Fate is Chance. Destiny is Choice.

The representation of men’s and women’s sexuality in ‘lads magazines’ is a topic that appears not to have been covered widely in the UK, particularly in the context of why and in what ways these representations are a Feminist issue. The widest dissemination and condemnation of these magazines have come from Feminist ‘bloggers’ writing and online Feminist e-zines. There have been some articles, mainly from the US, covering the issue in context of men’s sexuality, but I will argue that women’s sexuality in these magazines is also inevitably tied to the representation of men’s sexuality. 

In this essay, I will look at four different ‘lads’ magazines – Loaded, Maxim, Zoo and Nuts – from winter 2007 and 2008 – and will discuss some of the content of these magazines in context of how they represent men’s and women’s sexuality. I will also, when discussing these representations, discuss how the reading I have done ties to feminist discourse on representations of sexuality in pornography and ‘lads mags’. My argument is that these magazines are damaging in terms of both men’s and women’s sexuality, as it is my observation that they present a narrow, stereotypical, contemptuous (Davis, 2005) and objectifying (Whelehan, 2000) view of human sexuality that needs to be challenged by feminists. This representation is not just evidenced in ‘lads mags’, it is also evidenced in men’s culture and discourse about women (McCabe, 2006). 

 ‘Lads Mags’ and Sexuality 

‘Lads’ Magazines have been around since the early Nineties when the launch of magazines such as Loaded and Maxim in the UK seemed to aim themselves at those men who were tired of the allegedly new ‘new man’ (Whelehan, 2000) and wanted to go back to something supposedly more ‘masculine’. The condemnation of previous men’s lifestyle magazines was aimed at concern that these magazines presented men as ‘sex objects’ and that the adverts, fashion and grooming features and relationship advice was threatening men’s supposed innate ‘masculinity’ (Whelehan, 2000).

Heterosexual men appeared to feel threatened by the sensuality of the representation of men in these men’s magazines (such as Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Esquire, et al), which seemed parallel to women’s representation in magazines – as sexual objects, advertising and selling objects; whilst being objects themselves to be consumed (Jeffreys, 2006). The positing of men as consumers of fashion and cosmetics seemed to be a move away from stereotypical ‘laddish’ or typically masculine representations of maleness (Davis, 2005).  

It has been argued (Bordo, 1999) that the context of male nudity and female nudity in magazines is different. Men cannot be objectified in the same way that women can, because the bodies of men and women are interpreted in different ways; as Bordo (1999) says about the models, they ‘…are not in equal states of undress because pants-around-the-ankles conveys something different on the bodies of men than they do on the bodies of women…The guys bodies do not seem stripped or exposed…’ (1999: 28 ). Media concern over the objectification of men (Williams and Flynn, 2006) seems to obscure what has been happening to women’s bodies for centuries: it is more of a concern when male bodies are objectified (Whelehan, 2000). 

There is also a noticeable homophobic element to this backlash: men were, and are, afraid of being seen as homosexual, as not a ‘real man’ (Whelehan, 2000), which is what this objectification seemed to imply for them. It seems more acceptable for women to engage in homosexual or bisexual relationships, although, as we will see, in the world of ‘lads’ magazines, these are only acceptable if done for the benefit of a man (Taylor, 2005).  

It has been said that the reason for this sudden return (or creation) of the ‘new lad’ (Whelehan, 2000) occurred because the media panicked and implied that men were unsure about their role in a world where women were becoming more assertive and career oriented, even though other factors were more of a contribution to this alienation, such as rising unemployment (Whelehan, 2000). As Whelehan (2000) says about the media ‘fear’ over men’s ‘alienation’:  

‘The classic ‘explanation’ offered is that changes in women’s lives and aspirations over the past thirty years have offered new identities for women, but precious little for men. The price of female self-determination and steady strides towards formal equality is, it seems, male nihilism. The struggle for gender equality, rather than being pictured as a pair of scales, is more like a see-saw: if women go up, men must hit rock bottom.’ (Whelehan, 2000: 113) 

So, it seems that in this climate of media panic over women’s possible increasing independence and fight for equal recognition as human beings, ‘lads mags’ and the ‘new lad’ (Whelehan, 2000) came to the fore. I would argue that this ‘new lad’ (Whelehan, 2000) is not a new creation at all: the characteristics of this creation seem strangely familiar. As Susan Faludi (1999) has said about the US version of Maxim, it ‘…helped its lads to imagine they were hunters once more, their prey the opposite sex.’ (1999: 527). This so called ‘new lad’ is not, then, something new, a new identity for men. It seems that it is a regression to a past that women (and some men), certainly, hoped was long gone (Landesman, 1997).  

