Smoking Hot Jewesses and the Goys who Love Them

We should really make a new category for Details fails. “Red-blooded American goys have found their new fetish: the smoking-hot Jewess.” Really, Details? I’m sure all the Jewish ladies out there are just tickled.

Also, note to the mag: There are a lot of Jewish women who are American. Really! Also non-white. And, sadly, some are not concerned with being hottt and sexxxy and in waiting for their red-blooded American goy. Sad. Face.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

32 comments for “Smoking Hot Jewesses and the Goys who Love Them

  1. December 1, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    jill has written 3600 posts for Feministe.


    Okay, back to the topic at hand.

  2. Amelia the Lurker
    December 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Yiddish FAIL.

    Wow, that’s about 100 times more offensive than the whole shiksa thing.

  3. December 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm


  4. norbizness
    December 1, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    The personal may be political, but the personal should never be a magazine article, unless it’s in a magazine no thinking person should give a fuck about, in which case this comment has been self-negating.

  5. December 1, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    What…what color is Jewish blood?

  6. Lauren
    December 1, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    This American Jewess is not amused.

  7. December 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    details is kind of infamously lame. i wish i was surprised.

  8. December 1, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Hey, there’s an exciting new consumer trend! Instead of being attracted to people who have characteristics like religion and ethnic background and physical attributes, all the cool kids are now simply dating the characteristic!! It’s the newest thing! Ignore the person woman. her individuality will only get in the way! The characteristic is the fun part. If she fails to live up to the exoticized characteristics that the boyfriendconsumer expects, simply ask her to change, to be more like the stereotype. Or, return her for a full refund!!

    Srsly. Fetishizing people and picking partners by categories is not the same thing as having sexual or romantic relationships with people. Anyone who confuses the latter with the former is likely to be disappointed and to really piss off some dates. Anyone who prefers the former to the latter is not worth engageing with on any level.

  9. December 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Steph, “lame” is not a word folks toss around here, on account of the ablism.

  10. December 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Hey, anyone remember when Details was a nearly underground gay men’s style mag, before it was bought by new owners and made into a pathetic peaen to mindless consumerism, lad-mag immaturity, superficiality and sexism, and catering to vapid self-absorption, a hollow shell, month-by-month mocking its former self? Kind of like Aerosmith?

  11. Evrybdy44
    December 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    What about fetishising the jewish boys? I mean if we are going to objectify an ethnicity let’s be fair on gender! Right? This is ridiculous! All of it!

  12. Haley
    December 1, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Gotta love that the picture they use is just a torso, and that we know the woman is Jewish because she is tattooed with a Star of David on her lower back. The objectification blew me away. The sad thing is, whoever wrote the article probably thinks the sexual objectification is empowering, while all I see in it is a painful reminder of Jews being objectified and labeled with Stars of David in another time and another way.

  13. Wednesday
    December 1, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    How on earth could they think that was even remotely a good idea?

    The last time I encountered the term “Jewess” in any context other than “do not use this word” was in a Dorothy Sayers novel.

  14. Lizzie
    December 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    It’s forbidden to get tatooes in Judaism (“no razor shall touch thy skin”). While the more liberal Jews may not mind this, getting a Star of David tramp stamp is definitely going to read as a big “fuck you, Judaism” to a lot of Jews. Just to add one more layer of fail to the whole thing.

  15. Lizzie
    December 1, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Occurs to me, I’m sorry if I offended anyone by use of “tramp stamp”. I should have thought.

    Also I do not like seeing a Jew marked out by a stamp of any sort. It has triggering historical associations. Besides, a typical American Jewish girl is more realistically portrayed holding an Ivy League diploma.

    • December 1, 2009 at 4:47 pm

      Also I do not like seeing a Jew marked out by a stamp of any sort. It has triggering historical associations. Besides, a typical American Jewish girl is more realistically portrayed holding an Ivy League diploma.

      I hear ya about the “stamp” issue, but are tattoos and Ivy League diplomas really mutally exclusive?

  16. Saurs
    December 1, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    Also love the ahistorical implication that the “sexy,” “exotic” “Jewess” trope is of recent vintage, and only recently discovered by American heterosexual men. ‘Cos European dude fiction from the past five hundred years isn’t already full of overweight Jewish women seducing innocent goyim.

  17. December 1, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what symbol or symbols they use to take a real, live woman’s body, depersonalize it and label it. It’s not the execution that’s the problem. It’s the enterprise.

