MumsnetGuestBlogs (MNHQ) Thu 10-Oct-13 14:37:51

Should we Lose The Lads' Mags?

The Lose The Lads' Mags campaign is calling on the 'big four' supermarket chains to stop selling lads' mags in their stores. Kat Banyard, author of the Equality Illusion and founder of UK Feminista, explains why she thinks it's time for them to listen.

So - is it time to Lose The Lads' Mags? Tell us what you think on the thread below.

Kat Banyard

Lose the Lads' Mags campaign

Posted on: Thu 10-Oct-13 14:37:51

(103 comments )

Lead photo

Only the Co-op has stopped stocking lads' mags on their shelves

There’s been a deeply damaging screw-up at the headquarters of the ‘big four’ supermarkets – and it’s been dragging on for years. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons all have a policy of not selling pornographic or 'adult' magazines. And yet day after day, year upon year, these stores have been stocking their shelves with sexist porn mags like Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front.

Lawyers have told the retailers that selling them can violate equality legislation. Anti-violence organisations say they fuel attitudes underpinning violence against women. And yet, there they still are, lining the shelves. So just what’s going on when self-declared ‘family retailers’ are willing to breach their own rules and risk legal action in order to sell magazines known to fuel dangerous and misogynistic attitudes towards half the UK’s population?

That’s exactly what UK Feminista and Object tried to find out when we met representatives from one of these retail giants - Tesco - back in July. Tesco insisted they don’t stock magazines classified by the industry as pornographic, that Nuts and Zoo are ‘Men’s Lifestyle’ magazines. Customers writing to them on the issue were told much the same: “Please let me assure you that when selecting our magazine range, we always keep at the front of mind that we are a family retailer and that the product choice needs to be appropriate. We do not stock any publication that we deem would be not suitable to our customers, including any adult titles.”…and… “We do not stock any magazines classified by the industry as pornographic”. Interesting, because when we posted images from the current editions of Nuts and Zoo on Facebook, another corporate giant with a 'no porn' policy, they were removed. The social networking site issued a message stating the images "violated our Community Standards".

Even staunch lads’ mags defender Barry McIheney, CEO of the Professional Publishers Association, admits “these titles certainly contain adult imagery”. Barry should know. Back in the early 2000s, as CEO of EMAP Elan publishers, he was the man responsible for launching Zoo. We also commissioned legal advice on the pornographic nature of Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front from Hugh Southey, a leading QC at Matrix Chambers. His judgment: “..the images in the editions of Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front <here assessed> are plainly pornographic”. So why, then, are the ‘big four’ still actively choosing to stock the likes of Nuts and Zoo - in direct contravention of their own policies?

Why does all this matter so much? Because as the Government- commissioned Sexualisation of Young People Review reported in 2010, “lads' mags promote an idea of male sexuality as based on power and aggression, depicting women as sex objects".


Could it be that the supermarkets have been getting some duff advice on magazine classifications from the industry? We contacted publishers and trade bodies to find out. Turns out, the only part of the industry that classifies Nuts and Zoo as ‘Men’s Lifestyle’ rather than ‘adult’ or pornographic are Nuts and Zoo themselves. It is a self-assigned classification. It’s really not hard to fathom why these magazines would describe themselves as ‘Men’s Lifestyle’. What’s harder to understand is why supermarkets would swallow it.

It's even more perplexing when you consider these stores are risking legal action by stocking Nuts and Zoo. Years ago society decided it unacceptable to have 'girlie calendar'- style images on workplace walls because they can create a hostile and degrading environment for women. The ‘big four’ supermarkets would never allow the 'girlie calendar'- style covers of lads' mags on their office walls, so why do they have them on their supermarket shelves? It's a question that's prompted 18 leading lawyers to write to retailers warning them that exposing both staff and customers to lads' mags could constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination under the Equality Act.

Why does all this matter so much? Because as the Government- commissioned Sexualisation of Young People Review reported in 2010, “lads’ mags promote an idea of male sexuality as based on power and aggression, depicting women as sex objects and including articles that feature strategies for manipulating women.” The American Psychological Association has concluded that viewing media that portrays women as sex objects leads people to become more accepting of sexual harassment, interpersonal violence and rape myths. In essence, lads' mags fuel attitudes underpinning violence against women.

