Talk:List of men's magazines

old comments header

Just curious why it was felt that the sexual preference of the target audience was important enough to divide the listing into categories? The entry is a "list of men's magazines," not a "list of men's magazines categorized by audience's sexual preference."

I was only thinking of and only interesteed in the hetero part, when I created rhe list. When somebody added I choose to divide it. I'am sure it can be divided in many ways and this is a important information for me at least. Jensp 15:49 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I personally find it offensive. In it's way it expresses a non NPOV because you are stating your opinion that there is importance in a list of magazines between homosexual and heterosexual; after all the listing is allegedly just to list "men's magazines," and gay men are men. In fact, I believe that most individuals would find it *MORE* prudent and appropriate to seperate pornographic magazines from mainstream ones. *IN FACT,* if we get down to the nitty gritty of the rediculousness of it all, I could list about 20 gay pornographic magazines that, arguably, could be much more "male-oriented" than Playboy and Penthouse. (I think we'd all agree Playboy is far more commonly read by women than, say, "Latin Inches Magazine.")

---

Hmmm.... The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine, is a men's magazine? Playgirl is not a men's magazine? Only currently publishing magazines are included? (What of Argosy and True?). I think someone needs to define what a "men's magazine" means (I think in publishing it is probably something like "a magazine about sports and naked women") before a list means much. Sports Illustrated? No naked women in "most" issues, but they "make up" for the deficit in their swimsuit issue, so it probably qualifies. -- Someone else 03:15 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I second that sexual orientation/identity should not be used to categorize this list. Thats just plain stupid. It gives the impression that *only* heterosexual men read certain publications and *only* gay men read certain publications, and furthermore what the heck is "Ambiguous"??

I think if this list is going to be categorized at all it should be split like the List of Magazines and grouped into things like "Lifestyle", "Fashion", "Sport", etc...

Although, getting down to the nitty gritty, I think it's just plain weird to have a list of "men's" magazines since I know lots of women who regularly read some of these (Maxim, GQ, Playboy, etc.) Mimsie 00:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Men's magazine" is a common industry term for magazines like Maxim, FHM, and Stuff. At least in the US, when you walk into a bookstore or convenience store, that is the category these magazines will be grouped under. My guess is that the creators of this article had this in mind when they first created it. I think the problem is that the term "men's magazine" is not a very good term. In the US it is used as a euphemism for "heterosexual softcore porn," but that's never communicated in the article, and we are left with the wide-open definition "magazines that men read." Fishal 02:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Defining Men's Magazine, ie: MOVING it

Since Men's Magazine is automatically NPOV and is implying that all MEN are HETEROSEXUAL - this should be redefined as Heterosexual Men's Magazines. Else how do you deal with markets of bisexuality, transexuality, homosexuality, etc? A generic and horrific category such as "Men's Magazines" is quite propersterous. Is a camping magazine for males? How about fishing? Boating? Basketball? The Advocate? Hightimes?--Shivian Balaris 09:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Linking the Mags

How about adding a link next to the names of the mags? e.g. "Men's Health (Link->)"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.236.191 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is how it was for well over a year, but someone keeps trying to un-link them and instead link to the wiki pages. If people are looking for men's magazines, they are trying to find ones to read, not do a full investigation. STOP modifying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancornwell (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Some of the magazines listed under pornography are not pornographic at all, they are even less pornographic than the soft-core FHM etc. Also, only the pornographic magazines, as well as the soft-core one's, need to be separated into straight/gay. I think this separation clearly does make sense, and is not in anyway discriminatory. On the other hand, magazines like GQ or Men's Fitness are clearly magazines designed for men,not women, but at the same time are not designed for either gay or straight men, but are more universal (and less pornographic). - 03:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think several of the magazines listed in the "Pornography" section aren't pornographical. There is a difference between nudity and pornography. Pornography includes pictures of explicit sexual acts while magazines like Playboy or Penthouse don't show these. And that makes a very big difference even though some self-appointed moralists don't want to see it. --85.74.135.97 12:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this anonymous user - there are way to many self-appointed moralists who try to pollute people's opinion with their self-righteous beliefs. There IS a difference between erotic and pornographic magazines and nudity is not the same as pornography. --Krawunsel 21:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

for that matter, why the asymmetry between heterosexual "skin magazines" and "gay pornographic magazines?" The headings aren't equivalent, and a listing is only made for the skin mags, not for the gay ones. It seems like an area where balance could be improved. I'm just not sufficiently convinced that this list should exist, or I'd work on adding balance to it myself. Men's magazine is an amorphous term & a list like this will always be the site of arguments about what does or doesn't belong. --Ssbohio 15:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about "LM" ?

