Austinist: Pillow Boxing

sean

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:30:00 -0600

HTML needs an (irony) (/irony) tag.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:10:56 -0600

i know you weren't trying to offend. that's why my comment was fluttering beneath a filmy veil of irony. okay. i'm putting this whole thing to bed. literally. and by that i mean, figuratively.

sean

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:13:13 -0600

Didn't mean to offend. These girls are friends of mine (hence my familiarity with their names and ages). I'm more teasing them than you by joking that they're objectifying themselves. And it was just a tease, after all, much in the spirit of the pillow fight/the Skinny Boy Burlesque/the magazine itself. .

sean

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:11:49 -0600

Didn't mean to offend. These girls are friends of mine (hence my familiarity with their names and ages). I'm more teasing them than you by joking that they're objectifying themselve. And it was just a tease, after all, much in the spirit of the pillow fight/the Skinny Boy Burlesque/the magazine itself. .

Bella

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:51:30 -0600

You know, Matt, there is a bar in East Village called LaVagina ie..The Vagina...seemed pretty packed when I was there. Who knows, a magazine may be next. Penis Penis Penis!

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 18:33:39 -0600

um, i was trying to be ironic. that's why i spelled it "hott". i found it a bit offensive that the commentor above me tried to qualify those women's right to sell themselves by stating their ages. to be honest, i don't mind the term "box" either. way better than beaver.

Jooley Ann

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:36:39 -0600

Deb, sister, you had me on your side for the most part 'til you said: "eh. poetic justice. for pushing 30, those girls are hott!" Y'mean for being *that old*...? Talk about marginalizing a group of people. Since when was 30+ over the hill? You might be kidding, but it's a snotty way to go about it. Oh, and to me, "box" is not offensive. There are plenty of other words out there for the vag that are insulting. Box is kind of nice. A little place where you can, you know, keep something precious.

sean

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:12:18 -0600

Yes, no arguments there. I'll be sure to pass that on to them next time they're frolicking publicly in their underwear.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:10:42 -0600

eh. poetic justice. for pushing 30, those girls are hott!

sean

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:56:16 -0600

Not to distract from this surprisingly lucid debate, but I had to laugh at the "barely legal" comment. Both Jenny and Sam (the models pictured) are pushing 30. I'm sure they appreciate your standing up for their supposed marginalization and all, but they've certainly earned the right to be objectified. In fact, I dare say they're clinging to it. (just kidding, sort of).

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:11:01 -0600

i feel your pain, bro. i grew up in cockeysville, md.

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:09:28 -0600

Honestly? I thought "holy crap, i need to write a column for them so we can call it 'cox in a box'" but then again, with a last name like mine, im become a firm believer that you can help aleviate negative connotations with a little humor. that or i really wish Dr Seuss wrote porn.

allen

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:03:51 -0600

cripes, look what happens when i leave for a sandwich

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:02:15 -0600

justin, yeah, i know. perhaps i am overanalyzing. but did you wonder what the title meant? did you, perhaps, ask someone? or, once you knew, did you laugh a little and find yourself more connected to the magazine because you "got" it?

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:56:26 -0600

ooh. BUSTed. to be honest, i've never read the magazine. as much as i seem to be some intense feminist right now, i'm not really into that whole scene. and, yes, i guess part of the reason i've never actually done more than glance at that magazine is the title. there's something militant about it, no? originally, the term feminism was applied to anyone who believed that women should have equal rights as men. once women got the vote, the term went all hardcore. now, people think that feminism is about hating men and empowering women by fitting them into masculine roles. feminist theory is all about reevaluating society and understanding why our social (gender, race, etc.) constructions are what they are. so, as a person who goes by the latter identification, i think that bust is, in some ways, just as antifeminist as box.

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:55:14 -0600

"titling their magazine after one of these words, the publishers have blatantly defined their audience by people who are in the know, and marginalized those who don't get the slang." but see, i dont think so. using myself as an example...i didnt know about the slang, yet the name was still able to define the magazine in other ways.

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:48:09 -0600

More specifically concerning Bust Magazine... I knows its a female-centric publication, so I can see why it chose a gender specific name...I'm just wondering if it bothers you that they chose a term that gets a lot focus (often inappropriate) from men.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:47:02 -0600

justin, you are not a prude. and, i do not hate or disrespect all the comments that you and the other writers have been leaving. the whole idea of slang words for sexual organs is one of those anthropoligical methods of understanding a culture by their linguistic identifications. we come up with words for body parts in order to qualify their meanings and to, in some ways, mediate our societal mores. the semiotics of slang words reveals the way that "hip" people can place themselves in a literate society by using the language of the dominant paradigm. the fact that someone had to explain the word to you (like everyone who uses that word had to have it explained to them) indicates that using these words allows people to insert themselves into popular culture. by titling their magazine after one of these words, the publishers have blatantly defined their audience by people who are in the know, and marginalized those who don't get the slang. okay, so i'm not trying to lecture. my whole thing is, if they didn't want to magazine to appeal to a certain gender or a certain class, why didn't they call it something like "intercourse" or "mouth" or something that everyone has?