Right now, we have a crisis of violence against women in this country. Rape Crisis report that 85,000 women are raped every single year in England and Wales alone, while one in three girls has been subjected to sexual abuse from a boyfriend. If we're serious about tackling this, we need to join the dots between sexist violence and the cultures and attitudes in daily life that give rise to it. A society in which the biggest 'family' retailers deem it so normal and acceptable to view women as dehumanised sex objects that they choose to line their shelves with magazines dedicated to it is a society in which women and girls can never be safe.

That's why Women's Aid, Imkaan and the End Violence Against Women coalition are among the organisations urging the ‘big four’ supermarkets to stop selling sexist lads? mags like Nuts and Zoo. They’re joined by 1.3 million member strong trade union, Unison, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 18 top lawyers and thousands of customers. Together we're not asking for any new laws or regulations. Tesco, Morrisons, Asda and Sainsbury's already have policies in place (and legal responsibilities) that mean harmful lads' mags like Nuts and Zoo should never have been added to their product order lists in the first place.

So far, only the Co-operative has taken significant action. As a result of lads' mags failing to meet the retailer’s new packaging demands, Nuts, Zoo and Front are no longer sold in the Co-operative's 4000 stores. It's now vital the ‘big four’ listen to the anti-violence organisations, shareholders, customers, lawyers, trade unionists and teachers all urging them to lose the lads' mags.

Do you think the 'big four' supermarket chains should stop selling lads' mags? Tell us what you think here on the thread.

By Kat Banyard

Twitter: @UK_Feminista

EdithWeston Thu 10-Oct-13 15:32:50

Didn't the Co-op do something about 'cover or we won't stock these magazines'?

They had a deadline - has that expired now, and did anything happen?

Onesleeptillwembley Thu 10-Oct-13 15:59:59

As I've put before, the 'women's' ones are just as bad. 'Beast father raped me' 'my baby murdered' etc. and they are at children's head height a lot of the time. It's not solely a sexism problem. It's a complete boundaries problem. I don't want to see those things, tbh, and wouldn't want children to. Tackle the whole issue.

TEErickOrTEEreat Thu 10-Oct-13 16:09:18

edith It's in the last paragraph of the above post: "So far, only the Co-operative has taken significant action. As a result of lads' mags failing to meet the retailer’s new packaging demands, Nuts, Zoo and Front are no longer sold in the Co-operative's 4000 stores."

And onesleep is right. It's not just the 'lads mags'. It's the 'true life story' mags and the women's mags with objectified men or women on the cover.

Gunznroses Thu 10-Oct-13 16:55:58

Yes, yes, please let's get rid, they are disgusting!

AfricanExport Thu 10-Oct-13 18:02:00

I would rather my 12 year old daughter be exposed to nuts and zoo than to any of the , apparently, acceptable shit that is in the womans magazines. those things are far more damaging to young girls than any guy magazines.

I think we are focusing on the wrong thing.

EdithWeston Thu 10-Oct-13 18:11:53

And I thought I'd read it properly blush

TEErickOrTEEreat Thu 10-Oct-13 18:15:33

I don't think it's the wrong thing AfricanExport but I think it doesn't go far enough.

Moxiegirl Thu 10-Oct-13 18:17:20

Yes, horrific covers on the true life magazines. Can't bring myself to get worked up about the lads' mags tbh.

Onesleeptillwembley Thu 10-Oct-13 18:29:55

I'm glad I don't have daughters, African. smile

AfricanExport Thu 10-Oct-13 18:38:04

oh. I don't know. If I look at the guys magazine they are in fact celebrating the Female form for its beauty ( I understand the issue some have with this) but regardless it is not nearly as demeaning, they are not ripping every woman to shreds, making fun of them because of things that are irrelevant, ridiculing woman for having not lost all the baby weight or for daring to wear the same dress more than once. angry We won't even go into the 'Real life stories'. ..oh my god!! There are so many things wrong with those magazines.

I would really let me dd look at Nuts or Zoo.she is not stupid she knows Boys like looking at pretty girls, long before I allow her near the so called woman's magazines.

AfricanExport Thu 10-Oct-13 18:46:20

onesleep

It's blooming scary... honestly. Trying to get some sort of balance smile smile

Louise1956 Thu 10-Oct-13 20:09:31

people should be able to read what they want to read. bossy feminists should not be able to censor men's reading. women's magazines are full of rubbish too, but I wouldn't stop women reading them.