  18. December 1, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    I shouldn’t say it doesn’t matter. It does matter. But it’s an issue of bad and worse. There’s no right way to use that picture for the purpose they are using that picture for.

  19. Yolanda C.
    December 2, 2009 at 12:57 am

    “Naughty Shul Girls?” What the blip? Unspeakably horrible bullshit. Well, I guess poor Black southern girls who are becoming “Jewesses” (such as yours truly) don’t count in Details’ antisemitic pimp fantasy.

    I mean damn—between this Jew-hating misogynist nonsense, rape jokes from every other two-dollar comic, blackface-yellowface on Saturday Night Live, and heterosexist neo-minstrelsty in the form of Black (cis) men dressing up as Black women—can we really honestly say that this is 2009? Hell—I’m halfway expecting white actors to don burnt cork onscreen and start singing “My Mammy” again!

  20. one jewish dyke
    December 2, 2009 at 1:27 am

    I imagine Details thinks I’m flattered about being the new hot thing. Not so much.

  21. Cha-Cha
    December 2, 2009 at 2:10 am

    Just needed to say that as a Jew who grew up with horrible stories from, as Haley aptly puts it, “another time and another way”, seeing that Star of David tatoo’d on the model’s back was totally creepy.

  22. bellareve
    December 2, 2009 at 2:38 am

    according to the article, “indeed there can be something creepy about the desire to dominate a Jewish chick”

    at least they got one thing right.

  23. Lizzie
    December 2, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Jill – good point. Though the Jewish Ivy Leaguers of my personal acquaintance wouldn’t get tattooes on the small of their back where Bubbe and Zayde might see.

  24. Crys T
    December 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    The whole article is creepy beyond belief. The worst part is, Details is a fairly mainstream magazine, yet “Jewess” is a word that I’ve only ever heard (in contemporary contexts) by neo-Nazis or other white supremacists.

  25. December 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    I think this is funny. There is a joke going around in the jewish community (at least where I live) about the jewish men not wanting us because we nag and complain too much. So I have, “at least someone wants us!” to say to that.

    I read the entire article from that magazine and it’s ridiculous.

    For a joke, it’s slightly amusing upon reading the beginning but for a professional magazine publishing that it’s just absurd. Their details are inaccurate and they use a lot of the wrong words. Someone didn’t do their research before they submitted that to their editor.

  26. Jay@racialicious
    December 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Somehow, I don’t think their definition of “red-blooded American goyim” would include non-whites either. Details Magazine isn’t exactly race-friendly.

    @Thomas in message 8… new? This is new? I really can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic with that particular part of it (I know the rest is)

    The objectifaction is the worst part. They talk about how people with x characteristic is the new “in-thing” (of course, reality doesn’t always match). When they do it with men, though, they don’t, you know, show everything but his face, like they do here.

    As far as the “dating the characteristic” goes, I’d have to say yes, with the caveat that not being looked at in dating by your characteristics is somewhat privileged. If you looked at the okcupid post about the racial breakdown of seeks versus responses, for example.

  27. tomoe gozen
    December 2, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    it doesn’t look like the whole article is available to read, so: how will the fetishizers be able to pick out the Jewesses ? I mean, I’m obvious to those with yellow fever, but last I checked, Jews can look one of several different ways.

  28. Cha-Cha
    December 2, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    The # for the details editorial office is 212-286-2077.

    Nothing like calling and complaining.

  29. Ruchama
    December 2, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    @tomoe gozen #28: There is a stereotypical “Jewish” look. Not all Jews look like that, and not all people who have that look are Jewish, but if someone says that a woman “looks Jewish,” they generally mean some combination of short, curvy, dark curly/frizzy hair, big nose. (I’ve been told that I look Jewish. But I’ve also been told that I look Italian, Puerto Rican, Greek, Indian, and, once, black. Which I pretty much interpret to mean that people aren’t too good at identifying ethnicity based on looks.)

  30. December 2, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    Jay, “new” was just part of the satirical comment on fetishization as consumerism. It’s easier to sell people shit they don’t need when it’s “new.” Objectification probably predates agriculture.

  31. December 3, 2009 at 9:09 am

    This article was particularly troubling for us at the Jewish Women’s Archive, since we are working to reclaim the word “Jewess” with our blog, Jewesses with Attitude. The entire tone of the article – exoticizing Jewish women – was a pretty good indication that negative connotations of “Jewess” are still out there. You can read my thoughts on the piece here.

Comments are closed.