I know pics aren't allowed but I just thought I'd give a heads up on the new Naked Issue of Attitude which features Gareth Thomas on the cover (not exactly the sort of cover guy that would make me want to buy the magazine). Also featured are Andrew hayden-Smith, Joe McFadden, Freddie Hogan and Jay from Geordie Shore (any of them would've made a better cover guy).

Any naked guy gets me going of late.

Urgh, I was waiting for this with eager anticipation but none of those names makes me rush out and buy it.
Anyone has the full list?

Is it that time already? I must say thats a very disappointing list so far, lets hope the best is yet to come!

Any dick shots in the "Naked" issue?

Well no, there never are.

Although having said that, I think there were some slip ups last year and if you looked closely enoght you could see a bit of willy.

No parsi there are not. How many times?


@Nosferatu
Actually they are abit late, the last couple of years the naked Issue was the may one.

Gareth Thomas
Joe McFadden
Jay from Geordie Shore
Robbie Grabarz (high jumper)
Andrew Hayden-Smith
Rod Thomas AKA Bright Light Bright Light (musician)
Freddie Hogan

That's it.

Hmmmmmmm.


(yawn)

Magazines are never going to publish full frontal images. The photographs are meant to be classy. If you want nakedness just google porn images. The most your going to see in Attitude is a rear shot. Besides I doubt the guys posing would want to fully strip anyway. I'm not sure what people expect. High profiled celebs would probably not take part or demand too much. So that's why there's no big names. Andrew Hayden-Smith is gorgeous, love the pic of him on a space hopper and Joe Mcfadden is hot too.

It's quite a disappointing turn-out in comparison to Gay Times this year.

Two of them even were in this year's GT!

Just wondering if it's worth spending money on.


Nakedness = porn?



You're a bit prudish.


Have you ever looked at Playgirl (photos blacklisted on here). Lots of celebs there with full-frontal shots.

Tut. I'll put the money towards a sub to English Lads.

What an absolutely piss poor selection! They haven't even remotely tried to appeal to different tastes in guys and as for competing with GT, well its a no contest

Like who? Most celebs in Playgirl barely show more than a bit of shirtless action never mind actual nudity.
Now in South America where they have G-Magazine on the other hand...

Agree with above
I'm not yawning at the lack of cock.. which is understandable.

I'm yawning at the lineup, which apart from AHS just seems a bit... (yawwwwwwwwn!)

Completely agree! Worst line up ever. Including AHS. He's done it before hasn't he? And hasn't Gareth already done an Attitude cover? Not that that's a bad thing. They just seem to shoot the same group of gays over and over. I definitely will not be buying this! I feel like I'm always complaining about Attitude recently, the photoshoots always look really badly done as well. I'd love to know their figures and what the budget goes on, as nothing seems to go into shoots.

I am usually quite aware of the current Z-Listers on the circuit, but I'm struggling to recognise more than half of those names...

Playgirl is aimed at Women, so it's not a gay magazine. I'm sure plenty of men in the states are more than happy to get their cock out for the ladies. What's there claim to fame, most of them look like models and I don't think any of the pics look artistic. It's unnecessary to have full frontal in magazines, if that makes me prudish then so be it. You don't see lady parts in Lads mags, probably only in the top shelf mags, which is porn. As far as I'm aware Gay Times and Attidude are Lifestyle magazines for guys. People don't buy them for the hope of seeing pics of cock. It's the 21st century, people can use the world wide web to access them kinda pics or head down to a nudist beach.

Oh really?


It's been years since I looked inside an issue of Playboy, but the last time I did I distinctly recall seeing vaginal lips (or whatever they're called). Tastefully done mind you.

No matter how tastefully done comparing Playgirl to Michelangelo's David is a bit of a strech...

Attitude and GT are basically a gay version of FHM. You can't really compare them to Play Girl, which would probably be wrapped and top of the shelf here. I can't say I've ever seen someone buying or even browsing a gay magazine in the shops. Only Whsmith seem to stock them. Supermarkets have them in occassionally. I don't think full frontal nudity will appear in British mags. If anything mags are on the decline, so GT and Attitude are lucky to have survived this long.

That's good to know. And I thought the US is uptight.

My point is that I asked if there are any dick shots in the "Naked" issue of Attitude having never read the magazine. And then you went on a rant equating nakedness with porn. It's nothing of the kind. But I'm beginning to understand that there are different sensibilities about "naked" men (and women) in the US and the UK. (And then ... there's Germany. ) But even that "understanding" seems odd when it is beyond comprehension that a TV show like Embarrassing Bodies could ever appear in the US. I don't know what to make of it all. But full-frontal naked men is NOT in and of itself porn. Just look at the pics of (French) actors in the view forum who appear in mainstream films.

Excuse me?

I don't quite get what you're playing at. Playgirl/Playboy are completely different to GT/Attitude which are just gay versions of GQ. They have nothing to do with nudity perse apart from the odd photoshoot and their naked issues. They're not nudey mags like the ones you compare them too.
It has nothing to do with being prudish it's just the concept of the magazines.

Germany is completely uninhibited about putting nakednes ("real" nakedness) in mags and on TV.


I was simply inquiring about Attitude's definition of "Naked". (Now I know.) It turns out that their definition of naked and mine are not the same. That's all. I think a much too big a deal has been made out of this.

Well they aren't wearing any clothes, just because there is a rugby ball/cocktail/sheet/thigh in between them and the camera doesn't mean they aren't naked.
I never understand people who complain that it doesn't count as naked unless you can see penis.

Same here. If you're not wearing clothes you're naked.

To the minds of some the word "Naked" implies unobstructed, uninhibited "freedom". When a photoshoot deliberately hides a part of the anatomy then that freedom which the word "Naked" implies is limited and may even suggest that there is something wrong with being naked. And thus the use of the word "Naked" can be misleading for some. The word should be used properly, else the issue should be called something else. (Granted, British magazine readers may understand something else by the word than American, non-Utah and non-Bible Belt, or German magzine readers may understand by it.)

So what would you have it called, "The Issue where the guys have no clothes on but still don't show their penis due to carefully placed props which may or may not be considered naked depending on how deeply you read into it"?

Because that's kinda a mouthful. If you really need to see a penis that badly just Google them. Or alternatively look down in the shower.

That's good for a start for a photoshoot that deliberately goes out of its way to hide something.

Which roughly translated from Parsy language to English means "I was wrong but I'm never going to admit it so have this bullshit explanation instead".

Actually, I was thinking the same thing about Chris=).

What a shame- i have a whole list of celebs who i'm sure would love to get their bums out for a bit of free publicity- Who the hell are these people? So many Z lists to choose from: Lyndon Ogbourne (i know he was in GT but I think he deserves a better shoot), Jeff Brazier, Lee Steps, Ronan also needs to get his bum out lol, Aleks Josh from The Voice, Tom Daley..... i could go on and on and on

Oooooo and what about Stuart Pilkington from Big Brother... Ok Ok now i'm getting carried away with myself lol