice fragrance. ('If little girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice, how come they taste of tuna')

However, when I said that 'genitalia are ugly', referring to the 'gynaecological shots', I meant what are sometimes referred to as 'split beaver' shots

Remember, A825671 is a warm