Friday, January 21, 2011

You have a problem with women?

The lady pictured above is Olivia Munn. She is quite an attrative woman. Recently, she has come under
controversy due to a magazine cover for Maxim Magazine.

Dan Gainor, Vice President of Business And Culture at The Media Research Center claims, "It’s disgusting. Maxim has moved their magazine from tawdry to full-on pornography.”

If by "pornagraphy", Mr Gainor means the photo is arousing, it is. However, I am also aroused by the top photo of Olivia. Is that porn as well?
I simply do not see anything to be concerned about here. It seems much less disturbing than offering someone, anyone, $100 to punch a sitting congressman, right Mr Gainor?

I dunno, what do you guys think?
Is this magazine cover over the top?  Should Miss Munn be hel liable 'cause she's so darned sexy?  


Senorita said...

Dan Gainor needs to pull his head out of his ass.

This is nothing ! I bet you he's buying hookers and blow on the side.

Olivia is beautiful !

Fireblossom said...

You only asked what the guys think, so I'll hush up.

Oh, that's no fun, I'm gonna talk!

The picture doesn't do anything for me either way. *shrugs* But if you post one of Joan Jett...

alana said...

It's because vaginas are so powerful that even the suggestion of one can make grown men lose their minds. It's a struggle us women-folk deal with everyday. You can't imagine what a burden it is.

Harry C Pharisee said...

The only thing I ever worry about with magazine covers is kids. I don't know about you mac, but in my town Maxim is not on the top rows, like other magazines with more sexualized themes and pictures. I have to consciously avoid the magazine aisle when I'm shopping with my son. -Not just due to Maxim of course.-

You don't give a six-year old boy or girl a fifty pound weight and demand them to lift it over their heads with one arm. They aren't developed enough to handle that. If you force the situation, they will hurt themselves, maybe permanently. Same with the info that goes into the brain.

Kids unfortunately have no choice in the matter when it comes to what they see or hear in their environment. We're basically demanding them to take in what they see when it comes to DVD, magazine, and video game covers, posters, etc. They aren't equipped to handle nudity and violence because they know to a degree exactly what their looking at and can't process it. If that exposure becomes prevalent kids get damaged.

I don't want sexually provocative pictures banned, and I'll man up in a conversation with adults if I'm asked, and say shit yeah I like porn! Using those exact words I'm sure.

But I believe it's necessary to keep our kids "desexualized" (except for understanding good touch/bad touch) until sex-ed. Puberty is where the brain starts being able to handle the information.

What that means for the magazine cover? It just ain't too much to ask to put Maxim on the top shelf.

Dan Gainor though? I'm thinkin SeƱorita's right. I give him the Harry C Pharisee award for douchebaggery and hypocrisy for the month of January. Congrats Dan, wherever you are... which is probably masturbating in your bathroom at home, to that great picture of Ms. Munn.

mac said...

Good points Harry.

Children do not know how to deal with sexuality. However, nudity is not sexual. I am not so sure seeing a nude woman will damage a child.

Even at that, Miss Munn was not nude. Sexy as hell, yes. But, there's really no more to be seen here than on any beach or public pool.

She just happens to have a very nice canvas to display her art ;-)

KrippledWarrior said...

It's not pornographic by my reconnoiter. But in America, Mr. Gainor is allowed his opinion, as well.

Harry C Pharisee said...

"However, nudity is not sexual."

That's more or less a good point, and I was remiss to not mention our culture's emphasis on covering up and consequently oversexualizing how "dirty" it is to uncover. As if.

If we were in a particular tribe with precious little qualms about nudity, breasts would be sexual and practical, or just there, same with the genitals.

We are not like those tribes though, nudity is tightly correlated with sexual arousal, and I stand by my original point about it being to a child's detriment if they see depictions (or real life situations) of violence or sexuality before they're biologically ready.

You got me thinkin though mac. It is our hyped up views on the human body, in part which set the standards for so much bullshit.

Thanks brotha.

mac said...

I even know some women, Harry, that not only show their breasts to children, but allow children to suckle at those breasts ;-)

I know, that's a silly statement. But, it demonstrates a point (maybe). Just because we sexualize certain body parts does not mean they are "sex organs".
Breasts are for feeding. Yet we can't see them due to our cultures insistence on sexualizing them... Why do we not put such restrictions on mouths. Surely, an inviting lip can be as ( if not more than) sexy as bewbs.
What about the guy who dates a hand model? Is it pornagraphic seeing her hands considering what she has done with them?

And, of course, one of my favorite places, the back of a woman's knee is not really a sexual place at all... But, you won't get far denying the appeal of the delicate flesh found there.

mac said...

Senorita, she isn't the only beautiful woman on this page :-)

FB, you're just picking on me. I meant "guys" in a generic unisexual way. But, thanks for your perspective.

Alana, agreed! I have lost my mind, so many times ;-)

Yes he is, KW. I am also allowed the opinion that Mr Gainor is an asshole. Of course, it's not just this issue. No, he's an all around asshole.

Jen said...

I think it's a beautiful picture. I think he is threatened by women who embrace their sexuality. Why are we classified by some as either whores or saints, and there can be nothing in between?

Rita said...

I think that Maxim cover was photo shopped...