I'm another one who thinks the women's weekly mags are far more distressing to children. To a young child, the sight of a woman in her knickers on the cover of Nuts is simply not that interesting, whereas a photo of some poor baby with three eyes or the close up of someone's face after their lover-who-is-really-their-grandparent hit them with a chair leg is instantly upsetting.

Mintyy Thu 10-Oct-13 20:24:31

Whilst I wouldn't want to minimise the damage done by magazines like Nuts, I just think it is pointless to try and censor them whilst we still allow the unstoppable tide of violent online pornography that is available in two clicks to absolutely anyone who wants to see it.

I would like to see the issues dealt with by the most offensive first, tbh.

I started a thread on the Women's magazines a few days ago.

I'm glad it's not just me who thinks that both the Lad's Mags and the horrific sensationalist headlines in the Women's Weeklies need to go. Children should never be exposed to either.

SinisterSal Thu 10-Oct-13 20:56:55

well that just means we have two problems, doesn't it?

It doesn't mean lads mags are fine because other mags aren't.

Onesleeptillwembley Thu 10-Oct-13 20:59:14

I can see your point, Louise, my beef is the ridiculously offensive titles on display. Mainly to children, but some of them must be triggering to adults. Hell, if I find them distasteful, they must be bad.

Indeed Sal, both need tackling. But many of us feel that the women's mags are more of a problem, and if you're going to campaign against children being exposed to inappropriate content on supermarket shelves, why not deal with all of it at once instead of targeting only one kind?

SinisterSal Thu 10-Oct-13 21:21:19

well, with all due respect, let Kat run her campaign and you run yours! i am sure you will have lots of overlapping support, because the two issues have a lot in common

(Not trying to be bitchy am shattered and I can't tell how that reads back confused maybe it sounds ok)

TEErickOrTEEreat Thu 10-Oct-13 21:26:11

Why can't we all just work together if our common goal is protecting children?

SinisterSal Thu 10-Oct-13 21:35:12

isn't that what I said about overlaps? But with slightly different focuses

TEErickOrTEEreat Thu 10-Oct-13 21:36:14

No, you said to let Kat run her campaign and 'you run yours.'

That's not working together.

SinisterSal Thu 10-Oct-13 21:41:51

That was in response to Annie saying that the women's mags were more of a problem. Kat thinks it's the lads mags. We don't need to choose - there are enough problems in the world to keep everyone of us busy. Like I said I'm pretty tired and maybe not putting things too well. I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading now what I mean.

How would you solve both problems without taking ownership of both problems?

I support both, btw, both are awful, but this thread is about the lads mag side of things.

I do support the Lose the Lad's Mags campaign. Absolutely. I'm not saying it should be stopped in favour of a Lose the Women's Weeklies campaign. confused The No More Page 3 is also running at the moment and I support that too - these campaigns don't need to be in any sort of competition.

But while we're discussing inappropriate content being on display in supermarkets, I'd like to highlight that there is other content which I think should also be targeted.

SinisterSal Thu 10-Oct-13 21:52:36

No, indeed, there's no contradiction whatsoever, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

So is the answer that all magazines which are displayed where children can see them should have bland, harmless covers? How about newspapers? (Whole other issue on how much more/less harm is done to children if they see 'Benefit Scroungers Ate My Hamster' or a photograph of a burning building surrounded by corpses on fire). Just how much do children need to be 'sheltered' from the idea that people have different opinions and that sometimes bad things happen?

NoComet Fri 11-Oct-13 00:26:37

"depicting women as sex objects and including articles that feature strategies for manipulating women.”

And what on earth does Cosmopolitan do? No, how to get and keep your man articles and how to get him to give you what you want in bed.

No it's all cup cake recipes and book reviews of homely novels.

karmakoala Fri 11-Oct-13 02:55:19

I'm sorry but I think this is taking feminism a step too far.

Actually, no I'm not sorry.

I agree with what the others have said about weekly magazines aimed at women etc and that the headlines on these are possibly more distressing than the covers of lads mag.

But when did being a feminist give any person the right to dictate what should be on the shelves in the magazine section. Maybe McDonalds should stop selling burgers as vegetarians don't like it, pubs shouldn't sell alcohol in case someone tee total walks in.