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:44:09 -0600

justin, you are not a prude. and, i do not hate or disrespect all the comments that you and the other writers have been leaving. the whole idea of slang words for sexual organs is one of those anthropoligical methods of understanding a culture by their linguistic identifications. we come up with words for body parts in order to qualify their meanings and to, in some ways, mediate our societal mores. the semiotics of slang words reveals the way that "hip" people can place themselves in a literate society by using the language of the dominant paradigm. the fact that someone had to explain the word to you (like everyone who uses that word had to have it explained to them) indicates that using these words allows people to insert themselves into popular culture. okay, so i'm not trying to lecture. my whole thing is, if they didn't want to magazine to appeal to a certain gender, why didn't they call it something nongendered, like "intercourse" or "mouth" or something that everyone has?

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:43:39 -0600

Deb, I promise this is an honest, curious question: Although its choice of name is not as vulgar, what do you think of the magazine "Bust?"

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:32:01 -0600

Deb, I think you have some good points. Concerning the name, I think they were just looking for a name that could carry multiple interpretations. I had just assumed it had the name because the magazine is supposed to blur the lines and get people to think outside their normal views of sexuality. I actually had to have the "box" as "vagina" thing explained to me a month ago. Apparently I'm a total prude. :(

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:21:05 -0600

dear men, your sexuality is not a commodity in this society unless you choose. no matter how you BOX it up, mine is, always has been, and continues to be. xoxo, woman

matt wright

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:14:30 -0600

well, first off, only men are responding because those men happen to work for austinist and know the box folks. (this post has moved its way down the page and somewhat out of the public eye by now.) i don't think that is evidence of anything, unless you're talking about the first couple people who were asking for more photos. which, i guess, is evidence that guys like girls in underwear. i'll concede that point. second, don't automatically associate "box" with being demeaning. plus, i don't know how many magazine you'd sell with a title like "vagina." so i guess what we're really confused about is why this seems to strike you as either manipulative or condescending or somehow promoting misogyny. maybe your initial reaction to the word "box" is just differen than ours, and in which case, there's not much to left to discuss.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:05:06 -0600

justin, it's cool. i just think it's interesting that our culture has accepted certain methods of displaying sexuality, when it's really constructing new ways of BOXing gender into an equally suppressing form. note how only men have been responding to this? i'm not going to get into a "glass ceiling" debate, because that's not really the point. nor is the fact that women and gay men are the proprietors of the magazine. i know hef isn't behind this. the idea is that people think it's okay or funny to name a magazine after a demeaning slang word for vagina. and that people think it's cool because it's about being hip and young and virile. when really, it's just a new way to sell sex.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:54:23 -0600

touche. i guess it was foolish of me to try to start a gender dialog on this site.

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:54:22 -0600

speaking of freaking out, i think i just did, too. sorry deb. that response wasnt supposed to sound mean at all. i probably got a bit carried away though. i just think it's sad that a lot of people probably make assumptions about what the magazine's intent is. then that publication itself is written off as the exact thing its creators are trying to provide us an alternative to.

Justin Cox

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:49:03 -0600

I love when people freak out for no reason at all, then form seemingly uninformed arguments to back up said freak out. 1) The majority of the Box staff is either female or gay male. They aren't catering to young males by maginalizing young girls. 2) The magazine has done a great job of covering sexuality from all perspectives. The includes both sex AND gender AND preference (both sexual preference and degrees of kink/fetish). 3) Its flat out absurd that someone would try and use the girlie pillow fight as the basis for their homemade-hater-starter-kit. That event was a follow up to their SKINNY BOY BURLESQUE event last issue. Yeah. That's right, young, hot dudes showing off their goods to packed house of straight/gay/bi women AND men. Don't go writing off the magazine as female- degrating-faux-porn for guys who are either too embarrassed or fashion themselves too cool for "real" porn. Especially since it appears you've made this assumptions after one quick viewing of the site. Take it for what it is...a work in progress, an outlet that allows its audience to catch a glimpse at how other people (in varying situations) view sex(uality) and erotica, both through text and visuals.

matt wright

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:40:54 -0600

cool, if you could find some frat boys willing to be photographed like that, the zine would probably have plenty of fans.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:36:23 -0600

i'm gonna start my own magazine. i'm going to dress up spicy little frat boys in jock straps and cowboy hats, smatter them with glitter and photograph them arm wrestling. i'm gonna call my zine TAINT. (oh, and sorry allen. i didn't see the gay porn. believe me, i would have looked for it. i mean, i like men's butts as much as the next person...or perhaps a little more. i just have a problem with the title, and the general intent of the zine.)

matt wright

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:24:57 -0600

a lot of their photographers are women. i mean, no one's saying you have to like their product, but i don't think it's malicious.

allen

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:24:13 -0600

and there go the search engines

allen

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:22:04 -0600

wha? they have a spread on gay porn in there.

deb

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:13:42 -0600

excuse me, BOX magazine? wow. new page in the surreptitious misogyny book. i love how the website plays itself off as some kind of "erotica" zine, when it really just marginalizes young women. i'm not against pornography (or the photographer's interest in photographing hot, barely legal women pillowfighting in their lingere) but i can't believe that this magazine promotes itself as some sort of avant garde look at sexuality that appeals to both sexes. but really puts stuff in there that our generation of sensitive, metrosexual men who are too supressed to buy hardcore porn can consume without feeling like they're dissapointing their mothers. and they call it BOX magazine? but it doesn't actually show any box! i feel cheated. and at the same time, highly offended.

matt wright

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:48:22 -0600

Uh, all right: http://flickr.com/photos/mattwright/sets/72057594097442947/

mas, mas!

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:00:39 -0600

flickr url for the rest of the pics please. Good God y'all!

please?

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:15:38 -0600

oh c'mon...can't we get larger versions of the photos? ......please?