I was very careful to monitor sexually explicit materials in the house when my son was growing up.
I wanted him to develop his sexuality normally or as Harry says, "desexualized".
But, I never thought about it with the girls. How, weird.
Happy to say, they all seem to have turned out OK.

Big Mark 243 said...

Harry C does make some great points. Children are not able to properly put into context what they see and are encouraged to emulate by being exposed to such imagery in picture, music and visual media like television or movies. That said, if we weren't as a society beholden to fairy tales, then instead of anal repression stoked in faith, we could have a society where such fires aren't stoked by picture of women. (who we can only have dreams about!! maybe that is why the Gainor cat has his panties in a bunch... you know, there have been those who protest much who have procivitities that run in contrast to their public postion, doncha know!).

Tit for Tat said...

Porn, really? If she's porn star I want video. ;)

Candice said...

I love her underwear!

mac said...

T4T, I'll get in line for that video too !

Jen, sing it. I could not agree more. I don't like the "whore" classification anyway. Men are rarely classified as whores. It's time for that double standard to die.

Of course it was photoshopped, Rita. Do we expect anything less from a glossy pictoral? Don't they do that with all the fashion magazines anyway? I think they may have used a little air brushing on her, you know, to cover any major(a) exposure ;-)

Mark, I see your, and Harry's point. However, this lady is not nude. She is sexy, but that's not a crime - YET.

Candice, I like her undies too. I would imagine she looks much better in them than I would though ;-)

GearHedEd said...

One word:


Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Well, if he hates that cover i suspect he's not a huge fan of RollingStone either...

Beach Bum said...

My only problem is that I am neither young and handsome or rich enough to attract Ms. Munn's attention. Maybe in my next life if I am lucky.

Mashuga Mom said...

Wow, I love her body and wish I could look that fuckin'amazing! Screw Dan.....She should flaunt it.

pboyfloyd said...

It's thought crime, pure and simple.

Imagine a city slicker with brats, on a bus, passing a farm with a bull doing it's thang.

My mama was put in not quite that 'bad' a situation when my sister and I were going home from a couple of weeks on a farm.

My sister piped up, "That's a cow mom, do you know how I know?"

My mom said, "(gulp)No, how do you know?"

My sister explained, "'Cos you can see it's tits hanging down!!"

According to my mom, everyone on the bus went various shades of red and laughed nervously.

It's fucking ridiculous.

Thought crime, "How dare you make me so horny!", kind of thing.

But there's reverse thought crime too. Girls dressing with their boobs hanging out daring people to look at them, mothers letting small kids prance about naked daring anyone to look at them, that kind of thing.

If a child notices a picture of a naked/half naked woman, what would be more traumatic, the parent ignoring it or the parent screaming, "DON'T LOOK AT THAT!!", then angrily dressing down the cashier for allowing smutt to be displayed for all the world to see???

It's no wonder kids get 'traumatized' about sex if their parents act traumatized themselves, yes?

GearHedEd said...

In keeping with Alana's comment above ("It's because vaginas are so powerful that even the suggestion of one can make grown men lose their minds."), and because I thought of it first, I am hereby appointing myself

"Official Vagina Tester".

Line forms on the left, ladies...

pboyfloyd said...

I've studied this picture very closely.

Starts to be a bit less sexy above 400% magnification.

Harry C Pharisee said...

"I love her underwear!"

Me too! Though I would need a color to match my beard.

carma said...

I've seen much worse covers than that; not sure what all the excitement is about. The first photo doesn't do her justice. She is very pretty.

Johnboy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rita said...

I think they may have used a little air brushing on her, you know, to cover any major(a) exposure
I hate to burst your bubble but I think the photo-shopping was probably more then a little air brushing. :)
No big deal, though. It's all fantasy, anyway. ;]

Anonymous said...

Pornagraphy? I don't get it? I have seen more revealing Maxim covers...

Who is she...Out of curiousity? What show is she on? I ahve never heard of her...She is pretty... said...

I've read Maxim at the salon and isn't the whole point that it's a bit soft porn? It's hilarious and fun, and it really would be best on the upper racks. We can propose all the arm-chair philosophy we want, but I'll mention a true story: our car came to a stop by a news stand with bright photo advertising on the side panel which happened to be at eye level to my 6 year old son in his car seat. The image? A scantily clad woman in a fairly typical "is it or isn't it porn" pose, advertising what? I can't recall. What I do remember is my son's remark..."I wish I didn't have to see that."
While I am all for freedom of everything, etc, my heart and soul ached for his overwhelmed little self. There's nothing wrong with sexy pictures, right time, right place. It's just that it can be really over done, even for adults, in urban areas like ours (NYC) when there is little respite from it. That's not what this politician is talking about: moderation and respecting the developmental needs of pre-adolescent children or those who choose to be modest. To give you a reference point on my personal views on art, photography and pornography, I am generally against porn that degrades and dehumanizes. I've seen Robert Mapplethorp's work and I believe it to be true art and that it really should be exhibited, that it is not pornography. So to me the issue isn't whether or not the Maxim image is or isn't is what it is. The question is...who sees it, when and in what context? Does there have to be a law about it, or can the folks who sell it or have it laying around use some common sense?

Anonymous said...

Just as long as they don't publish a photo of fags kissing. I like my lunch stayin' downstairs, where it belongs.