Maybe we should just ban reading, ban the internet and make everyone walk around with their eyes closed so that no one gets offended at what they perceive to be wrong.

karmakoala Fri 11-Oct-13 02:58:29

Cosmo Magazine

This is acceptable though, because it empowers women, right?

anon2013 Fri 11-Oct-13 07:32:02

Lads mags are terrible, I mean they claim a woman who may look a little bloated must be heavily pregnant, have stories about incest, rape and murder all over there front page each week and make the fact that you're not a size 6 feel like you're obese. They also run stories about footballers wives fantastic lives each week to show young girls what to aspire too.

oh....

(sorry to rant but I hate mags like Ok/Hello etc as much)

I worked part time in a newsagents a couple of years ago and zoo/Nuts were age restricted by the way.

Sausageeggbacon Fri 11-Oct-13 07:39:34

The whole issue of censorship because you don't like it sounds like something you would find in Russia. I don't like Banyards books... does that mean I can get them banned?

No doubt at the end of this she will come out with a new book and guest speaking gigs so her purse will be filled,

JumpingJackSprat Fri 11-Oct-13 07:43:31

if lads mags are going to be restricted because children might see it then what else are we as a society looking at restricting? theres a whole lot more damaging stuff than some boobs in a magazine. yeah i get the feminist principle and i agree to a certain extent. but if you took this further, what else would we have to ban to make every environment squeaky clean for children?

SinisterSal Fri 11-Oct-13 09:21:36

I don't know of many feminists who defend Cosmo.
At least not nowadays. Maybe in the past it had a different slant, I think so but don't know.
Cosmo is all about what you can do to keep your man happy - that's the opposite of empowerment surely.

I don't get the argument that there is lots of shit out there so lets throw our hands up to heaven in despair and do nothing at all.

scaevola Fri 11-Oct-13 09:52:50

I agree about Cosmo - how it was in the 1970s is absolutely nothing like the mag now.

But the issue here isn't really censorship. I wouldn't call for any of these magazines to be banned. I am however very concerned about what images are readily on display in ordinary shops.

SkivvySkiving Fri 11-Oct-13 14:54:48

I've never heard a bloke harassing women, inspired by reading cosmo.... Imagine that hanging off the scaffold "Errrrr you look like you've been taking on 10 tips to really drive your man wild darlin'!"

When real life men judge and harass women in the street, or pressure them in intimate relationships - they use the language and mind-set of lad's mags and tabloid sexism. Lad's mags make that harassment of women seem normal and something to be put up with. If you object you are accused of being a prude.

So lads mags and women's mags are not on a par because encouraging men to act like arseholes has an impact women can't avoid, but you can more easily stop cosmos messages affecting you - not that I think that corrosive shit is above reproach either.

Vickiw1 Fri 11-Oct-13 15:06:27

Speaking as a mother whose 6 year old daughter was sexually assaulted at school and with 1 in 3 girls suffering same fate (NSPCC) and with schools not dealing with this at all, I think both lads mags and women's mags that sensationalise violence against women and children are part of the same problem - they are chauvinist or women and children hating in their editorial bias. They are both setting a climate where girls are seen as inferior humans that are only good for sex or baiting, and both sexes can believe in male supremacy rather than equality and respect. The lads mags have been pro porn for years and have acted as a gateway to an on line media that references women and children by dehumanising names such as wh*re and bi*ch and has storylines that portray female or child rape victims as liars who have trapped or conned men into sex and then turned on them. Remember, it was the feminist movement that fought against child abuse victims being called child prostitutes and for the right to rape being taken out of marriage. That only happened 20 years ago ... those were chauvinistic values. Is that really what people here want to return to? These chauvinistic values which are pushed by the lads mags are what shielded Jimmy Saville for years, even up to the editor of Newsnight stating that they wouldn't expose JS because they 'only' had the victims words for what happened, as if women were inherantly less trustworthy than men, now where would he have got an attitude as biaised as this? Could it be the media he watches ... since 98% of men between 18 - 44% use porn media up to 2 hours a week ... they say you can tell a lot about a person from the kind of media they use and I think people are beginning to lose their ability to assess equal human rights for women and children through using sexualised hate media such as porn.

StephanieDA Fri 11-Oct-13 15:59:29

Lads mags used to be called 'porn' they were age-restricted and put on the top shelf and covered. By calling them 'lad's mags' and not 'porn' Nuts and Zoo have been able to market them to teenage boys. That makes seeing women as sex entertainment normal and influences boys in the way they view and treat girls.For those who scream 'censorship' or say 'it doesn't bother me', fine, but have you talked to the young girls this attitude affects? These magazines teach boys how to be 'real men', the power of conditioning is huge. The public visible display of these mags conditions both boys and girls to accept that women's role is to sexually entertain men.

