Vogue, GQ....

Shard · Post by **Shard** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:44 pm

Now, I know this doesn't have to do with freaking anything at all, but...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

There's a quote in here, about LeBron James being "Vogue's first black man on the cover in its 116 year history".

..... the hell?

At first I thought they meant GQ but it's Vogue that's been a bit behind the times.
http://fashionesedaily.com/blog/2008/03 ... gue-cover/

How in the world can fashion magazines like Vogue have *never featured a black man on their cover* in 116 freaking YEARS? There have been some amazingly fashionable men - sports figures or politicians or even lawyers and the like... who could have been there, but ... why not?

It just boggled my mind that it took that long for a fashion magazine to do something as simple as show some dark. I just can't even ... I don't get it. Were they unable to notice that black men are just as smexy as white ones? And they also wear clothing? o.o

*boggles*

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:47 am

I haven't read both articles, just because it's late and I ... woke up just now. XD *fell asleep near the keys*

Anyway, clicked the second link and browsed that article and stared at the cover and have like... half a thought here that I'm about to expound on:

He is also becoming the third man (joining Richard Gere and George Clooney), and the fourth African American ever appeared on the cover.

Um. I'm under the impression that Vogue is steered much more towards women's fashion. Also, it's a really butch cover there, (and at this hour, I have NO IDEA who this man is?), and I get the feeling that conceptual editors for the cover had to fight to get it OK'd by the higher-ups. If, however, there have been no black chicks to grace the covern of this magazine, I will join you in being horribly offended. Especially since ethnic chick models are growing in popularity again.

As for why GW is NOT as messed up wrt racial/gender issues, I have no idea. I think of them as a more generalized fashion (if fashion at all) kind of magazine. I think they likely have had more than three men ever grace their cover. So. *SHRUG*

EDIT: Re-reading this, half my reasoning is unsound. XD I'm going back to sleep now. Sorry for the fail at logic. XD;;

Shard · Post by **Shard** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:52 am

Well Gentleman's Quarterly often has gorgeous guys on the cover, but they've had their share of women that I can recall. I realize that Vogue is more female-ish, however so is Cosmo and it's habitually got half-naked sluts on the cover... That's not selling to women, srsly.

I am WAY more tempted to pick up GQ if it's got a handsome dude just smiling out at me.

vogue... not so much, just because it's vooooooggggghhhh.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:14 am

Cosmo /also/ has articles regarding /how to be/ a half-naked slut. So, I think they're selling to their reading audience there. XD;

Vogue, I just tend to associate with fashion in general. I can probably blame Madonna there. And as such, associate it with women's fashion, because men's fashion is.... kinda the same thing whether you're in 2009 or 1869. "OH. I WEAR THIS SUIT TO FORMAL STUFF AND FAR LESS WHEN WORKING THE FIELD AND SOMETHING ELSE FOR SPORTS."

*SHRUG* Personally, I agree with your assessment, though. It's a very "WTF?!" reaction to learn that only four african americans have ever graced the covers of that magazine. (though, it doesn't cite how many italian americans, actual africans, chinese americans, etc etc etc...)