The use of so called ‘irony’ has also been discussed by writers discussing the magazines (Whelehan, 2000; Davis, 2005; Attwood, 2005). The main stumbling block with ‘lad’ culture is that it seems to have an awareness of feminism and is very aware of how the sexist innuendo, ‘bawdy’ comments and the reverting to a kind of 1950’s type ‘nostalgia’ (Whelehan, 2000), co-opts the fight for equality and the language of equality.  

Whelehan (2000) has explained that although there have been some material improvements for women, such as their entry into previously ‘men’s’ jobs, the language of these places that women have entered is still largely entrenched in so called ‘masculinity’, and it seems that since men are supposedly feeling alienated by these changes for women, they are instead fighting back on the level of words and language. The use of irony, particularly in the sense of being sexist, implies some kind of distancing; the reader, listener or viewer can laugh at something but are supposed to realise that the person saying something does not really ‘mean’ it (Whelehan, 2000). 

 ‘…and now those who draw attention to the way images can perpetuate the consciousness of gender, racial or other inequities are seen to be the ‘thought police’ who rob individuals of their freedom. Feminists assert that language and intention as well as behaviour matter: since this implies that men in particular have to modify their attitudes, it is hardly likely to be popular.’ (Whelehan, 2000: 70).  

To begin with, ‘lads’ magazines did not seem to be anything much to be concerned about in regards to men’s and women’s sexuality. They obviously represented a kind of Neanderthal view of men’s and women’s sexuality, with the man as the ‘doer’ and woman as the ‘object’ (Attwood, 2005) but this representation has been around for many centuries, and it was assumed that men did not, or would not, take this particularly seriously (Davis, 2005). They did not seem as dangerous and problematic as ‘Hustler’, for example (Hustling the Left, 2007).  

Indeed, to start with, it appeared that there were not as many pornographic images of women as objects as many feminists feared there would be (Taylor, 2005). However, with time, as new ‘lads’ magazines began to be published, some weekly (Zoo and Nuts) and some monthly (Loaded, Maxim and FHM), a publishing war inevitably began and the magazines became more and more degrading and objectifying for women, not just in terms of images, but in terms of language and features too (McCabe, 2006). 

It has recently been announced that the consumption of ‘lads’ magazines has dropped significantly (McCabe, 2007), but it is my observation that this may not be a loss of interest in the magazines themselves, but rather a relocation to the internet, where there is less of a need (due to the lack of publishing standards) to keep pornographic images within acceptable limits; it also appears that this may be a cheaper means of consumption. ‘Lads’ magazines are still popular among young men in the UK and this can be evidenced by online forums (The F-Word, 2006) and editorial page letters in the magazines themselves.  

The Representation of Men’s and Women’s Sexuality in ‘Lads’ Magazines 

When first looking at ‘lads’ magazines, the first thing that a reader is likely to notice is the front page. On the four magazines that I looked at, every front page had a woman posing with partial nudity wearing bikini pants or a thong, with some kind of cover on her breasts: mostly this consisted of her arm or hands, a bra or bikini top (an extremely ‘revealing’ one), another model’s hands, or a text box covering what is considered to be the most ‘revealing’ part of women’s breasts, the nipples. This clearly seems to locate men’s desire on a woman’s body. The fact that woman’s breasts are considered the most important part of this discourse of ‘revealing’, implies that this is what men, according to the magazine, want to know about women; that the size of their breasts are the most important thing about women, regardless of how interesting or smart these women are. 

The second most noticeable aspect of the covers is the language used for the women on the covers. Women are here called ‘boobs’ (Loaded and Nuts) and ‘girls’ (Zoo) and ‘babes’ (Nuts). Throughout the magazines, there is no reference to ‘women’: they are called ‘girls’ or ‘babes’. This kind of language has an infantilising effect, making it appear that the women in the magazines are nothing to be intimidated about, because they are not equal to ‘man’ as they are not ‘woman’, who, despite not quite being completely equal yet, is more equal than ‘girl’.  