Women's mags are the result of decades of publicly accepted sexual objectification of women, which has led women to self-objectify and compete with each other to be the 'perfect' lads mag ideal woman whose only purpose is to have a slim body with big tits to win her man.

Yes women's mags are awful but we need to challenge the root cause of women's body-obsession and insecurity, which is the drip-drip of social conditioning over the years through Page 3 and lads mags.

Oh FFS. SO before there was any mainstream porn, women lived happy lives as complete equals of men? We've had centuries of superstitious bullshit to the effect that women are men's property; women within living memory (ie ask your gran) were not allowed to get a mortgage or open a bank account or rent a flat without ^permission from their male owner^; less than 100 years ago rape victims were locked up in mental homes on the grounds that they were 'morally inferior' or something... We still have men insisting that their imaginary friend allows them to force women to cover themselves up on pain of beating or execution, we still have men allowing women to die rather than terminate failing pregnancies... and yet twats like Banyard are far more concerned with wailing and flailing about 'porn culture' than anything else.

anon2013 Fri 11-Oct-13 16:48:04

Fact of the day, nothing bad in the world happened towards women before page 3 or pornography were invented. It's too easy to point fingers at magazines etc nowadays.

SinisterSal Fri 11-Oct-13 17:02:24

Oh FFS SGB right back at you.

There is a problem here, as clearly outlined by previous posters, including someone whose daughter was assaulted.
If you think pop culture has no impact on people I think you are not paying attention. If I'm wrong argue the point. If there's no need to oppose objectification of women women that would be superfantastic and we can all cross that off our do-to lists.

That has nothing to do with your imaginary friend hobby horse, but hop up on it anyway.

SGB, there is such a wide variety of ways in which women are wronged by men that I really can't take issue with women fighting back at any particular section of the overall bullshit that they choose. Every woman to her own personal battle; all are equally valid.

MolehillAlchemy Fri 11-Oct-13 18:32:22

Most humans are interested in sexualised imagery aren't they? Whether they admit it or not. We're programmed to be interested in it, just look at the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey, and for that matter that the most searched for terms on the internet are all to do with sex.

What needs to happen is a realisation by their readers that these magazines don't do anything to inspire, beautify, enlighten and fulfill our sexual inquisitiveness, but do the exact opposite. They dull the human experience of sexual knowledge to a vapid, dull, homogenous depiction of objectified beings.

The objectification of women is everywhere, it permeates from so much of our mainstream media. Once you open your eyes to it, you see it everywhere.

I'm not against literature that enhances and informs our sexual journey in life, but that won't be found in Nuts or Zoo.

Supermarket shelves are definitely NOT the place for this stuff to be on show.

dorisdog Fri 11-Oct-13 19:11:14

When the Co-op started putting modesty bags over Nuts and Zoo (and then stopped selling them when threatened by the magazine owners) it was such a brilliant moment.

For once, the treatment of women was being put above profit.

Magazines like Zoo are giving our boys the impressions that it's ok to act like sexism is sexy and giving girls the impressions that their bodies and looks are the most crucial things about them.

Next stop: let's sort the nonsense that's in loads of women's magazines! and let our girls grow up as humans not objects :-)

SkivvySkiving Sat 12-Oct-13 09:11:55

SGB Oh FFS. SO before there was any mainstream porn, women lived happy lives as complete equals of men?

What are you saying there? - That because some things have got/are getting better for women then all things are getting better for women and nothing is getting worse for women? Backlash perhaps?

We've had centuries of superstitious bullshit to the effect that women are men's property; women within living memory (ie ask your gran) were not allowed to get a mortgage or open a bank account or rent a flat without ^permission from their male owner^; less than 100 years ago rape victims were locked up in mental homes on the grounds that they were 'morally inferior' or something... We still have men insisting that their imaginary friend allows them to force women to cover themselves up on pain of beating or execution, we still have men allowing women to die rather than terminate failing pregnancies...

So clearly your main gripe is with religious patriarchs and their oppression of women. But you don't seem to take exception to the whore/madonna dichotomy stemming from religious patriarchal notions of female sexuality, which has been the major misogynist justification for controlling women for centuries. Themes of sexual women being 'dirty', 'whores' who 'need' to be punished by violent and humiliating bodily exposure and violation (or alternatively need to be 'modest' & covered) - don't stem from secular egalitarianism do they? 'Porn culture' is the modern commercial bi-product of religious patriarchal control of women's bodies and its misogynist themes run throughout.

and yet twats like Banyard are far more concerned with wailing and flailing about 'porn culture' than anything else.

