Ok folks - Should CarCraft be putting pretty girls in the magazine? I think cars and girls just go together and always have. I'm not saying tastless, topless or overly suggestive stuff, but your standard occasional model posing tastfully to advertise a t-shirt or speed part is fine.  What do you folks think? Is it bad for women? Does it stop you from buying the mag? Would you not buy a manufacturer's product because of a 'tasteless add'? What about the women who read the mag (hopefully some of you do)? Or should the editors stick only to cars and tech articles and not waste the space? Girls in CarCraft - Yes or No?  

The type of people who complain about women in the mag are of the same mentallity of those who complain "You show too many/ too few.....(enter your own brand).  As far as I know there is nobody forcing these ladies to pose, just as there is nobody forcing people to look at them.

I have the same reply to all of them, If you dont like it---TURN THE PAGE.

I dont want to see the mag plastered with women, I have a different subscription for that, but I think a few tasteful shots, with a few tasteful items cant hurt anything. Plus I think I speak for many when I say these pics remind us to take our eyes off our cars for at least a few minutes a month, lest bad things happen (think Magnante)

Personally I don't care,if they do I hope they never block the cars or parts like every motorcycle mag from the 80's. It's frustrateing when you read an article on a modified S&S you want to attempt to duplicate the results and can't get a good view of the mods cause the model is in the way.  If they keep the off the rack piece I think bios would be nice like the parts with apeal that HR caught heck for, it showed the females relavence to motor sports, at least in most cases.  I think it ocasionally draws new readers who look for the girl and get hooked on the tech.  There is still an HR from the late 80's that is stuck in my head for the model though on the cover there was no aperance in the mag.  Talk about bait and switch.  Id skip all the cheesy possed stuff like grm did with the JY story about two years ago.  Not very tastefull though every one looked like they were having fun with it.  I'd say either way keep it to a minimum if it's there but if it's not it's no loss.  

I'm all for looking at girls, but keep them in seperate pictures, not draped over the cars. When I want to look at cars I want to see the cars. Naturally it follows. When I want to look at girls, I want to see the girl.  

I agree with what everybody else is saying for the most part.  Who doesnt like pretty girs?

 On the flip side of that coin,  Have you guys ever looked at one of those import yam-yam magazines?  They all go something like this, heavy on the chicks and light on the tech.

 Im cool with car craft having girls in the magazine, as long as it doesnt turn into that import mag crap.

Yeah modified is so heavily laiden with women an adds thats about what they have, the content is week but they get a really good article once every two months.  

The question is posed too broadly.

Nobody (except for maybe some Islamic Jihadists)  objects to "girls" in CC if they are relevant to the magazine's main purpose (i.e. showing "girls" who own, race or actually wrench on the cars featured or who make the products being tested). Furthermore, nobody objects to "girls" being shown in "real" situations (wearing ordinary street clothes in the garage or at a cruise, properly wearing fire suits or NHRA-legal attire at the strip, wearing team uniforms, actually testing engines on a dyno, etc.). 

All of us would support more "real women of Car Crafting" shown in real-life situations (BTW, I've never seen a "real woman of Car Crafting" prance around the garage or drag strip in five-inch stillettos with her shirt or pants unbuttoned--not even JUNGLE PAM back in the free-love '70s (http://www.junglepam.com/photos.html although in retrospect,  some of her braless outfits don't appear very tasteful).

"Girls" become controversial when they HAVE NO RELEVANCE to cars or tech and/or are "stripped down" as purely sex objects.  While "Off the Rack" is generally tasteful (Freiburger has apparently resisted the urge to put his team of professional models in "Mooneyes" string bikinis or plaster them spread-eagled over the hood of some ridiculous ISCA circus wagon) it is a colossal waste of space because the unrealistic professional models featured have no connection to anything automotive--other than wearing a "hot rod" t-shirt.   If CC was 300 pages a month, maybe there would be room for "Rack," but with the paltry number of non-advertising pages in CC, it's ridiculous to waste any on ignorant models sporting ordinary t-shirts sold at most every car show on the planet.

Obviously, this isn't a simple, black-and-white issue.  The more controversial the photograph, the greater the potential that a plurality of parents and other concerned readers will find it unnecessarily gratuitious.  Of course, it goes without saying that when the "eye candy" starts popping headlights, the level of controversy significantly increases.  

The comments about CC not becoming like the tasteless ricer mags are spot-on!

"I have the same reply to all of them, If you dont like it---TURN THE PAGE."

It's a little too late then.  The hooter is already out of its nest, so to speak.

And what about parents who buy CC for their kids?  Should parents have to digest each issue with a Sharpie or a razor blade in hand just to make sure it doesn't have unwanted "adult" content?

