1959: “Girl Watcher” magazine

37 Responses

  1. John R.

    Wow. Really disturbing. Yet more evidence that the 1950s weren’t the picture-perfect decade portrayed by some, huh?

    Reply
  2. Brian Gonigal

    Somehow, this is way more skeevy than most modern-day hardcore porn. WTF, 1950′s?

    Reply
  3. wggmn3

    come-on, gotta have a sense of humor about over-50 yrs ago…it’s interesting to know not only how silly the 50′s were but also how women’s body style / image has changed, among other things…additionally, it’s one of the reasons why we had the continuation of the women’s movement, the feminists…

    Reply
  4. Nick

    What a crazy time capsule. It wakes you wonder what people will think of our era.

    P.S. Page 43 is out of order, for those reading it for the articles.

    Reply
  5. SirFatty

    This magazine was intended as humor.. sure, it’s pretty lame, but within that context, it makes a little more sense.

    Doesn’t anyone research anymore, or is it just easier to freak out?

    Reply
  6. Mr Poppins

    Stalking and Collecting? Crumbs! I guess it’s at least open in it’s ogling of the female form and not trying to pretend that it’s being arty and empowering. Right, that’s enough! Get back in the kitchen and fix me a cocktail and some red meat!

    Reply
  7. spanky

    Funny article.

    Funnier comments in this thread. Humourless feminists would whitewash the past. Prudes.

    Reply
  8. Tesla

    @spanky – I do not understand why feminists, humourless or otherwise, would ever want to whitewash the past? They were the ones who fought to change it.

    Reply
  9. Anatole

    Thank you Tesla. I knew it wouldn’t take long for someone to blame feminists for ending such sketchy magazines like this.

    I have a lot of female friends who find this kind of ‘humour’ distressing, because it still happens, and they don’t like to be shouted at/stalked. There’s no humour in being yelled at from cars. As for ‘girl-collecting’, enough said. It’s important to see how (some) attitudes have changed, but I’m glad this doesn’t get printed anymore.

    Reply
  10. paddy

    Wow what a weird magazine they even have a section called “girl stalking” creepy stuff!

    Reply
  11. Martin

    As a man, this is one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever viewed.

    I wonder how the “Maxim” type magazines of today will be viewed by future generations?

    Reply
  12. CathyS

    The bras could be pointy but at least the breasts were real and skinny waifs were not the template.

    Funny to see a few ladies here, like Jill St. John. They misspelled Yvette Mimieux.

    Reply
  13. Jac

    Guys are visual when it comes to women. No amount of brow beating will change that. If a man says he is not then he is a liar. Ads with sexy women are successful for a reason!
    Now, that said, I find the cheap thrills promoted by this and other rags of its nature pretty lame at best and dangerous at worst. Dangerous in that there are many in the world who take what they read as a sort of gospel. This treatment of women could easily guide some men into believing that they can use a woman as an object for their pleasure. That is a truly scary thought.
    I look at a beautiful woman and enjoy the moment just like any other man. However, I see a complete human being. I know that behind the clothing and makeup there is a person with a life of her own. Joys, sorrows and dreams just like me. Not just an object. And therein lays the difference. I respect the woman for not only how she cares for herself but as I respect all people.
    Not all men are pigs because they look at you and marvel at the beauty with which you fill the world. We are thankful to share our lives with such wonderful creatures as you.

    Reply
    • Amanda

      Condescending much? You can marvel at the beauty of wonderful creatures all you want. But don’t catcall, grope, ogle, or otherwise harass them. Deal?

      Reply
  14. Canaduck

    I love that some people imagine that a magazine like this to be a relic of some sort of goofy past where circumstances and societal attitudes towards women were completely different. It was only 50 years ago, folks. That’s the blink of an eye in terms of history and things don’t change that quickly.

    Reply
  15. lizosarus

    I think by far the creepiest bit has to be the Classified-esq adds from girls who want to be ‘Watched’. I’m all most 100% sure they were written by the staff mainly because they all play so clearly to some fantasy or another, that and I honesty can’t imagine any woman in the 50′s having written into a magazine like this but I could be wrong… creeps me out.

    Reply
  16. ScooterShack

    I hope a lot of younger people get to see this kind of stuff and realize people weren’t all like ‘I love Lucy’ or ‘Leave it to Beaver’. I spent my childhood in a world where everyone smoked everywhere, adults beat up kids, kids tortured animals, ethnic groups stayed in their designated neighborhoods and if the soviets didn’t bomb us we’d all get jobs exploring outer space. My daughter can’t understand that world any more than kids in the ’50s understood living without cars, telephones, records…
    Social norms do so change quickly, they change a lot.

    Reply
  17. JohnDoe

    Porn sans nudity – gasp! Ever since pictures first appeared on cave walls it has existed.
    Why are women allowed bodice ripper/rape fantasies (ie Harlequin), but men are not allowed to have their own without being sneered at, ridiculed, and otherwise abused?
    It is FANTASY, and given the norms of the era, unlikely to be acted on by the readership as most knew it was unlikely to go well even with a willing partner. Remember cops regularly interfered with normal couples just looking for some privacy and went positively ballistic for anything that wasn’t strictly by the book. Gays? Cops beat them into sludge. Peeping toms? Publicly humiliate them. Fantasy does not mean you want it to happen – just that the idea is exciting – to someone. It may not be you and probably isn’t. Grow up.

    Reply
  18. phyre

    This magazine is sexist and creepy as hell, but it’s nice to see some beautiful women who aren’t skin, bones, and silicone.

    Reply
  19. Sue

    May I ask what it is you are not being “allowed,” JohnDoe? Have such magazines been outlawed? Has pornography? No? Then what are you complaining about–the fact that people are horrified by the stalking, the objectification (referring to a girl as a “sweater-filler”–really?), and the crass and questionable humour? That seems to be your point. You don’t want commenters to be offended, you think they shouldn’t be, and you take it as a personal affront that they have such horrified reactions to this.

    If you can’t see that this whole magazine was devoted to dehumanizing women (I can imagine the protagonist of John Fowles’ novel The Collector enjoying this issue), that is your business. But why resort to the pretense that romance novels are anything like this? Have you read any of them?

    Reply
  20. Modernaire

    I met and gave Vicki Dugan a ride a few years back from the 99 cent store to her home in Beverly Hills. She needed a ride and kindly asked me and I could not say no to lady in distress.

    She is a very sweet lady, and for being a senior, she had a youthful physicality about her, her face was also very pretty still. No plastic surgery, very friendly and carried a book with all kinds of clippings from her glamour days.

    Reply
  21. Mr Dick

    I’d see this stuff on the racks in the lobby of Howard Johnson motels, maybe, sort of understood to be trash along with UFO-abduction magazines and such . . . but I’d sneak a peak when the folks weren’t looking!

    Reply
  22. Sand

    A tad creepy. But the article ‘The Kitten Type’ was, I thought, brilliant.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.