I find your inconsistency in railing against religious misogyny, but not its bi-product of porn culture, and your level of aggression about others who have a more consistent view, says more about your conflicted feelings about your own porn use than your feelings about Kat Banyard.

SilverApples Sat 12-Oct-13 15:54:28

This is where I get confused again.
I disagree with porn, lads' mags on general view and the objectifying of women by women's magazines that turns them into nothing more than continuous works in progress that only need to have the right diet, sex tips, makeup and the rest to be Real Women.
But if there was a Lads' Mag with this uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2013730/rs_560x415-130830150852-1024..miley-cyrus-twerk-vma.ls.83013.jpg on the cover, is that exploitation, or empowerment of women?
To me it is verging on pornographic.

mitchvon Sat 12-Oct-13 16:09:47

If lads' mags do indeed "fuel … violence against women", you'd expect an increase in violence against women to coincide with increased sales of lads' mags. In fact, the opposite is the case. Lads' mags first appeared in the mid-90s and the most popular ones, such as Loaded, sold upwards of 450,000 at their peak, yet between 1997 and 2009 incidents of domestic violence fell by 64 per cent, according to British Crimes Survey.

If there's a link between pornography and violence against women – as UK feminista claim – you'd expect sexual and domestic violence to increase year on year, as more and more people gain access to pornography on the Internet. But according to the Office of National Statistics, the number of victims of sexual assault decreased between 2004/05 and 2008/09 and "has shown no statistically significant change" between then and 2011/12.

This suggests that if there is a link between sexualised images of women and sexual and domestic violence, it is the opposite of the one groups like UK Feminista imagine.

grimbletart Sat 12-Oct-13 16:52:11

So mitchvon: is the suggestion then that women can reduce violence against themselves by tolerating (or even embracing) porn?

If so, that sounds like the familiar blaming the victim syndrome i.e. let yourselves be objectified women, then you are less likely to get attacked.

I'm sure that cannot be what you mean, can it?

Darkesteyes Sat 12-Oct-13 17:17:39

While i agree with some of what you say (i prefer mags like Psychologies but their sales have dropped by 45% in the last year according to ABC circulation figures) it is not women who have abused me in the street in the past because of my size (i used to be a size 28 then dropped to a 14 , am now a 20) it is MEN who have shouted out all sorts of nasty mysogynistic sizeist comments in the street and i really dont think they have been reading Glamour.
I was on a rare night out a while ago with a friend and a bloke commented on the size of her chest. She is slim and small His comment “Blimey you are hardly Nuts material are you?

THIS is why i would prefer the lads mags to go first and then we can start tackling the celebrity rags

Darkesteyes Sat 12-Oct-13 17:25:39

I completely get what Solid is saying though. Most religions are mysogynistic and reinforce ownership of women. And the climate we are in today does exactly the same thing.

Having said that i HATE Heat and Closer with a passion. And if you look at mags like Woman and Womans Own they are now VERY celebrity orientated as well.
Woman and Closer seem to have it in for single mums on benefit and will occasionally run a "story" about a single parent whipping up both mysogyny AND class hatred.

Closer even did it to a carer once. I started a thread on it on here I will see if i can find it.

Darkesteyes Sat 12-Oct-13 17:28:38
Darkesteyes Sat 12-Oct-13 17:33:07

Mitchvon It was #fatshamingweek on twitter this week. Shaming women who didnt meet the male realm of desirability.

They are also encouraging people to take photos of overweight women who are out excsrsising and put the photos up on Twitter so that they can take the piss.

I see this as emotional violence.

mitchvon Sat 12-Oct-13 17:56:10

No grimbletart, that's not what I'm saying. I was looking into the view that lads mags and porn in general fuels violence against women. The anti lads mags/porn lobby don't appear to have provided any actual concrete facts or evidence to support this view. Therefore I decided to look into this. And no wonder they don't produce any evidence or concrete facts - according to the Office of National Statistics, the number of victims of sexual assault decreased between 2004/05 and 2008/09 and "has shown no statistically significant change" between then and 2011/12.
All I am saying is - there's nothing to suggest that lads mags and porn increase violence against women. If there was, then the massive growth and availability of porn via the internet to over 90% of the population would have led to a noticeable increase in such violence - but it hasn't.

grimbletart Sat 12-Oct-13 18:07:50

Glad you are not saying what you appear to be saying mitchvon. I must admit I couldn't imagine any normal person implying that porn mags are protective smile

It's just that your sentence

This suggests that if there is a link between sexualised images of women and sexual and domestic violence, it is the opposite of the one groups like UK Feminista imagine.

is worded in such a way that that it could be inferred that is what you were saying.

