 | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
Men's mags—still reading them for the articles
There's a new trend in men's magazines lately. They all suck. But that's not how it used to be. The men's magazine has been part of every boy's life in some form or another since long before he was a "man" in any biological sense of the word. As far back as I can remember, there's always been some sort of magazine out there that seemed to be targeted specifically at guys like me, whatever my age. When I was eight, there were Archie comics. By my preteens I had graduated to Mad and the slightly more adult National Lampoon. In high school I often browsed through Details. But with the exception of Details, which, as its cover boasts, is "for men," you might argue that none of the others are magazines specifically for men, that Archie was for boys and girls alike. I'll admit you're right, but Betty and Veronica . . . well, they were a boy's first love.The appeal of Mad and National Lampoon was primarily their sophomoric satires on music, movies, and television, but it's no coincidence that the pages were filled with jaw-dropping cartoon bombshells to illustrate the clever witticisms. National Lampoon showed frontal nudity too, which I always found impressive. And this is what all men's magazines have in common...sex. It's our lowest common denominator. It's what two guys who have nothing in common have in common. But what made Archie, Mad, and National Lampoon so superior to their grown-up counterparts Maxim, Stuff, and Gear was that, in addition to the very necessary sex element, they had age-appropriate clever packaging to go with it. So why aren't we holding men's magazines of today to the same standards?
On its cover, Maxim purports to deliver the goods on "sex, sports, beer, gadgets, clothes, [and] fitness," but I'm never gonna buy a copy because I think my ass is too fat. The only reason you buy Maxim is that you're too embarrassed to buy a legitimate porno mag, and the crime here is that Maxim knows this. They know they're going to get you with photos of the Dawson's girl in underwear and high heels. Unfortunately, that means they'll skimp on some minor extras, like decent writing, that really would have made their interview with the guy who lost his arm in a game of tug-o'-war come to life. (Note: The aforementioned article would be acombination "sports" piece, fitness" piece, and probably a bonus "health-care special," since they advise against losing limbs.)
My point, and I do have one, is that there's nothing original about the new wave of men's magazines. They've been around forever. The only thing special about the newest incarnations is that they're too dumb to draw upon the strengths of their predecessors.
—Robby O'Connor
All materials © 2000 The Yale Herald, Inc., and its staff.
Got any questions, comments, or advice? Email the online editors at
online@yaleherald.com.
Like to join us?