Feel free to complain about FHM magazine being obscene or whatever you think it is

Cedar said:
Choo have I ever told you I love you, that post right there was perfect could have stopped all this today.

Way off topic
Click to expand...

Nope, you never told me that before. But thanks, you made my night! :o :10: :07: LOL
 
Last edited:
Music2Myears: You are crazy

Music,

I am offended that you would label me as a girlie man. In reality, I think you are a girlie girl or if not, a totally whipped man. You have no balls. I am sure that if a woman tells you to jump, you simply say: "How high dear?". You see, the way you and hugh describe yourselves, I know you both are totally fake.
Baiscally, trying to appease the females on this forum with chivalry so maybe, just maybe, you can get "some". You guys are players. And for that one lonely female who is defending you 2, you must be 100% feminist. The ones that are ruining the feminity of women in the USA. But, that is another topic altogether.
For your information, I am in a very healthy relationship, in fact, for the past 4 years. And, during that time, Ihave been reading Stuff, Maxim, FHM, Esquire, etc.
My girlfriend knows abut it and has no problem with it, just lIke I have no problem with her reading Cosmopolitan , Redbook, People, etc.
You see, the men's magazines (not pornographic) actually help to spice up a marriage and/or relationships. The articles they have are truly informative and give readers new sexual tricks to try. No one buys these magazine for the pictures alone, mainly the articles.
And, the pictures are not soft porn. Period.
BOb
 
stinkingbob said:
Music,

I am offended that you would label me as a girlie man. In reality, I think you are a girlie girl or if not, a totally whipped man. You have no balls. I am sure that if a woman tells you to jump, you simply say: "How high dear?". You see, the way you and hugh describe yourselves, I know you both are totally fake.
Baiscally, trying to appease the females on this forum with chivalry so maybe, just maybe, you can get "some". You guys are players. And for that one lonely female who is defending you 2, you must be 100% feminist. The ones that are ruining the feminity of women in the USA. But, that is another topic altogether.
For your information, I am in a very healthy relationship, in fact, for the past 4 years. And, during that time, Ihave been reading Stuff, Maxim, FHM, Esquire, etc.
My girlfriend knows abut it and has no problem with it, just lIke I have no problem with her reading Cosmopolitan , Redbook, People, etc.
You see, the men's magazines (not pornographic) actually help to spice up a marriage and/or relationships. The articles they have are truly informative and give readers new sexual tricks to try. No one buys these magazine for the pictures alone, mainly the articles.
And, the pictures are not soft porn. Period.
BOb
Click to expand...

If you're speaking of me, you're very wrong. I'm nowhere near 100% feminist in my ideals, rather I am quite old-fashioned; nor was I defending these men. I was applauding them for what I hope is gentlemanliness - but notice that I never insulted those men who took the opposite stance. If you want to look at airbrushed pictures, whatever floats your boat. I'm not lonely - or perhaps you meant "lone female." I don't know, Cedar and I came to a decent conclusion together - that it may be too much for some men to hope for the "perfect" woman, but we both agreed that our relationships are built on respect. I'm glad that the woman you're with doesn't mind your reading preferences. Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business. I've got no problem with that. I was just stating that I'm glad my husband and I have a mutual respect that we agree not to do that. I'm glad that there are still men who believe in not gawking at other women, when they are in a committed relationship. I suppose I'm one of the few women who would mind that. My eyes are on my husband alone, as his are on me. As for needing things to be "spiced up," perhaps it helps that I'm a writer with a vivid imagination. My husband and I have no problem with creativity.
 
