1. adj. Fashionable or elegant, may imply overbearingly so. n. Spiffyness or elegance in style or bearing.

2. adj. Ostentatious; pretentious; arrogance.

3. v. To show off; to behave ostentatiously; compare to Swagger and Strut.

4 adj. {Scot} Full of life and energy; active.

5. v. Imperative of swink; {syn.; swonk}.

6. Acronym Sent With A Nice Kiss.

And don't miss these other swanky words!
Swanky (having the quality of swank), swanker (one who swanks), swankily (in a swank manner), and swankiness (the quality or state of being swank).

The word swanking (strapping, {Scot}) is related only to definition number 4.

While Swank is one of the better men's magazines out there, it's in some ways one of the weirdest.

A few years ago, I thought of Swank as the magazine for illiterate prisoners. Every single bit of text was written at a fifth-grade level. Most mags will have a few paragraphs about the model and her alleged likes and dislikes, but Swank stuck to a few awkwardly written sentences composed entirely of monosyllables (sample: "OHH YESS! STICK YOUR HARD THING IN MY HOT HOLE!"). As for the models--well, they were so heavily airbrushed that they looked like mannequins, and the photo editors, for some unknown reason, felt like adding fake sparkles to whatever jewelry they were wearing. You could only take them seriously if you hadn't seen a woman in ten years or so. For a long time, I didn't bother with it, because I knew there was better stuff out there.

A while back, I flipped through it again, and discovered that it was undergoing a transformation. Most of the models look like real women now; the fake boobs are gone, and they've caught on to the pubic shaving trend. As for the pictorials, they don't waste any time with fully-clothed shots; the young starlets are bare-ass and going at it from the first pic in the series, and there are plenty of closeups and spread shots. The couples pics now show penetration, and, unlike other high-quality mags, they don't do cumshots, a decision I greatly respect.

Unfortunately, they haven't entirely escaped the flaws of their early days. While girls in other magazines, such as Cheri, almost always manage to look fantastic but reasonably human at the same time, Swank's girls occasionally still look like tan plastic dolls dipped in oil, with damp hair and heavy makeup to boot. They don't pay quite enough attention to poses; if you look closely, you'll notice that the models change facial expressions about as often as Keanu Reeves. Although they typically have one "teen" pictorial in every issue, they don't understand the teen porn fad at all; their putative 18-year-olds are indistinguishable from the rest of their models. As for the lesbian pics, they occasionally revert back to the old style, where the women never actually touch or lick each others' naughty bits. On the whole, the average pictorial is hotter and more realistic than it used to be, but it still isn't quite at the level of other mags.

Swank's weirdest feature, though, is its articles. Most porno mags don't bother much with text, aside from the occasional stories or letters to the editor. Guys probably aren't going to read it, so it's a waste of space; you might as well fill it with pictorials or (best of all from the mag's point of view) advertisements. Swank does have its share of letters, which, if anything, are even more wildly implausible than those in most magazines, but that's not all that surprising. What's bizarre is that they have articles that aren't on sexual topics at all. A recent issue, for example, had a four-page article on fatal diseases. Not newsworthy diseases like SARS or terrorist threats like smallpox or STDs like AIDS, but diseases that cause epidemics. Like the black plague, or mad cow. So here you are, flipping through page after page of gorgeous naked flesh, with lovely body parts slipping deep into other lovely body parts, and suddenly you find yourself absorbed in an article about how leprosy can make your cock rot off.

The effects of this are easy to anticipate, and aren't exactly what you'd think the publishers would want.

Then there's "Senor Swanky" (I swear I am not making this up), who offers practical advice on topics such as wines, throwing knuckleballs, getting out of speeding tickets, and dating. Now, if this were the execrable Hustler, the column would probably suggest looking for a woman who doesn't talk much and doesn't knee you in the groin when you grope her. Senor Swanky, on the other hand, recommends things like talking to the girl (imagine that!), looking for common interests, maintaining interest without pressuring her too much, and backing off if she's really not interested.

This is good, respectable advice. From a porno mag. They're working against themselves here--if all their readers get dates, they'll have no subscribers left. I have no idea what they're thinking, but it's a pleasant surprise.

Then there's the advice column that deals with anal sex. Here again, someone like Larry Flynt would recommend jamming a gag in the woman's mouth, flipping her over, and going at it until you're done. Senor Swanky (I still can't believe it) recommends the following: 0) talk with her about it first; 1) use a water-based lube; 2) start with small things, like a finger or small dildo; 3) never insert anything that doesn't have a flared base, because you might lose it; 4) play with her clit while you're about it, because it'll help her have a good time. This advice is quite similar to that provided by knowledgeable folks, and--most astonishing of all--it actually suggests treating women as human beings! Incredible...it's a porno mag, and yet it's pointing out that women are creatures who can feel pleasure and pain, who have needs of their own that you just might want to attend to! And it actually seems to think that its readers might actually have anal sex one day!

Seems like nobody told them that they're supposed to be exploiting and degrading women. Oh, well--enjoy it while it lasts; in a year or two, they'll be bankrupt or back to the usual standard. In the meantime, Swank is a good but not great magazine that could improve itself by shaking off its old habits.

  • Pictorials: 10-12
  • Girls: glamorous, but with a tendency towards excessive airbrushing
  • Penetration: yes (finger, dildo, penis)
  • Lesbian: 1-2 pictorials/issue
  • Guy/Girl: 1-2/issue
  • Group: 0-1/issue
  • Fetish: none
  • Stories/Articles: lots, with inexplicable choices of subject matter
know_no_bounds's rating: * * *

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.