MummyBuckers Sun 13-Oct-13 08:56:16

What Kat omits to say here – and was widely reported at the time – is that the lads mags' actually withdrew themselves from Co-op shelves because they didn't want to be sold in 'modesty' bags when they'd already toned down their covers as demanded by retailers AND agreed to be sold up high behind modesty boards (which Tesco, Sainsbury's, WH Smiths and all the other big retailers have already been selling them behind for years). I believe in the consumer's freedom of choice and unless you actively go searching for lads mags – holding your kids aloft to find them on the upper shelves! – I don't see why the supermarkets should bow to UK Feminista's obvious bid for censorship. I also agree that women's magazines are far worse - most which are sold on children's eye levels in supermarkets. Earlier this summer, Kelly Brook was papped on a beach in a bikini. Nuts magazine ran the images on their cover saying she looked gorgeous. Heat magazine and other celebrities mags ran the same pictures and said she looked fat. I know which magazine I would rather my four-year-old daughter be influenced by! I also don't have a problem with lads mags because I feel the threat from easily accessible internet porn is far worse for our children and I wish UK Feminista would tackle that rather than go after magazines that sell less copies combined every week than In The Night Garden magazine! Internet porn now piped into households via Tesco's broadband service, ironically. Finally, I recently read this defence of lads mags in the Feminist Times. It was very interesting to read about the other side of the coin. http://www.feministtimes.com/index.php/lads-mags/

I do agree with what Sal was saying upthread. If you don't agree with the campaign, that's your perogative. If you think women's mags are worse (as I do) and would like to see a campaign against them, that's good too.

What's not okay is to tell Kat she should direct her efforts elsewhere. This is her campaign on an issue she cares deeply about, and I have nothing but respect for her and her determination to actually do something.

Women are constantly told what they should care about (men's needs, mostly hmm); please let's not do that here too.

MummyBuckers Sun 13-Oct-13 09:55:22

Annie, I agree that no one has the right to tell Kat what to do. But losing the lads mags won't make the slightest bit of difference to society other than put a lot of people out of work because if supermarkets stop selling them they will almost certainly be closed down by their publishers. Clearly people are listening to UK Feminista, and that's why many of us would like to see them focus on something that WOULD make a massive difference, like tackling the Government's blinkered approach to internet porn.

meditrina Sun 13-Oct-13 10:03:08

You can deal with Internet porn by using good quality device based filters (such as K9). There really isn't a need for Government action.

And of course the argument 'but if we ban it, it'll put people out of jobs' applies just as much to video porn as printed.

But of course, that's missing an important point - removal from family retail spaces (by pervert pouch) isn't a ban as supermarkets could still sell them. It's a question of what images are suitable and where.

Sorry, but I absolutely cannot accept the premise that something which negatively impacts on society should be allowed to continue because people would lose jobs! What a ridiculous concept.

If the lad's mags had a choice between changing their content or going out of business, sure as eggs is eggs, they'd change their content! The editors aren't operating from any standpoint of deep-seated belief in the exploitation of women. They just want to make money. They will not throw themselves upon their swords with cries of "give me titties or give me death!"

utreas Sun 13-Oct-13 12:31:52

Why doesn't anyone have to do anything, its surely up to the retailers what they do or do not sell on their shelves.

libertarianj Sun 13-Oct-13 13:11:13

Sorry, but I absolutely cannot accept the premise that something which negatively impacts on society should be allowed to continue because people would lose jobs! What a ridiculous concept.

but as Mitchvon very nicely pointed out there is ZERO evidence of any negative impact to society from lads mags. Also the campaign is about 15 years too late blush, as everything is moving online now anyway.

If you peeps are really that offended by a few (now toned down) magazine covers with pretty women on them, then there is always the option of shopping online or you could just shop at the Co-op, Waitrose, M&S, Lidl, Aldi, Iceland, Farm Foods to name a few.....