To Kage

Hi Kage,

I am happy that you are in a healthy rlationship woth your guy. You see, a relationship is based on trust and RESPECT. I think respect is more important.
I applaud you two about not looking at those type of magazines due to the picture contecnt, however, have you actually taken the time to thumb through a few of the mags of Stuff, Maxim or FHM? Forget the pictures. Just the articles I am refering to. In each iussue, they write about how to improve or enhance the sexual pleasure of a couple, not in a vulgar way, I remind you.
It gives hints on posiitons and techniques, which I have found to be right on the dot. Airbrushed women, I don't think so (maybe a little bit), but like I said in my last post, men don't look at FHM, Stuff etc for the pictures. Its for the hilarious articles and informative topics, just like women like to read Cosmopolitan.
But anyway, lets be honest here Kage. If you see a handsome, drop dead gorgeous looking man in the mall for example, YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK AT HIM. Just the same, if your hsuband or boyfirend sees a pretty woman, he is going to look at her. Its human nature. You cannnot suppress human nature.
Its okay to look at other people, as long as you don't act out on anything. For you see, to prohibit someone from looking at a magazine only makes that person do it when you are not around. Remember, just because youare in a relationsship does not mean that you lose your individuality. Now of course, I don't mean going to the extreme, but within reason.
ActionHugh, if you read his posts, is just to damn perfect. He is a whipped puppy. If you look at his post, he states that he reads Esquire, but if his wife/girlfriend tells him she is offended by that, he will stop reading it!!!!! Is that whipped or what?
I am sorry if I offended you by calling you a feminist. I just felt that you were
coming across as one by the way you wrote your post. But after reading your latest one, I see you are a fair person.
Bob
 
From Spoofee, I have received subs to Maxim, FHM, and Stuff. I have since moved into my Grandma's house temporarily, and its pretty embarassing when they come in the mail because she thinks they are porno mags. hahaha
 
stinkingbob said:
Its okay to look at other people, as long as you don't act out on anything. For you see, to prohibit someone from looking at a magazine only makes that person do it when you are not around. Remember, just because youare in a relationsship does not mean that you lose your individuality. Now of course, I don't mean going to the extreme, but within reason.
Click to expand...

A few things here Bob.
First, psychologists recognize that a disparity between thoughts and actions causes what's known as Cognic Dissonance, which tends to lead toward various forms of dementia and eventual insanity. So fantasizing about what you're not allowed to do is not healthy. Our body rebels against the unnatural controls when the mind is allowed to roam and the body is forced to stay. It is better to control the mind (ie. Don't read the mags) if you will not allow yourself to act out the fantasies.
Second, we are not inanimates that we must be prevented by an outside force from doing that which does not come naturally. We have force of will internal to ourselves which allows us to change our behavior. Therefore, it is possible (and better) that you prevent yourself from doing something.
Third, individuality, what a crock... :) (disarming smile) It is perhaps summed up best in the cartoon depicting several teenagers all dressed alike in baggy pants and shirts complaining about the proposed school code requiring uniforms, their argument: "it would ruin our individuality". In teams and marriages, the end result is greater than the sum of the individual parts. It is only in two (or more, if it is a team) giving up their 'individuality' and functioning completely as a unit with their complimentary natures filling in for each others weaknesses that you can experience success.
 
Married mother of one here. Dh gets Stuff, Maxim and FHM. I read 'em all, too, and think they're pretty clever. No different than Cosmo, which has a "guy-without-his-shirt-on" page every month. My brother still lives with my parents and he's the one who told us about spoofee. He gets all of them, and I know my Dad reads 'em, and probably my Mom too (they're in a basket in the bathroom).

If you don't want to get it, don't sign up. I'm managing editor for a magazine, so I understand all of the claims.

Just an FYI ––I signed DH up for the mags. :D
 
Last edited:
Wow what a thread. I like the part where people imply that they love there spouse more then subscribers to a magazine do. Seriously thats the most pathetic thing in the world. OY Ve :banghead: Well feel free not to subscribe and for the love of g-d PLEASE STOP PUSHING YOUR morals on me!!!!!


(I don't post here often and try to stay away but just couldn't on this one)

-J
 
To: Music2Myear-> Damn you

I just saw your reply to my post. First off, quit copying things from books and trying to make it look like you actually wrote all that psycho babble. After reading it, my question is: What the hell are you trying to say?
Your first point:
"Cognic Dissonance, which tends to lead toward various forms of dementia and eventual insanity. So fantasizing about what you're not allowed to do is not healthy. Our body rebels against the unnatural controls when the mind is allowed to roam and the body is forced to stay."

Ok, I fantasize about getting a good job and taking care of my family. But wait, that is not healthy. That could lead to Dissonance. So, I better let the woman work and I will stay home and do nothing.

Your second point:
" Second, we are not inanimates that we must be prevented by an outside force from doing that which does not come naturally. We have force of will internal to ourselves which allows us to change our behavior. Therefore, it is possible (and better) that you prevent yourself from doing something."

Ok, I think I will lmasturbate right now. Oh wait, that is not natural because I am catholic, so I must prevent myself from doing it. ALL CATHOLICS, LISTNE UP: YOU CANNOT MASTURBATE. CONTROL YOURSELVES.

