Blindone's Blog

Ok ,here's a point to ponder. It's something that I wrote about in my journal a ways back and has come back to haunt me.

SO here's my question to you: Is it just me or is the term and or definition of what porn is a two way street? Or is it all  one sided?

“Books and Magazines” (and not necessarily in that order)

When was the last time you browsed the magazine rack at the store? Next time that you do notice how many of the car magazines have women posing on them. Just what the hell do they have to do with the performance of the car? Not a damn thing; but they’re still there. Do I read those magazines? No actually I do not mainly because they deal with low riders and rice burners; neither of which hold any interest for me. The argument comes forth, but beautiful women and cars go together, and it’s been that way for years. I can’t argue that, I suppose; but that doesn’t make it right. You could always compromise, go ahead and put the women in there, but have them dressed in something other than a thong and a bra. (aka swim suit)

Then there are books. Most (not all) books written and targeted toward men, have some sort of sex and/or violence in them, and that’s why they’re men’s books. That’s why men read them, for the “action” content. I can read, say a Star Wars novel, there won’t be any sex and not any real graphic violence, but there’ll be action. That works for me. Or I can read a Richard Marcinko book and get all the gritty shoot ‘em up rompin’ stompin action that I can handle. (and loving it!)  My point is that unless I’m reading blank pages, (cause even the Bible has sex and violence), there’s no avoiding it. It really boils down to what and how much is acceptable.

But now that I think about it, I remember another issue that I have with the topic of books.

Now books written for “men” are called porno, smut, “ADULT “: however books written for women are called “romance novels”. 

Now re-read that last statement. Does that make any sense to you?!?!? Basically the same damn content and yet they are classified in two different ways. AND society sees them differently as well.  Women’s “Romance” novels are ok, shoot you can buy them darn near anywhere: and that’s ok. But place some “men’s” Romance novel next to it and look out!  Now granted to do that you’d have to clean up the title and cover a bit, but not the content.

Ok I’ll grant you that the typical men’s “romance” novel is a bit more graphic, but I’ve read a few of those women’s books; they don’t leave a whole lot to the imagination either.

SO why is it that the women’s books are ok and the men’s not? Having sex is having sex regardless how, or who it is written for.  AND most of those women’s books are about the same adulterous, cheating, shameless hussies that the men’s books are written about. So what’s the difference? 

Now I bet that got some of you turned up!?  I couldn’t resist the temptation to put that in.  But my question still stands: what is it about the women’s books that make them so much better than the men’s? If the answer is social pressure (and I suspect that it is), then that’s just plain wrong; because we are using a double standard to “judge a book by its content”.  Unacceptable is unacceptable, and who the content is written for doesn’t change that.

Women’s Magazines……………..

There are a zillion different kinds of magazines out there, and I’m not going to attack all of them; matter of fact I’ll barely scratch the surface. But I have to throw this one out there too; especially since I just filled your head with my feelings about books: male vs. female.

I touched briefly on the subject of car magazines, but like books there’s the whole genre of women’s magazines. And they aren’t hard to spot; every cotton pickin’ cash register has them piled all around them.  And this one includes magazines written for…..TEENAGERS ! Yikes !!!!

Piles and piles of magazines that come out weekly, monthly with smiling beauties (with their boobs have exposed) plastered all over the cover. With articles on everything from the latest way to drive your lover into a sexual frenzy, or how to tell if he’s really being true to you (or not), to the latest fall fashions, and everything in between.

Now if you take out the nude pictures from a typical Playboy, there isn’t much difference between the two, is there? That’s my point, the only real difference is the pictures and if they weren’t there, why would anyone have a problem?  I would and should, because the rest of the magazine is all geared toward sex in some form or fashion. And yet this is acceptable in the public’s eye. 

I mentioned teenagers, take a good look at the typical Seventeen magazine: a whole lot of articles are written with the intention of telling young gals, just what it takes to “bag” a guy. How to get “the look” just right. What’s hot (sexy) at the beach this summer, the latest and greatest make-up, and the world’s best advice on dating. Basically they (the magazines) are telling our teenage daughters what’s “hot” and what’s not. My question is what makes them the “experts”? Who are they to be telling my girls what’s right and wrong? DO you get my point? And I’ll take it one step further; why aren’t there any such magazines for teenage boys? Because that would be wrong………………prolly.

Now enter the world of the “new men’s magazines”……………they’re right on par with the Cosmo’s, and Glamour magazines. And it seems that just in the last couple of years there have been a dozen or so titles popping up. You won’t see fully naked women, but close and that makes them ok for the magazine racks. Again, as with the book issue, wrong is wrong; sugar coating it or dressing it up differently doesn’t change it one bit.

Do you understand the bias toward men’s reading: although not wholly unwarranted, it’s still slanted unfairly. Am I wrong here? Have I missed some important piece of the pie?  All things being equal; removing the obvious nudie pictures, there isn’t a lot of difference between the two: other than the fact that society sees men’s magazine as unholy trash to be hated and reviled. Don’t get me wrong, I am not necessarily supporting that kind of reading: my point being, as I have said the same stuff is sold to women and it’s ok. NO it’s not!!!  So why doesn’t anyone else see this? Why aren’t the same people who make all the noise about too much sex on TV and such making a peep about this side of the issue?

Geez, Have I beat this horse enough?!? I’m not sure; I may have to come back to it again: when I think of something else to add.