FHM, Maxim, Playboy, Hustler, Juicy Booty or whatever kind of "mens" magazines there are all give their potential readers and subscribers fair warning (and sometimes engorged expectations) because their apparent editorial mission is to objectify fantasy women in unrealistic, sexually-suggestive poses.  But the same kinds of photography occasionally sprinkled throughout CC would be a shock to many subscribers and wholly unnecessary to "Affordable Street Performance" (unless you're talking about "affordable street-walker performance").  

"Just turn the page" is hardly a solution.

Boy you must be bored, and you must want to add some controversy to this board, to be concerned with something that minute. How old of kids do you think are reading car craft magazine? I doubt 7 and 8 year olds are, granted maybe some are flippin through the pages to see the pictures, but in a couple years they will go to school and see girls in shorts and skirts, you have to think of the day and age we are living in.

Dude, you're like the king of double entendre.  I salute you.

Although I've got a tasteful Linda Vaughn poster in my garage, I hear what you're saying.  Years ago, my mom once made me stop subscribing to Car and Driver because it had some doggie "associate editor" chick posing in an unzipped Car and Driver nerd jacket with no shirt on.  I replaced it with a subscription to the "no-girls" Popular Hot Rodding. Thanks mom for turning me from the "dark side" of boring "legitimate" car magazines onto the wild world of hot rodding!

Personally, I'd satire the import hoochie mags with a "Beauties and Beaters" photo spread--roachie, primered, jacked-up street rats with elegant models posing nearby in extravagant evening and formalwear.  That'd sure turn the crank of those "more girls" fans who probably really just want more low-class "MTV-style" snatch in everything . . . .

I hear ya, Dude!

Maybe CC should pose the "Rack" models in SCHOOLGIRL UNIFORMS!

However, as someone over 30, I am aware that some parents in the Heartland o' America keep on fighting the losing battle against everything in our culture getting sexed-up like some gangsta rap video.

I don't think CC should be as "raw" as a lot of what I see going down at my local high schools and teen clubs.  I guess that makes me an old fogie, doesn't it?  How did I get so old!

What's the big deal about a few girls in Car Craft.  I think some of you need to loosen up a little bit.  Do you really think a girl in a tshirt is going to influence your 14 year old?  I guarantee if you have the internet, they've at least attempted to get into some dirty sites.  Why don't we worry about the bigger picture, like the fact that BIR is getting closed down.

After reviewing several old issues I was unable to find anything that could be called "adult content" But if I did function along those lines of thinking I would have to build a fence around my property, as I live next to a public pool (way more adult content there).Or maybe I need to stand outside of any major carshow and tell the ladies "please keep on a long sleeve shirt at all times, I have my 6 yearold with me and he shouldnt see your bikini top" If CC did show smut in the mag I'd probably cancel my sub., but I dont think they show anything you couldnt see by looking out your window.

Also, I do believe CC already has a disclaimer on the cover pertaining to the ladies,   Real World

 "(BTW, I've never seen a "real woman of Car Crafting" prance around the garage or drag strip in five-inch stillettos with her shirt or pants unbuttoned"

Ya ain't never been to MY CRIB, Homes! 

"--not even JUNGLE PAM back in the free-love '70s (http://www.junglepam.com/photos.html although in retrospect,  some of her braless outfits don't appear very tasteful)."

If we're talkin' 'bout sketchy skanks like dat-- no way!  Dat old boo had some cans, but they's still hooked t' th' cow.  Duck D-dub-a.  

You 5150 if yo think ya can get the product out.

You've completely missed the point.

Oldsman 496 started this on another thread with his suggestion for Freiburger

TRANSLATION FOR THE COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED: HE WANTED CC TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF "T&A."

My argument has been consistent--there's no problem in CC now. All I've said about "Off the Rack" is that it wastes space, not that it crosses the line into soft-core stupidity and irrelevance.

Obviously, a parent cannot completely shield kids from sexually-charged content.  Anyone who takes their kids to a ball game or a NASCAR race will hear some drunk morons screaming the F-word or see bra-less old barfly hags with their wrinkled beer guts hanging out from under a "boob tube"  or halter top.  You can usually give your kid guidance on these inappropriate occasions. In context, kids can usually separate the exhibitionist freaks from the normal folks.   And hopefully, responsible parents and teachers monitor what their kids are doing on the internet!

But it's another thing entirely when such inappropriateness is held out as wholly acceptable in print by a major publication which is supposedly edited by responsible adults.  All I'm saying is that CC should not travel any farther down the road to exploiting gratuitous sex for ratings.  No need to repeat my arguments again.  As I said, this isn't a "simple, black-and-white issue."

I've spent hundreds of hours at car shows across the country and very seldom do I see anyone dressed like a stripper or a Baywatch extra (unless it's on the way to some stupid bikini contest--and even then, many women wear a cover-up), so your sarcastic "long sleeve" comment is simply not relevant or accurate.