YOur third point:
"Third, individuality, what a crock... (disarming smile) It is perhaps summed up best in the cartoon depicting several teenagers all dressed alike in baggy pants and shirts complaining about the proposed school code requiring uniforms, their argument: "it would ruin our individuality"."

Ok. You are right. Screw individuality. I won't think for myself and be an individual. I will follow what other think. So, yes, the Holocaust did not happen because the Nazi's said it didn't happen. Oh yeah, I believe in Bush. We definitely had to invade Iraq because Hussein had weapons of Mass Destruction. I know we didn't find anything after 2 1/2 years of searching, but they are there. I mean, that is what Bush says, so I will follow what he says since I have no individuality. And lastly, I will vote for Bush because that is what the Republicans say is the right thing to do.
Thanks for making things so clear Music2myear!
If we followed your advice, we would be mindless puppets.
Bob
 
Each one of us is entitled to his or her opinion of what the other person meant, but of course that doesn't make it correct.

So I'd have to say that you are incorrect in your assumption that I'm copying from books and trying to make it sound like me. It is true I read quite extensively, but I never read the text book for the college class where I learned that about Cognitive Dissonance. Also, I purposefully used the word "tends" when describing its possible outcomes (worst-case of course) to make it clear that this is not the only possible outcome of such a case.

About the rest of what you said: I will trust in the judgement of others as to whether or not your logic followed my assertions.

Of course the Holocaust happened, who denies it besides a few skinheads? There is a preponderance of historical and modern data that sets as absolute fact the truth that the Holocause happened.

Who heard Bush say we were going to war with Iraq because they had WMD's? He mentioned it only as a side, not as the reason to go to war. The reason we went to war with Iraq was because of proven ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda terrorism. You'll notice now that instead of the middle east being one large conglomerate of terror-supporting and -producing nations loosely bound by extremist fringe groups of Islam, there is now one large free state (the new Iraq) holding out bravely right in the middle of that region. We have broken the region and now nations all around Iraq are either cleaning themselves or terrorists or becoming more fanatical in their support and show their true colors.

And just who launched those SCUD missiles over Israel during the Gulf War? And who used nerve gas on the Kurds? Have you ever considered the other options as to what may have happened to those WMDs besides that they didn't ever exist?
 
highfivetime said:
Has anyone received more than one issue from this deal? :eek:
Click to expand...

i started recieving my subscription last month with the olympic issue as my first one.
 
witica said:
i started recieving my subscription last month with the olympic issue as my first one.
Click to expand...
Me too. I appreciate your reply, and I just got my second issue in the mail today. Alyssa Milano is delicious. :D
 
music2myear said:
A few things here Bob.
First, psychologists recognize that a disparity between thoughts and actions causes what's known as Cognic Dissonance, which tends to lead toward various forms of dementia and eventual insanity. So fantasizing about what you're not allowed to do is not healthy. Our body rebels against the unnatural controls when the mind is allowed to roam and the body is forced to stay. It is better to control the mind (ie. Don't read the mags) if you will not allow yourself to act out the fantasies.
Second, we are not inanimates that we must be prevented by an outside force from doing that which does not come naturally. We have force of will internal to ourselves which allows us to change our behavior. Therefore, it is possible (and better) that you prevent yourself from doing something.
Third, individuality, what a crock... :) (disarming smile) It is perhaps summed up best in the cartoon depicting several teenagers all dressed alike in baggy pants and shirts complaining about the proposed school code requiring uniforms, their argument: "it would ruin our individuality". In teams and marriages, the end result is greater than the sum of the individual parts. It is only in two (or more, if it is a team) giving up their 'individuality' and functioning completely as a unit with their complimentary natures filling in for each others weaknesses that you can experience success.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t let this one pass without commenting.

“Cognitive Dissonance” is not “a disparity between thoughts and actions” as you have described it. CD is a discrepancy between what you think that you know and what is actual reality. For instance, if a girl goes off to a college far away from home, only to become depressed because the school is unpleasant, her education there is lacking and she’s suffering from severe homesickness, she may try to convince herself that these are all positive aspects of the experience. She may go so far as to feel supposed pity for the people that stayed behind in an attempt to validate her choice to come to the far-away school.