Every woman on each of the covers has an ‘inviting’ head tilt: this is what Goffman (1979) has called ‘canting’. Goffman (1979) describes canting as a position of the body or head that ‘…can be read as acceptance of subordination, an expression of ingratiation, submissiveness, and appeasement.’ (1979: 46). When looking at the pictures throughout all four of the magazines, there is a noticeable amount of this ‘canting’ (Goffman, 1979). This ‘canting’ implies that in the world of ‘lads’ magazines, every woman is sexually available, and in the words of one of the women giving an interview in Zoo: ‘…choose me because I am sweet and sexy – and up for absolutely anything.’ (Zoo, 2007: 61). This sexual availability suggests that if men believe women are always sexually ‘up for it’, then they may very well believe that it is acceptable to coerce or persuade a woman to do something that she is not happy with. The ‘canting’ is also very much in evidence on the websites of the magazines, where the explicitness and nudity increases; in fact, the websites (Loaded, 2008; Nuts, 2008; Maxim, 2008; Zoo, 2008 ) reassemble pornography much more than the magazines themselves. 

If these magazines are to be believed, at first glance, men’s sexuality consists of mechanical arousement: they are seen as slaves to their own sexual desire, unable to resist degrading and objectifying (Dworkin, 1981) women because it is an ‘innate’ and ‘carnal’ part of their ‘nature’. Being attracted sexually to someone is not in question: what feminists (Dworkin, 1981) do question is whether being attracted to someone means we need to denigrate them to sexual objects, who must be coerced or persuaded to ‘perform’ for us (Loaded, 2008 ). If the roles were reversed, and women’s magazines were encouraging women to coerce men into ‘performing’ sexually for them, and men’s bodies were displayed as objects, I doubt men would be happy with this; and as I discussed briefly earlier, the media generally ‘panics’ when men’s dignity is supposedly at stake (Whelehan, 2000). 

Women are simply seen as bodies that men ‘do’ things to, they have no separate sexuality other than that defined by men (Loaded, 2008 ). Anything that women do sexually is assumed to be in some way for men. Whether this is a sexual encounter with another woman or self stimulation, in some way women’s sexuality is assumed to be a ‘performance’ under the male gaze (Attwood, 2005).

There is only one mention of sexually fulfilling a woman (Loaded, 2008: 40) and even this is positioned within a discourse of doing this so that a man can then be ‘rewarded’ with, it seems, oral sex: ‘In other words, if you are a man who wants more regular blowjobs, you should start taking the downtown bus more.’ (Loaded, January 2008: 40). For women to be sexually fulfilled within a relationship or sexual encounter, then, there has to be an ‘incentive’ for the man, and therefore it is not seen as a pleasure for men in its own right.

Indeed, this brings to light the reasons behind the constant mentions of ‘threesomes’ (Zoo, 2007) and images of two or more women suggestively touching each other (Loaded, 2008 ) – they are allowed within the context that men are involved in these encounters, whether as voyeur or as participant, and rather than being homosexual (which excludes men), they are seen as ‘bisexual’ (Attwood, 2005). Homosexuality, whether between men or women, is of course, forbidden, as it is a threat to men’s ‘innate masculinity’.  

In ‘lads’ magazines, men are seen as the active person in sexual relationships, women are seen as either, as I have argued, ‘performers’ or as objects which are acted upon. In February’s Maxim (2008 ), there is a feature about how to act out ‘superhero’ sexual scenarios on your female sexual partner. The feature’s caption says: ‘Normal, mere-mortal sex is for losers. Real men do super-sex. Our expert, Fay Harlyn, shows you how…’ (Maxim, February 2008: 105). Men that do ‘normal’ sex are not real men – this hints at the pressure of ‘macho’ culture, the pressure to constantly prove your masculinity. This feature in particular uses language that posits men as voyeurs and as active, whilst women as ‘performers’ and as acted upon:  

‘…Basically, Batman likes to watch before making his move – the perv…[…]On the big night, you should sit back and let her do all the work. Us girls love knowing how much we turn you on, so as the clothes come off, make approving noises – then strike from the shadows and have your way with her!’(Maxim, February 2008: 106).  

