Home Politics & Debate
Share your ideas and feedback to help us create a video for group chat! Complete our survey here to take part
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

Lads' mags

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027

I'm pushing 40 next year so these publications aren't going to be aimed at me (the first generation of Loaded, FHM were though, that's a different story...) but this is an interesting one.

I'm still on the fence about whether or not these things do all that much about 'objectifying' women and whether or not they should be removed. I agree that when my daughters go in to the local newsagents to buy their children's magazines and comics that they shouldn't be bombarded with pictures of z-list former Big Brother housemates in underwear. So the idea of giving them 'modesty covers' seems like a pretty good idea although I'm mindful that some people will simply class them in the same boat as Playboy etc which is never going to be a good idea.

However will the same apply to women's magazines, in particular the ones that have pictures of men with their tops off on the cover too? Equality, right?

Yes I'm aware that objectifying men is viewed as less of an issue than for women but the idea and content is the same. It's titillation. Some people want to see certain celebrities in less clothing. Not saying it's a case of "I want so I will have" but if you're going to cover up (or remove to the top shelf) publications of women but not ones that have men doing the same then that will only serve to lead a generation of people who will think it's ok to have double standards when women are protected.

Neither am I saying "men are the new women". But if those campaigning for equality want more people on board then consistency is key.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's a good idea in theory. But how long until they're expanding the cover-up because of other public concerns? I'm talking social/political issues here. Such as the cover of Elton John being censored. If they think it'll do anything covering these magz, it should include the whole array of 'erotic' (lack of better word) magz, including the likes of Attitude, GT etc. or any other that has partial or suggestive nudity (which would include a lot more magz on an irregular release.) If you're going to do something, make it worth doing. I don't think Co-op wants to do this though, could lead to an ineffective system which makes it worthless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm less concerned with them covering the magazines up, and more concerned that the overly-concerned-with-what-other-people-are-doing-netmums-members are successfully pushing a socially conservative agenda across the spectrum. We are becoming more like the US (think people protesting abortion clinics). I'd prefer we tended towards the Dutch side of things (think tabooless sex and drugs education and healthcare).

    I also dislike that the feminist movement is being misrepresented. The fact is there is a schism between feminist viewpoints that see no harm with magasines like these, whilst there are those that do see harm. It is like if socialist politics were all portrayed as authoritarian state-controlled communism instead of the reality which is some people think planned economy is the best way for social justice, some people think anarcho-hippie-love is the best way.

    By having the 'authoritarian' wing of feminism pretend to represent all of feminism, more people will oppose all feminism (or think they do) when really they would agree with the other side of the coin, liberal feminism (right to vote, right to terminate, right to birth control, right to not be harassed at work etc.).

    Lets be under no illusion that this has been prompted by a campaign by people who think they know what's best for everyone else. It's fascist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh come on. Anyone who thinks Nuts and Zoo are anything other than art pamphlets, as Viz would say, are being moronic. They're grot, pure and simple, and sticking the odd article in about the latest Suzuki superbike isn't going to change that. Just as with Playboy before them, you don't buy them for the journalism. Which is why they should be treated like all the other grot rags- they should be stuck on the top shelf where they can't be seen by children. They're harmless to adults but less harmless to children.

    Heat and the like probably shouldn't be covered over, odious as they are. But Nuts and Zoo really should be. Go on their websites if you don't think they're porn.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you ever read one of them? Just out of curiosity.

    I used to buy nuts weekly when it first came out. It was mostly 'lol' stuff. Pictures of gruesome injuries, insides of cars, 'how to defend your office from a terrorist attack'. There were boobs but they weren't the central element.

    I don't think they're porn, but they might be (subjective nature of porn), I'll concede that. They're certainly not age restricted by law like 'traditional' porn magazines however. Where is the line where something has to be covered? 'Less harmless to children' could be used as a reason to change a lot of things. I think letting UKIP on the TV is 'less harmless to children' but hey, I'm not suggesting they should be taken off the airwaves. I think chocolate and milkshakes are 'less harmless to children'. Considering the obesity crisis, probably doing a little bit more harm having a bottle of coke than looking at a pair of boobs.

    It comes back to the Page 3 problem. There are lots of things in the world. Some of the things we don't like. Should we go about removing everything we don't like?

