Look for New Models in the GRM Store!

aussiesmg wrote:

yamaha wrote: Holy crap, bacon on donuts...........were those supposed to have been delivered to a police station?

At the Mitty, while drunk at 10am while hanging around Mongo. Life is full of wonderment

LOLZ! Well played, sirs, well played.

I had no problems with the women in the junkyard article, I'd have no issue with these two models either side of an engine bay passing wrenches to each other, it was just that first pic set off the 'oooh, that's gross' nerve center.

So Nicole, any parties in Deland next weekend?

Tom Suddard wrote: No, no–I'm not talking about new car models. I'm talking about people, as we spent all morning shooting new pictures for our online store. Here's a teaser for now: But keep an eye on our web store for new pictures of almost every item. Curious what our current models look like? Need a new GRM shirt or a bucket hat? Head on over to our web store now.

Am I the only one that noticed that his left knee is dirty like he just got done setting a hoist arm?

While I think the whole "Chick spread on a car" in magazines thing is silly, I don't think it's anything more than that. Those girls are making money. Good for them.

That thought started out ok and ended badly.

chicks in chicks' magazines are every bit as "objectified" as those in a car magazine.

That's true, and i dont read those either, and not for lack of interest. I seriously find about 50% of the content offensive in a lot of magazines targeted towards women.

Your assertion that women don't dig racing is because they saw an issue of Hot Rod and said "ZOMG OBJECTIFICATION!!!" is silly.

Actually, the idea of it being because of one case in one mag is YOUR assertion, and it is definitely silly. I didn't notice anything amiss the first time i saw how women are treated in car culture, you know, when i was like 4 or 5. You dont really start putting these things together until you get a little older and have already been totally inculcated by a lifetime (however brief at that point) of exposure, and that's if you put it together at all! That's exactly how it works for women, too. It's not ONE case sending you up a wall and making you a raging feminist, it's hearing a statement or seeing something particularly offensive and looking back and realizing just how much of your life is full of these things you never thought to question before, but now disagree with.

I'm not a fan of the Drift Nirvana yo girls in bikinis sticking their asses out leaning over the hood of a stanced IS300. That's not cars. If I want porn I have a computer, I don't need to see it at the track. But an attractive woman wearing normal clothing (shorts and a t-shirt, for instance) working on a car isn't "scenery" to me. Yeah in that pic above maybe her shorts could be longer, or her pose a little less skanky, but whatever. I know girls who BUILD cars, RACE cars, and know more about cars than I do. And some of them are very attractive and do work on their cars in a tank top and shorts. For that matter (and I am straight, so this sounds otherwise), if there is a picture of a guy working on a car, I'd rather he not being a fat slobbery troll with a mullet and asscrack hanging out (no offense to those here who may apply ;) It's human nature to be attracted to attractive people and want to see them. That's not objectification inherently. It's why we all wear nice clothes when we go to a nice restaurant on a date instead of wearing jeans shorts and wife-beaters. It's why we get haircuts or shave. If it "didn't matter" what people looked like, we could all just wear burquas and be the Taliban and going to a bar would be really, really boring. Then nobody gets "objectified."

There's a difference between showing people doing what they do in real life, and setting up a totally contrived situation called a photoshoot. People can objectify THEMSELVES as much as they want, and if you catch them doing this on candid camera and have their permission or a legal right to print it in your magazine, that's one thing. I just dont want magazines i read to CREATE these situations of women as scenery. Intent matters.

There is a line between exploitation/objectification and just having real humans in a picture. IDK who the girl in the first picture is, but I assume she's a GRM family member or reader or something, not a paid model. She's attractive. Does that mean she's being objectified to sell shirts? And (Tom?).....he's mad sexy. I want to buy 10 shirts just so I can look just like him ;)

I actually REALLY LIKE the picture at the beginning of this thread. It's a breath of fresh air. It's totally not what i was complaining about.

He already was, to some extent. But hey, I agreed to be in the pictures with an idea of the type of objectification that could come with them. In the shoot we made a conscious effort to make the poses about displaying the merchandise and nothing else.

Glad to hear. Forethought and good intentions make me happy.