The language of sexuality in these magazines is problematic. The sentences above are only one such example. There are constant mentions of ‘shagging’ (Maxim, 2008 ) and ‘getting a bit’ (Loaded, 2008 ). There is an overriding sense of permissiveness in the use of this language – there is no indication whether readers ask their sexual partner if they actually want to engage in these kinds of fantasies. Much of the language involves the use of words that hint at coercion or even force ‘…A trussed up girl and booze? Easy as walking the plank.’ (Maxim, February 2008: 107). Of course, if editors of ‘lads’ magazines are to be believed, this language must be taken with a pinch of irony. However, reading the magazines in question, I was unable to see exactly where this ‘irony’ was, because there was no indication that the features and images were meant to be ironic.  

The language of sexuality also perpetuates the virgin/whore dynamic; women featured in the magazine were seen as fine to ‘shag’ (Maxim, 2008 ) or ‘ogle’ (Zoo, 2007) but not for long-term relationships. Women that sleep with many partners are seen as ‘bikes’ (Nuts, 2007) whilst in the world of hyper-masculinity, it is seen as a sign of virility or of being a ‘real’ man if a man has many sexual partners. The double standard of sexuality is still very much in evidence in the world of ‘lads’ magazines.  

It has been argued (Dworkin, 1981) that in pornography, the women are most often portrayed as ‘whores’ who: ‘…exist to serve men sexually. Whores exist only within a framework of male sexual domination. Indeed, outside that framework, the notion of whores would be absurd and the usage of women as whores would be impossible.’ (Dworkin, 1981: 200). In contrast, in reality, the stereotype of women as ‘prudes’ or ‘virgins’ is more often believed – it is believed that women have no sex drive, no sexual appetite: ‘Too many headaches over too many centuries have damaged the credibility of both the pornographers and like-minded philosophers of sex.’ (Dworkin, 1981: 178 ).  

It has been suggested that pornography (and ‘lads’ magazines) would not mean anything without the notion of ‘sin’: ‘…when we look at the history of pornography, and the pornographer’s obsession with transgressing the morality of the church, we begin to understand that pornography, and the pornographic idea of sin, could not exist without the great cathedrals.’(Griffin, 1981: 16).  

It could be argued that the idea of ‘dirtiness’ and sexuality as ‘sin’ makes pornography the lure that it is; because it is perceived as morally wrong, the guilt of using it acts as a kind of rebellion from supposedly ‘morally correct’ ways of indulging sexuality (Griffin, 1981). However, from a feminist point of view, both of these ways of seeing are misogynist: because the women in pornography are seen as ‘temptresses’ and ‘whores’ that lead men away from religion (Griffin, 1981). Women are seen as the ‘gatekeepers’ of morality – if they ‘sin’ then according to religion and popular belief, we are all doomed (Dworkin, 1981), and feminists seek to challenge these stereotypes. 

In ‘lads’ magazines, both these virgin/whore stereotypes are very much in evidence in the portrayal of female sexuality. Wives and girlfriends are seen as women that ‘object’ to pornography, who must be ‘persuaded’ to give their husbands or boyfriends sexual favours: ‘My missis is worried about me because I like to watch hardcore porn to relax. Am I am raving sex addict or is she a nun?’ (Maxim, February 2008: 30) Each of the four magazines that I looked at featured these kinds of beliefs about women’s sexuality – that they are either like the women in pornography, who act out men’s darkest fantasies, or they are wives and girlfriends, who must be ‘persuaded’ to engage in certain sexual acts:  

‘Why not get your missis to enjoy sexy films? Buy a mainstream DVD that’s got ‘classy sex’ in it – the recent Lady Chatterley’s Lover, for example. When you’re watching it, don’t lay a hand on her and let her make all the moves – and she will make some. She’ll be gagging for the XXX stuff in no time. Good luck.’ (Maxim, February 2008: 30) 

The protests and worries of the woman are virtually ignored here and the advice columnist gives out advice in favour of the man’s pornography obsession. Men’s pornography seems to be more important than the worry of partners and girlfriends. In ‘lads’ magazines, the idea that men need pornography is reinforced and confirmed. Pornography is assumed to be a representation of sex when it does not have much to do with the reality of sexual relations, and is, as many feminists have pointed out, the degradation and representation of men’s literal power over women (Dworkin, 1981).  