    Then again, this is just the co-op pandering to its overly concerned with the jones' sexual behaviour demographic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't think Beth Humphreys Topless Video! or Rude real girls: Amateur Nuts girls strip off or Sophie Reade Naked Video 2 are pornographic I'd hate to think what you think DOES count as porn. They're the top three articles on Nuts' website today. If you don't think it is porn will you be reading the Nuts website at work, with the volume on?

    As for "traditional porn mags", I think you need to look back at the history of magazines like Playboy, which published fiction written by, among others, John LeCarre, Kurt Vonnegut and Vladimir Nabokov). A short story from LeCarre doesn't change the fact that Playboy is porn and it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be on the lower shelves where young children can see it.

    Of course I've read Nuts, I like grot as much as the next man who's in a long distance relationship. I don't have a problem with Nuts being offered for sale, it should just be on sale in appropriate packaging and purely for the eyes of adults. I genuinely don't understand why preventing young kids from seeing porn in the newsagents is so controversial. I wouldn't want my daughter to see a copy of Readers' Wives, which is on the top shelf, and I don't want her seeing Nuts either.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    Show me the evidence that proves sexualized images on the front of lads mags causes harm to children? If Co Op were that bothered why don't they stock them on a non see through top shelf?
    If Co Op have a problem they could easily deal with it themselves.

    Why pick on the lads mags? I would have thought that female magazines which promote unhelthy body sizes and put glamour ahead of substance would be more damaging to girls self esteem and self image.

    This isn't going to stop young boys seeking out naked or nearly naked pictures of attractive women. When I was a kid porn wasn't too easy to get hold of and there were no lads mags, yet I still liked looking at boobs. Sometimes had to make do with the lingerie section in my mums Littlewoods catalogue (that is until you turned the page a got a picture of Sally Gunnel in a sports bra :yuck:.)
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which would you rather have your children see? "None of them" is a perfectly acceptable answer btw.

    f_1365561.jpg

    Heat.jpg

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_-HXO-0gxIHv2FHE2A-M1vDI9sa_0b5_SBnD_nrNiY61myL9Rww

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJ2faoLFaN1RBRoZt4-48opq3FFjByp89UIGYWTpiGGgry3XutGA

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbtS_YAGjJHBP075HArLsZDmNgwReACntW9BBL95ybS_mWABX7
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed IWS.

    I'm sick of the "but Heat is worse!" argument, as though because a magazine is nominally marketed at women it is somehow women being hypocritical.

    Funny how people have commented on Attitude as being worse. It isn't, it's just a lads mag for gays.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Am I the only one who thinks the women on that Nuts cover just look plain ridiculous?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    Indeed IWS.

    I'm sick of the "but Heat is worse!" argument, as though because a magazine is nominally marketed at women it is somehow women being hypocritical.

    Well if you're are using the argument that these magazines are harmful to children then it's good to be consistant else you do look a little hypocritical.

    I'd have absolutely no problem in these mags being covered up, it wouldn't effect me in the slightest. I don't buy these magazines, infact the only time I might flick through one is when I'm in a waiting room and bored.
    I do however feel uneasy about this constant need to censor everything, even when there's little to no evidence it's actaully doing any harm. The 'lets ban it just in case' attitude is fucking scary.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    Ballerina wrote: »
    Am I the only one who thinks the women on that Nuts cover just look plain ridiculous?

    Yes, they look equally as ridiculous as the articles in heat sound.

    Kermit is right Nuts and Zoo are grot, but then Heat and OK and mind rot.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sick of the "but Heat is worse!" argument, as though because a magazine is nominally marketed at women it is somehow women being hypocritical.
    It's not so much women being hypocritical, as the objections being completely arbitrary, purely on the grounds that they don't like them or their message. The fact that the magazines I showed aren't included shows that there is absolutely zero objective analysis of the content on the front of these magazines and it's based entirely on how the objectors feel about them. And I think that's a very important point if we're going to talk about this becoming law. You can't just create a category called "lads mags" and then proceed to say anything in this category must be covered, when equally sexist material is visible elsewhere. You have to decide exactly what sort of content should be covered and cover everything that includes such material. And the content should be decided on objectively, not just by looking at what's in the magazines you don't like and saying "all of this" in an attempt to manufacture a law that specifically targets them. Like most situations where someone is trying to censor something, their lack of objectivity reveals their true motives, which is simply to ban something they don't like.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Well if you're are using the argument that these magazines are harmful to children then it's good to be consistant else you do look a little hypocritical.

