Kitty sent us this cover for Wad, an “urban fashion and culture magazine.”
It kind of sums things up, doesn’t it?
1. Women are objects.
2. Women are for consumption.
3. Women are violable.
4. Women are interchangable.
5. Women are rewards.
6. Violence against women is cute and funny.
UPDATE! In our comments, KJK notes that there appears to have been a male version of the cover too. There is no #10 and no text beneath the magazine title… so I’m a little confused as to whether it was a cover. The production quality seems the same, though. For what it’s worth, here it is:
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Tintin LaChance — August 22, 2009
7. That is freaking gross-looking. D:
MK — August 22, 2009
8. Women have many layers ;)
9. Should be consumed before 10? :(
Sabriel — August 22, 2009
I don't know, it seems to be saying:
9. Boys should start objectifying women on their 10th birthday.
Iva — August 22, 2009
It's... Disgusting and shocking. And it made me post my first comment.
Maybe it says that:
11. Women are a piece of cake, meaning easy, tasty objects that you either buy from the store or have them made.
12. Women are bodies without a head and a face. Just a piece of ass?
13. A woman's butt is the best gift for a boy's 10th birthday? o.O
Cute Bruiser — August 22, 2009
It's actually the magazine's 10th anniversary.
Olive — August 22, 2009
I thought that was a man. Maybe it says sex is hard to determine from a skinny person's back.
Rosemary — August 22, 2009
Ugh. I actually felt a little bit physically ill looking at that.
Sven — August 22, 2009
I've heard girls say things like "he's so cute i could just eat him up" a hell of a lot more than I've heard boys say it. it's mostly just disconcerting, not offensive.
Other Kelly — August 22, 2009
ew, just....ew. I have no words
Elena — August 22, 2009
When Tom Petty did this years ago (end of the video) it was supposed to be disturbing, you know.
jess — August 22, 2009
Is it wrong that I thought that was a dude and I thought "wad" was some sort of gays-reclaiming-jock slang? It's kind of not overtly gendered - or have I just not seen enough waxed nude butts to know the difference?
hoshi — August 22, 2009
looking at this cake makes my butt hurt. >_<
alix — August 22, 2009
Women are white, young, thin, attractive, and passive.
KJK::Hyperion — August 22, 2009
There is a male version too
Fernando — August 22, 2009
So now that there is a male version of the cover, does it change everything? I just think that some of the points raised in here are based on generalizations. I think one question should always be raised: how the artist could've done this in another way. In the end, the person making the picture must depict something. Be it a black or white person, a male or female, a child or an adult, something must be shown, and so it doesn't necessarily means that the group in which whoever person can be fit in is being persecuted.
Plus, the picture is so unrealistic, I thought it was creative more than anything.
Brien — August 22, 2009
it might be worth noting that in some places (e.g. northern california) the word "cake" is used to mean "ass" (in the slang sense). I suspect it might be a euphemistic/metaphorical link between "get a piece of cake" and "get a piece of ass".
since this is an "urban" magazine, the photographs could be a play on that expression
Alison — August 22, 2009
It reminds me of Margaret Atwood's 1969 novel, "The Edible Woman".
Ed — August 22, 2009
I don't mean to badger with this, but do we now also conclude:
1. Men are objects.
2. Men are for consumption.
3. Men are violable.
4. Men are interchangable.
5. Men are rewards.
6. Violence against men is cute and funny.
How does the existence of an apparently equivalent cover with a male on it bear on what was decided earlier? Shall we just drop the subject?
Claire Winstone — August 23, 2009
Hard to tell exactly, but it looks like the cake replaces the genitalia, whatever that may mean!
Sarah — August 23, 2009
Both of the covers look male.
karinova — August 24, 2009
I didn't see this post prior to the update, so I'm posting my thoughts before I read the other comments:
a) I see this as saying:
1. Nude people are objects.
2. Nude people are for consumption.
3. Nude people are violable.
4. Nude people are interchangable.
5. Nude people are rewards.
6. Violence against nude people is cute and funny.
7. Nude people tend to be very slim.
b) Tom Petty did this better. (And he managed to do it with clothes on.)
c) The male cover (without the text) may be be back cover.
Arty magazines often do the two-covers thing that way.
Now, on to the comments!
Megan — August 25, 2009
yuck. those are both disgusting and disturbing. theres nothing sexy about that.
Roving Thundercloud — August 25, 2009
Are we forgetting this was also done in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode (as part of a dream sequence) where this is done to Deanna Troi, despite the victim's pleading? It still makes me ill to think of it. But then, as with the Tom Petty video, it was meant to be disturbing, not celebratory.
Ryan — August 31, 2009
I'm surprised they didn't make them different kind of cakes.
A.B. — April 17, 2010
whether showing a male OR female figure, this cover image reduces the body to something which is consumed, hence it perfectly illustrates the theme of objectification. i don't think there can be much debate about that. moreover, it is no coincidence that the magazine is celebrating its birthday with a human cake -- the media overwhelmingly makes its money out of selling pounds of flesh. a very clever image.
Anonymous — March 28, 2011
honestly if they wouldn't have mentioned if it was a male would you guyz have known about it that it is a male ? haaan
What It Means To Be A Man: Part I, Objectifying Women (A Poisoned Mind) | — June 12, 2014
[…] image source […]