One of the magazines, Loaded (January 2008 ) has a ‘quiz’ called ‘Is She the One?’ (January 2008: 70) which features the kind of questions that stereotype women into three categories: ‘controlling, jealous and prone to tantrums’, ‘She won’t run off with the milkman and scrubs up nicely’ and ‘She’s the sort of lass that has men walking into lamp posts but will also sleep with the rugby team given half the chance.’ (Loaded, January 2008: 74). This kind of stereotyping also ties into the virgin/whore dichotomy and denies that women have their own sexual identity. It seems that ‘lads’ magazines are a return to a childish and stereotypical ‘nostalgia’ that does not seem to be part of any particular ‘past’ (Whelehan, 2000): ‘Nostalgia is not just a sentiment but also a rhetorical practice. In the imaginative past of nostalgic writers, men were men, women were women, and reality was real.’ (Doane and Hodges, 1987: 3) 

Men’s sex lives are assumed to need constant improvement, and are not seen as satisfactory as they are (Taylor, 2005). The features constantly offer ways to ‘improve’ your ‘sex life’ and constant emphasis on the ‘right way’ to do something, as though men will not learn these things through their own experiences with their sexual partners. This constant bombardment of so called ‘advice’ just serves to reinforce the age old stereotype that men have no communication skills with their partners and cannot talk about sexuality unless in the context of a magazine that seems to belittle them at the same time as giving them permission to do whatever they want (Davis, 2005).  

Men are assumed to be extremely anxious and at the same time to want to know how to ‘get what they want’ which seems to constantly follow the theme of pornography and oral sex. Indeed, all of the magazines and previous magazines (Davis, 2005; Taylor, 2005; Krassas, Blauwcamp and Wesselink, 2003) seem to point to the same kinds of concerns. It appears that the content of more recent ‘lads’ magazines does not offer anything new in terms of men’s sexuality, and they definitely do not offer anything new in terms of women’s sexuality.  

Conclusion 

My discussion of the content of these magazines shows that ‘lads’ magazines present a narrow and problematic view of men’s and women’s sexuality. As women’s sexuality appears to be defined and positioned by the ‘male gaze’ (Dworkin, 1981) and men’s sexuality seems to be defined by their ability to ‘acquire’ women and ‘get’ them to perform sexually for them, it is important to a feminist analysis of sexuality to critique these sexual stereotypes.  

‘Lads’ magazines and men’s lifestyle magazines try to deflect feminist criticism by their insistence that they ‘love’ women, and the images of women baring their breasts and striking suggestive poses is held up as ‘evidence’ that they: ‘…“adore” women with avid heterosexuality, the collective portrait of financially and professionally successful women demonstrates that, for a buck, they can be stripped down, placed in alluring poses, and purchased by any teen who wishes to own them.’ (Davis, 2005: 1016).  

Davis (2005) was here referring to actresses and other entertainers, but it could also be true of the other women who are portrayed in these magazines. It seems that women, no matter how successful and independent they are, still feel a kind of pressure to prove that they are ‘sexy’ (Whelehan, 2000), even if they appear to enjoy posing for the magazines. Whelehan (2000) has also noticed the problematic conflation of ‘professional and independent’ with the need to prove that they are also ‘sexy’ and sexually non-threatening because they are ‘all the same’ underneath their professional and independent persona.  

Even if some feminists believe that ‘choice’ is an important aspect of sexuality (Royalle, 2000; Cornell, 2000), and it is;  if we can only explore and choose within the narrow confines of pornography and ‘lads’ magazines, then both women and men will not be able to communicate and express their own individual sexuality with each other. In the world of ‘lads’ magazines, it seems that women will not be sexually satisfied, they will only give the appearance of being so because there is no standard by which they can communicate their sexual desire to their partner because they are afraid of damaging men’s so called ‘ego’ (Attwood, 2005).  

There is a reduction of men’s sexuality to a mechanical performance devoid of sensuality and connection (whether physical or emotional) with another human being (Attwood, 2005). Men instead experience ‘…The reduction of pleasure to genitals to orgasm to ejaculation, characteristic of pornography…’ (Attwood, 2005). Men’s bodies become machines which is: ‘…an insistence on sexual difference and a refusal of male eroticization evident throughout the modern period.’ (Attwood, 2005: 88). Women are not seen as complete, whole human beings that can think, feel pleasure and desire, but instead become objects of male sexual action. ‘Across the spectrum of magazines for men, women are objectified to embody sex, with the celebrity and the reader’s wife increasingly indistinguishable, the media and everyday life increasingly blurred – a mediascape of sexual display.’ (Attwood, 2005: 91).  