    FWIW I think Heat is probably worse ethically, but it isn't porn. And I'd be wary of a magazine being banned on ethics.

    Lads mags are porn. This is pretty much objective fact. They should be on sale, but on the top shelf. I'd probably put Heat up there too.

    Though the mythical "Feminazis" ShyBoy is going on about are just as vociferous about Heat. Look at the PR own goal OK! scored this week with their analysis of Kate Cambridge's baby weight.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Yes, they look equally as ridiculous as the articles in heat sound.

    Kermit is right Nuts and Zoo are grot, but then Heat and OK and mind rot.

    I agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I totally agree they should be covered up and out of the reach of kids.

    That said I think the governments recent attempts to "desexualise" the nations kids are all too little too late :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FWIW I think Heat is probably worse ethically, but it isn't porn. And I'd be wary of a magazine being banned on ethics.

    Lads mags are porn. This is pretty much objective fact. They should be on sale, but on the top shelf. I'd probably put Heat up there too.

    Though the mythical "Feminazis" ShyBoy is going on about are just as vociferous about Heat. Look at the PR own goal OK! scored this week with their analysis of Kate Cambridge's baby weight.

    Where did I say Feminazi? Don't put words in my mouth to try to discredit my viewpoint. You sound educated on the matter but do you ever challenge your own opinions? I have read feminist literature and there totally is a schism of the sort I was talking about. Some feminists would be all for normalising the female body in all its form including its sexual form. The type of feminists who think women should be free to wear bikinis on the beach. Who think a woman who walks into an office wearing a low cut top shouldn't be thought of as a bimbo - she should wear what she likes and get respect anyway. But am I wasting my breath here?

    Can we stop encouraging things to be nannied up because 'think of the childrens'. Repeatedly, I've asked for people to show any harm caused. Repeatedly, people give a woolly opinion, or link to blogs and opinion pieces in the Guardian that have no evidence and give opinions from one side of the spectrum.

    As I said above, I'm not overly bothered about magazines being covered up or not. It's up to the co op to choose what to do. I don't think covering it up is hurting anyone significantly. What I am bothered about is this socially conservative agenda being consistently pushed, and being successful. I am sure you can recognise the difference without calling me a misogynist.

    If people don't like something (even if they don't consume / read it) they can have it hidden away, regulated away or banned. No retailer voluntarily hid cigarettes, with proven harm. No retailer voluntarily hid alcohol, with proven harm.

    Yet Nuts magazine? Oh god save my kids lest their eyes are burned by the world.

    Also it's not defined as a pornographic publication by the people whose job it is to define pornographic material or else it would be age restricted - perhaps you should give them an education on that one as well.

    Remember, the reason the Co op are pulling this, isn't because anyone is hurt by it, but because concerned middle class mums and dads don't like it. The moral police who don't like a lot of things and think they should go around changing the things we wear and the way we talk.

    But carry on.

    Edit: sorry for being excessively confrontational. You bothered me when you said I was calling feminists 'feminazis'. I class myself as a feminist and care a lot about womens issues. It's possible for two people who care about the same thing, to have different views on the best course of action.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Edit: sorry for being excessively confrontational. You bothered me when you said I was calling feminists 'feminazis'. I class myself as a feminist and care a lot about womens issues. It's possible for two people who care about the same thing, to have different views on the best course of action.

    Don't apologise. You were being lazily parodied and completely misrepresented.

    I'm largely with the consensus on this one. There's a lot of mindrot out there but I don't have the inclination to censor it. As you say, until harm can be proven I'm not for censoring anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I picked out two sentences as "feminazi":
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    By having the 'authoritarian' wing of feminism pretend to represent all of feminism
    Lets be under no illusion that this has been prompted by a campaign by people who think they know what's best for everyone else. It's fascist.

    I've misinterpreted the point. Sorry.

    You're right that there is a schism between feminists who want to see any nudity banned and think sex is denigrating to women and feminists who think that they shouldn't be ashamed of sex or their bodies and should have the freedom to use them how they want. It's a very odd schism which is especially problematic when you get the more puritan feminists getting so abusive towards current and former sex workers.

    I think both wings seem reasonably united on this one, though, at least in terms of ensuring that sex isn't being pushed in children's faces (as it were). I'm more with the sexually liberal wing mostly, though; there's nothing wrong with sexy magazines so long as they are sold appropriately. The problem with the lads mags and page three is that they aren't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Sign In or Register to comment.