What you describe sounds like the rantings of a Baptist minister circa 1955. You’re preaching about the dangers of using your imagination as though the mind were a monstrous beast that must be kept in check at all times lest it overtake and destroy us. A healthy mind will not devolve into dementia or insanity because of an excursion into fantasy. That’s horrifically absurd and totally ill-informed. I don’t know if you made that up on your own in an attempt to strengthen your argument, or if you read that from a pamphlet on the sins of masturbation that may have been composed some 80 odd years ago.

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and if you decide that magazines such as FHM are unpleasant for any reason, you’re in the right as far as your subjective reasoning goes. However, it’s terribly foolish to attempt to validate your opinion through backwards logic that’s totally at odds with even the most rudimentary psychology courses.

Fantasy and imagination are not unhealthy acts. Let’s remove this from the topic of sex. Will the fantasy that leads a mind to creating a book on Green Eggs and Ham lead to dementia? Will the imaginative wanderings that create something so profound as the architectural beauty of the Freedom Tower lead to insanity? By your definition, we should never be so bold as to think of anything that isn’t sitting directly in front of us in a tangible form.

Be assured that a healthy mind can entertain itself in a myriad of ways without ever causing ill effect. The mind is strengthened, not corrupted, by actions such as these. Creativity in its endless forms originates from this ability. It’s a God-given wonder that allows us to write poetry and novels, paint, draw, develop traffic systems, problem solve, work more effectively, figure out ways to bond more closely with your spouse, etc.

Only the most disturbed of individuals will EVER "tend" to rot away into the mess that you portrayed. In these cases, we're talking about people with severe mental illness to begin with.

Now, if you believe that fantasizing about a woman whom is not betrothed to you is wrong, then you have every right to believe such a thing. If you believe it is sinful or wrong to imagine yourself to be with a person that is not your husband or wife, then I wouldn’t dare argue with that perspective. You’re ideals are no more wrong to anyone than mine are to you.

My point is that you presented those personal points of view as proven fact. That’s just not acceptable.

As far as the terminology of “soft-core porn” goes…You can define that however you like. By using that specific terminology, though, you’re creating an extremist point of view to strengthen your argument. FHM and the other magazines you described to not contain any nudity. There are no exposed breasts in those magazines. You may think it offensive and upsetting that the woman are partially clothed and wearing revealing (though no "see-through as someone had claimed) outfits, but it is not by any stretch of the word “pornography.”
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected about the CD thing. Apparently not reading that text book in college and just listening to the teacher wasn't wise. I googled CD and found you are absolutely correct on that matter.

I sincerely apologize to everyone for incorporating the false 'facts' in my initial argument, and thank iammilo for correcting me.

It's too easy to apologize when you don't know anybody. But I will do my best in the future to verify my own statements before I post.
 
This is ridiculous. Never knew we could get in such a heated discussion about a magazine. I sure hope I can find a link for free Playboy or something that actually shows something revealing to post and then watch the comments start. LOL

Please don't look here because I don't know if I can handle all the comments this will generate. I think I am going to write a letter to the someone and get this magazine banned from schools and have it marked "Adults Only" LOL
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/archives.html

I moved this post to "Off Topic" so go ahead and have at it.
 
Music2MyEar-I understand you now

Kisten up everybody. I understand now why Music2myEar says what she says. She is a Republican!!!!! She actuallly wants you to be mindless puppets and listen to whatever she says. Did you notice how she used all that psycho babble to try to justify how FHM is porn and that by looking at that mag, we are bad people. But, soomeone else corrected her and she had to eat crow. HAHAHAHA!!!!! But there is hope for you Music. At least you stood up and accepted that you were wrong in all aspects of FHM being porn. So I congratulate you for this. But, now, you are getting political and I could not pass this up. You Wroye:
**********************************

Who heard Bush say we were going to war with Iraq because they had WMD's? He mentioned it only as a side, not as the reason to go to war. The reason we went to war with Iraq was because of proven ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda terrorism. You'll notice now that instead of the middle east being one large conglomerate of terror-supporting and -producing nations loosely bound by extremist fringe groups of Islam, there is now one large free state (the new Iraq) holding out bravely right in the middle of that region. We have broken the region and now nations all around Iraq are either cleaning themselves or terrorists or becoming more fanatical in their support and show their true colors.