"LM" was a lads mag released in 1986 in the UK by Newsfield Publications, aimed at males between 15 - 25. It was probably the first magazine of it's type to be released in the UK (at least I can't remember any others at the time). It was much the same as the lads mags that are available today in the UK, such as Nuts, FHM, GQ etc covering topics ranging from sex, football, beer, mens tv programmes to gadgets etc. Because it was years ahead of its time it couldn't attract the advertising it needed, so it only lasted for about 5 months - although it did sell well it did not make a profit. Advertisers undoubtedly saw it as a big gamble, because it also preceded other "mainstream" lifestyle magazine such as "Sky".

Does anyone know for sure if this was the first ever lads mag?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.240.166 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ISSNs

• Not a single ISSN is listed on this page. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to untag this page and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not? --Keesiewonder ^talk 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Tag removed. Dl2000 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Laddie magazine

Shouldn't laddie magazine have its own Wikipedia entry? --TedPavlic 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gay Mags

I have removed gay magazines from the list for the following reasons:

1) Men's magazines are heterosexual in nature, not homosexual.

2) Gay magazines are not general interest magazines. They are targeted to a minority/plurality within a minority.

3) There is a section listing gay magazines. Listing them here would be duplicative and misleading. - MSTCrow 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no need to remove gay magazines. Perhaps prejudice was your motive. What makes you think GQ and Details aren't targeted towards gays as well as heterosexual men? Also, the list is of men's magazines, with subcatagories. It's bogus to remove a whole subcategory. Clarification is made by the existance of the subcategory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.86.10 (talk • contribs).

I agree. Those reasons don't appear valid. There's nothing inherently heterosexual about GQ or Outdoor Life. Nor is Oudoor Life a general interest magazine - it's devoted to hunting and fishing. Lastly, there's duplication of the straight pron mags, so if that's the complaint several more should be removed. For those reasons I'm going to restore the removed entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Why are Girlie Mags called... Girlie? Seems counterintuitive. Anyone have any idea what the history of it is? Jachra (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Need pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.116.178 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Only notable should be included

In line with similar list articles, only magazines notable to have their own article should be included. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few with no article have crept in to the list (or possibly their article has been deleted). If there's no objection I'll remove them. Kiore (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And removed a number of them again. -Lopifalko (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

GGW

Why is Girls Gone Wild under general rather than erotic? Emperor001 (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic men's magazines?

Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of terming some people (specifically African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latin Americans), as 'ethnic' offensive. Does this mean that people who don't fall into the above groups do not have an ethnicity? Also, as this list is global, it appears odd that the only three 'ethnicities' mentioned are American. Re-sorting the whole list according to etnicity is obviously(?) not the way to go, so I'm leaning toward getting rid of the 'ethnic' category. I'd like to hear what other people think before doing so, however. KongOlavKonfekt (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Playboy

Is Playboy a pornographic magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.60.191.70 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Siegessäule

The link from the name of this German gay magazine simply goes to the article on the Berlin Victory Column - after which it was presumably named! - but the article makes no reference whatever (in either the English or the German version) to the magazine. There evidently isn't a Wikipedia article on the magazine. Since there are at least two things called by this name (the structure and the magazine), there should surely be a disambiguation page for 'Siegessäule' and the link should go there, or else the link should be removed here.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of men's magazines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121224035346/http://www.maglab.org.uk/changing-the-subject-men-s-magazines to http://www.maglab.org.uk/changing-the-subject-men-s-magazines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Full Refresh of this article

Hi this list article is dreadful - mainly because of the huge changes in the magazine market since the mid '00s mean it is hugely out of date. The number of magazines in the market globally, and certainly in this category, is much much lower than it was.

I suggest we therefore separate out the short list of "live" magazines from the much longer list of defunct magazines. The "live" magazines are what are most important, interesting. The live magazines can be listed in a table by country, with an indication of any particular sub-topic, publisher and ISSN eg:

UK

MAGAZINE TOPIC AREA PUBLISHER ISSN

Men's Health Health and fitness Rodale Inc 1756-7438

Attitude Gay lifestyle Stream Publishing 1359-5676

For defunct magazines, where we are never going to have a comprehensive list I suggest we simply have a list of titles by country with topic area in brackets and dates of publication if known eg:

US

Classic Style Magazine (fashion) 1900-2011

Atrapalhado (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)