Dear FHM,
I get it. I really get it. You’re useless fart-huffing dicknozzles. I know this. You really don’t need to prove this by normalising violence against women.
In your “What Not To Wear” feature, you decided to be very funny by advising your readership not to wear women’s socks. Might I just point out that you’re really missing out here, as women’s socks tend to be a little softer than men’s socks, and if you buy the over-the-knee ones, your legs will be toasty all winter?
Sorry, I wandered off the point, there. Where was I? Oh yes, you are shitmunching chancres.
See, at the end of the little slot, you advise your readers not to wear their “girlfriend/mother/victim’s socks”. You might think this is a light-hearted little joke, a friendly bit of fun. Banter, if you will.
If that’s the case, you’re wrong in the way only the true arsenugget can be wrong. Have you thought at all about what a “victim” is, other than the butt of your edgy humour? Did you know that one in twenty of your readers might have raped–maybe more than once–and shared a wry smile upon reading your little joke, while resolving not to steal the socks off of anyone he rapes in the future? Or that one in five of your readers are likely to think it’s all right to hit a woman, and you’ve just made that a little bit more acceptable?
Or maybe you think your little joke is much funnier because all this happens. Perhaps you’re trying to market yourselves to that all-important “perpetrator” demographic by laughing with them?
If so, please catch on fire. I am asking you as politely as possible. Please catch on fire.
Furiously,
Stavvers (no hugs, kisses, and I’m not letting you near my socks)
__
Picture courtesy of @Seja75
Another angry woman 
PREACH! Couldn’t agree more
Enjoy the language. Not sure if it was strong enough. “Chancres”? Presumably an older spelling for cankers/cancers, but a bit obscure. “Chancers” might be better although it changes the sense.
Used to buy the mag on occasion. Never again. Thanks for this.
Chancre. It’s a sore resulting from syphilis infection.
If anything, you were too polite. I think if I sat down to try and compose a response to FHM, I’d just end up typing “DIE YOU HORRIBLE CUNTS” repeatedly until either my fingers or keyboard broke.
A fair point, but made with no creative ability whatsoever. Arsenuggets? Dicknozzles? Shitmunchers? Jesus.
While you just Statler and Waldorf away in the background, waiting for your microwaved pasty to cool to edible temperature.
What does that even mean? Do you even know yourself? If you’re going to put a blog up, you should expect criticism as well as fawning praise. It’s fair enough to flag up the brainless article that FHM have written, but this blog is dreadful.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=statler+and+waldorf
Hunty, please. At least try to do research before trying to be patronising.
So dreadful a national newspaper reprinted it…
Si, if you are going to comment on a blog then you must accept criticism as well. And your post is shit. So’s mine, to be fair, but the point stands.
FHM and other gentleman’s magazines are basically dick replacements for those not swingingly endowed.. Everything they write is their revenge against the world. Ignore them. .
Ignore them? Why, so they can continue to spread the word that victimising people is funny and cool? If magazines had no influence on people, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to stave off regulation, and advertising wouldn’t work.
Thing is you’ve taken “victim” to mean rape victim. The word can apply to non-negative situations. A “victim to their charms” for example.
Haha. Yeah, and that doesn’t have any implications to it, does it?
Oh my, I totally failed to see that most people in the world use victim to mean something nice and fluffy, thank you so much for pointing that out to me!
Awesome rantage, I find it hard to care about what the morons at FHM get up to, but this has really crossed my meh line. Sadly I kind of think it was intended to.
Victims? VICTIMS?
What I wonder is why they needed a joke there in the first place. Was it to lighten the tone of a light-hearted section on socks as part of a light-hearted piece on what not to wear in a light-entertainment magazine?
#LAD culture is obviously putting in an awful lot of work into laughing and being flippant about everything. Obviously it’s vitally important that everything is jokes and banterous and lulz and top bantz and banter and so on, but it’s also very important for readers to take away very clear messages about not wearing gay socks, looking at the arse on that and trying not to lose too much sleep over misogynistic violence.
Maybe the idea is if they put a joke in that bit, you know to take the stuff just before the joke seriously, so even though you started reading an amusing article about socks and fashion faux-pas, you wind up taking a serious message away. Or maybe it’s just to bombard you with bantersaurus rexes and sincere heteronormativity tips until you see everything from gayness of socks to violence against women at the same level of smirking semi-seriousness. I really don’t know what to make of it.
You are a genius Stavvers. My anger has slightly melted (slightly) upon reading this excellent response to a bunch cumguzzlingarsemunchers.
Leaving aside the general fuckwittery of the victims “joke” which you’ve got covered tbh, the whole pretence of this “lighthearted fashion piece” is offensive.
Why must women’s socks be significantly different to mens? Aside from the fact that I own several pairs of over-the-knee socks that I know for a fact my partner would pinch in a heartbeat if he thought they’d fit him (I have tiny feet) most of my socks are plain black so NO ONE WOULD KNOW. Really FHM is run my misogynistic imbéciles isn’t it?