In the world of ‘lads’ magazines, there is a refusal of responsibility, both in attitude and practice – for example, the use of contraception is not advocated in any of the magazines, and this could be extremely problematic if young men get their sexual information from them (Taylor, 2005) – and a rebuttal of equality between men and women. The moving of ‘lads’ magazines to the internet does not mean that interest in them is declining but is moving towards another means of representation where publishing standards are un-moderated. Internet publishing may mean that these magazines could become increasingly degrading and the language become much more irresponsible (McCabe, 2007), therefore it may be useful for feminists to analyse the internet websites. The internet publishing phenomenon will reach a wider audience of young men and there is evidence that this has already happened (McCabe, 2007). 

‘Lads’ magazines present a narrow and unimaginative view of men’s and women’s sexuality that still needs to be challenged by feminists as damaging to both men and women (Whelehan, 2000). There are no boundaries of what constitutes consent, and there is a blurring between ‘play’ and ‘force’ which may lead to a climate worse than the present one when it comes to rape myths (Taylor, 2005). If a new generation of young men and women believe that this is what men and women are meant to want from sexual relationships, and men view women as objects for their sexual pleasure, it is likely that their views of sexuality will be warped and unrealistic, and sexual fulfilment will be a distant goal. ‘Lads’ magazines reinforce the idea that the ability to define what sexuality means belongs to men, and women are just the means to an end; which is why they must constantly be challenged by feminists.

Bibliography 

Attwood, F (2005) ‘Tits and ass and porn and fighting’: Male heterosexuality in magazines for men. International Journal of Cultural Studies 2005 Vol 8 (1): 83-100. 

Bordo, S (1999) The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

Cornell, D (2000) Feminism and Pornography. Oxford University Press. 

Davis, J (2005) Maxim Magazine and the Management of Contempt. The Journal of Popular Culture. Vol 38 (6): 1011-1021. 

Doane J. and Hodges, D (1987) Nostalgia and Sexual Difference: The Resistance to Contemporary Feminism. Methuen, London. 

Dworkin, A (1981) Pornography: Men Possessing Women. Women’s Press, London. 

Faludi, S (1999) Stiffed: The Betrayal of the Modern Man. Chatto and Windus, London. 

Goffman, E (1979) Gender Advertisements. Macmillan, London. 

Hustling the Left (2007) ‘Hustling the Left’ Website. Accessed December 27^th, 2007. URL: http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/ 

Jeffreys, S (2006) Beauty and Misogyny. Routledge, New York. 

Krassas, N., Blauwkamp, J., and Wesselink, P (2003) ‘Master Your Johnson’: Sexual Rhetoric in Maxim and Stuff Magazines. Sexuality and Culture 2003, Vol 7(3): 98-119.  

Landesman, C (1997) ‘Boy-Zone’. Guardian G2, 1^st December 1999.

Loaded (2008 ) January 2008 Issue of Loaded. Number 165. IPC Media Publishing.  

Maxim (2008 ) February 2008 Issue of Maxim. Number 154. Dennis Publishing. 

McCabe, J (2006) ‘So what’s wrong with Nuts then? (‘Or, real men don’t share umbrellas’). The F-Word e-zine blog, 5^th July 2006. URL: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2006/07/so_whats_wrong 

McCabe, J (2007) ‘Lads mags post falling sales.’ The F-Word e-zine blog, 19^th February 2007. URL: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/02/lads_mags_post 

Nuts (2008 ) 4-10^th January 2008 Issue of Nuts. IPC Media Publishing. 

Royalle, C (2000) ‘Porn in the USA’. In Cornell, D (2000) Feminism and Pornography. Oxford University Press. 

Taylor, L (2005) ‘All for Him: Articles About Sex in American Lad Magazines’. Sex Roles, Vol 52(3-4): 153-163. 

Whelehan, I (2000) Overloaded: Popular Culture and the Future of Feminism. Women’s Press, London. 

Williams, Z., and Flynn, P (2006) The Spy Who Buffed Up. Guardian Unlimited, November 16^th 2006. URL: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1948908,00.html 

Zoo (2008 ) 31^st Dec 2007-10^th Jan 2008 Issue of Zoo. Emap Publishing.   

© Liz @ Fate is Chance. Destiny is Choice.