And just who launched those SCUD missiles over Israel during the Gulf War? And who used nerve gas on the Kurds? Have you ever considered the other options as to what may have happened to those WMDs besides that they didn't ever exist?
*******************************************************
Well, bush stated that he was attacking Iraq because of WMD's. Where have you been???? THe report just a few days ago said that Saddam had no ties to Al Queada and that Saddam had no Weapons of mass destruction.
So, either you are flip flopping or Bush is. I think Both. Your Persident says the world is better off without Saddam, that the USA is more safer without Saddam. Explain this to me. How are we safer??? Can you explain this to the mothers who lost children in an invasion, to the young soldiers who lost life and/or limbs invading a country for no reason???
So go ahead Music and use your psycho babble to try to explain this.

Bob
 
I agree with iammilo here.. I also, like Choo wish we could find a freebie to Hustler or something.. :D

Those of you out there that define yourself as "religious" or "bible ppl" are just plain stupid. You believe in a book written by a panel of ppl, not 'years ago' but recently, and want to take everything to heart and only see/hear what you want. Mindless robots..

You guys should see the flick The People vs. Larry Flint.. Sure, back in the 60s, 70s "skin" mags were defined as lewd and immoral by the majority, but think about this.. If there weren't ppl who didn't think so, they wouldn't have made it as a profitable company for years.. Ppl who live in the 50s and older need to come to reality.. Consider this.. In the early 90's a music group named 2 Live Crew was ahead of it's time, ppl couldn't understand why they were talking about bitches and ho's, and tits and snatch.. Let alone show it on their video's.. So what did the "moral majority" have to say? "Ban them!" What happened? They did get banned... Then lets step a few years ahead.. What's now common in music? Fowl language as defined by some.. The norm... Today? I defy you watch MTV and then tell me that FHM and Maxim is porn... Yet just 10yrs ago, that idiot bunch of moral majority ppl thought 'we're going to hell' and banned stuff because they didn't like it. If you want to say that FHM or Maxim portrays Ladies in a bad light, you should think again and instead watch a few hours of MTV.. FHM and Maxim are tastefull with their photo-spreads.. Not to mention informative and funny in their articles. Comparing FHM articles to Cosmo articles is also a bit nuts. Someone here said it right when he said FHM articles are pretty dead on true, whereas Cosmo is far from it... Checkout the flick Never Been Kissed.. It goes to show how corrupt and biased those mags are.. Okay, yea I know it's 'just a movie', but think about it... Remember the saying, "If it bleeds, it leads".. Unfortunately in todays world that's true.. It shouldn't be.. But until ppl wise up to what the media is pushing, it'll stay that way.

I remember when I first ordered Maxim & FHM.. I was at a Fry's parking lot one day and they had college girls roaming the lot in a fund raiser.. I'm in my '71 Skylark and pull thru to see this completely HOT 5ft godess with D's and skimpy duds.. She followed me to where I parked and gave me the pitch.. Hard not to look down, but she had a great face too. So we talked for a few and I said Sure.. I picked up 3 or 4yrs of FHM & Maxim which has since expired (damnit!). But I mean, c'mon ppl.. If a SWM in his 20's can face to face buy subs from a hottie, anyone who thinks their porn mags should be shot. Now if she had Playboy or Penthouse on the list, it'd be a diff story and sure, those are nuddie mags.. Tastefull but nude.. Same with a mag called Perfect 10, cept they're more clothed then Playboy, certainly more so then Penthouse.. Softcore, Hardcore? I'd say Playboy & Perfect 10 are neither. They're plainly just nuddie mags done with funny articles and tastefull layouts. Penthouse, well maybe a lil softcore with some of the layouts.. Hustler... True softcore to a degree... Even their vids are softcore.. The way I look at it, if it's just plain dipiction of sex in one form or another, softcore. If the girl is gettin it from every angle, hardcore.. Fetishes are another topic... Same with B&D and S&M... Not for everyone... But who's to say it isn't for those that enjoy it...

Now since I've put several names on the table to which alot of you will go, "oh my!".. Walk to your local newstand (not a bookstore) and have a look.. Your not cheating on anyone, and you don't look like a wierdo doing it unless the person looking at you thinks it's filth in which case they should be shot for not coming to the 21st century with the rest of us. As for me, I'm still a swm who's a computer and car nutcase in his 20s with an open mind and an atheistic view on religion...

Long live George Carlin... The Moral Majority can KISS M A!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top