Parade has always felt as though it were one of the more benign of the women’s magazines. It appears to avoid some of the sleazier bylines of the younger magazines like Cosmopolitan and Glamour.
Gone are sub-headings about nifty ways to snare a mate without being slapped with a restraining order. Gone are articles about how to put out on the first date like a good little alpha-female whose moral compass has been carefully whittled over the years thanks to dozens of Sex and the City re-runs.
Seems all of those years of playing sexual second-fiddle to the more overt magazines is taking its toll on Parade. The magazine is biting back and calling a slightly odd selection of celebrities promiscuous, in an attempt to get its sexy back.
On the cover of the new issue of Parade is Barbra Streisand. Yes, Barbra Streisand. Not an easy target, or someone who will lure money right out of a consumer’s wallet using their sexy-face (yes, we’re talking to you Megan Fox). In the publication, Parade released the results of its Summer 2009 Pop Culture Poll. For the most part the poll just has some delightful titbits you may otherwise struggle to get through your day without; for example, Michelle Obama is the biggest trendsetter, and Brad and Angelina are the sexiest couple.
The questions in the poll manage to be inoffensive, save for one oddity.
Can someone please explain to us and the equally bemused beauties over at Jezebel what on earth a poll in Parade is doing with a ‘Who do you think is the most promiscuous celebrity?’ category? What on earth is any magazine doing asking its readers who the biggest celebrity skank is? We’re all for calling celebrities out on their shortcomings, but what the hell Parade? What the hell!
The question is bizarre. As are the options one has to choose from. The celebrities the magazine ask you to rank in order of skankiness are Paris Hilton, Kate Hudson, John Mayer, Lindsay Lohan, Pamela Anderson and A-Rod.
The only one of these people not in a relationship to mind is John Mayer. However, they have all been in fairly long-term relationships at one point or another. For example, Kate Hudson and A-Rod (Alex Rodriguez) are currently dating each other, which you would think would be enough to get them both off the list.
Paris Hilton has done a lot to earn the nickname Parasite, but in all fairness, she is usually in a relationship and is currently demonstrating her non-hoeness by dating the same guy she ditched earlier in the year. Lindsay Lohan is in an on-again-off-again jaunt into lesbianism, but she is in something of a monogamous relationship. Lastly, Pamela Anderson has been living in white-trash bliss with some dude (who we cannot bring ourselves to care about as he is not famous) for quite some time now.
Rather than scrape the barrel and resort to name-calling that is better left to websites called snappy things like hecklerspray, perhaps Parade should stick to knitting patterns and summer polls that don’t call out obvious targets like celebrities for their questionable moral standing. Poor form Parade. Poor form.
This was a guest blog by the supreme almighty Amy Grindhouse.
Follow hecklerspray on Twitter
blabble says
paris hilton & lohan pretends to be skank thats how they make there $$, hudson well! she really is a skank a walking troll, arod only hits on skanks but he doesnt have to pay for hudson shes his skank on tape, john mayer cant tell the difference & pamela anderson makes out shes skank & only cock teasers stupid skanky men.
Heck says
I’ve seen Parade magazine stuffed in the Sunday newspaper since I was a kid in the 1960s. I was never under the impression it was specifically a woman’s magazine. And as a supplement buried in the folds of the Sunday paper and not sold separately, its cover was unlikely to ever “lure money out of a consumer’s wallet.” Are you mixing Parade up with Redbook or something?
David1 says
You failed to in any way show what’s “poor form” about it, or that the nominees don’t deserve to be on the list. The fact that all or most have often been in realtionships hardly means they haven’t been seriously promiscuous. Besides you’re assuming that being in a relationship precudes cheating, while all available celebrity evidence indicates that’s very far from the case.
Essentially you’re just trying to get them fully on board with the feminist effort to do away with the concept that there’s something wrong with especically promiscuous women from most mens point of view, including most celebrity males. Again to settle down with or marry not necessarily to play with. Though obviously Hollywood (and NYC) have different standards on that then the national average.
The vast majority of men AND women apply a double standard re male and female high partner numbers. There’s a reason why one gender are called studs and the other sluts. That’s because it’s easy for any half way decent girl to get casual laid same night or in two or whatever by a guy at or above her attractiveness level simply by being easy and not testing him for relationship material and some kind of commitment for some kind of time, it take a male stud, or someone of WAY above average attractiveness to pull any kind of hot girl regularly fast for casual.
That’s cause we’re wired differently in some ways including this one. Girls enforce the slut standard more than guys, who often want sluts until it comes time to really commit or anyway marry. It’s biology. It’s evo-psych. It’s gender realism.