Agreed Utreas How about they let market forces determine the fate of lads mags? , rather than try and force their control freak attitude and censorship on to other persons.

StephanieDA Sun 13-Oct-13 13:17:45

The gradual spread of publicly visible porn has increasingly been damaging for women over decades - women's mags are just a reflection of how fucked up we are about our bodies.

Lads mags do not 'celebrate' women. Has anyone ever read a lads mag and seen what they say about women, and what attitude they feed to our young men? Women are simply commodities - you can even customise yours ('Win your girlfriend a boob job!') There was a study done comparing the language of lads mags to the language of rapists and people couldn't tell the difference - in fact more people thought the lads mags quotes came from rapists than the other way round.

Lads mags treat women with contempt, their only role is to 'get their tits out for the lads' and of course they will 'praise' women who do this on their covers. But any woman who isn't young, slim and toned with big tits, predominantly white, and willing to share herself and play the game doesn't even exist for them.

In lads mag world, women exist only to sexually service men, they have no other value. This has become so normalised a view that we don't even notice it, but you can't separate it from other 'worse' inequalities, they spring from a background belief in what women are, which is what lads mags create.

If women are represented as dehumanised commodities and that's accepted by our society, then you have 'permission' to treat them as such. And women themselves feel less right to complain.

You can't put two unrelated things together and imply a causal relationship. Sexual assault and domestic violence figures are REPORTED crimes. We know that that's the tip of the iceberg. Victim-blaming is probably a bigger cause of crimes going unreported by women, and I would think that a 'lad culture' promoted by the lads mags can only add to a man's 'right' to control his woman, and lessen a woman's feeling that she has a 'right' to complain.

libertarianj Sun 13-Oct-13 13:32:30

Stephanie, as i said before there is ZERO evidence of any negative effects from things like lads mags to society. You are just making assumptions and trying to use lads mags as a scapegoat for persons poor behaviour. Also loving the way how you have made yourself a spokesperson for all women and men hmm

You'll forgive me if I don't accept a lack of an increase in domestic violence and sexual assault as evidence that these magazines have no negative impact. Women are resorting to ever more drastic measures, to the point where cosmetic surgery is now a common and accepted part of daily life, to appear more attractive. I can't help but believe these magazines and their unrealistic portrayal of women contributes to this. Not in isolation, certainly, but as part of a bigger problem in how women are currently perceived by society.

mitchvon Sun 13-Oct-13 14:17:47

AnnieLobeseder, why can't you accept the figures regarding domestic violence and sexual assault? Is it because to do so would practically invalidate the whole losethelads campaign?

Not at all. Just because my conviction in the necessity of the campaign is not rooted in statistics of domestic violence, but rather in how women are perceived by society, and thusly, by themselves, to have value only in how they look.

Where did I say I didn't accept the figures? I just don't see them as a) relevant or b) any kind of proof that these magazines aren't damaging to women.

mitchvon Sun 13-Oct-13 15:41:22

Your argument can equally be applied to any number of women's magazines. There's just so much rubbish in print. However, we are much stronger if we accept that some viewpoints we might not like or agree with shouldn't be censored. Censorship or a clampdown on views is not a sign of forward thinking. It's a sign of weakness and a lack of conviction on your own argument . Ideas are won by openness and debate not censorship .

Yes, mitchvon, and I have said as much on this very thread.

I accept that people have different tastes and there will always be a range of media that caters to these tastes. I don't want these magazines censored as in removed completely, I just don't want my children, or anyone elses', to have no choice but to look at them in our local supermarket.

StephanieDA Mon 14-Oct-13 10:31:14

I'm not trying to be a spokesperson for all men and women, I just know how the brain works and that it is impossible not to be influenced by the messages of the images we see all around us. Even if consciously we know an image is a lie, or a fantasy, unconsciously the message goes in that it is true. That's just how it is, (it's how advertising works.)

If a teenage boy lives on a diet of lads mags he can't avoid taking on an unconscious belief that that's what women are - and girls growing up seeing these images on view also imbibe that message.

There is so much research now about the effects of looking at sexualised images of women - that the brain sees them as 'objects' and that this view is extended to women as a group for example, and loads of research on the detrimental psychological effects on girls of 'self-objectifying'.

What we can't do (with anything) is make a direct causal link from one thing to another, like lads mags = more violence against women. But we can say that constant exposure to these images in public conditions us all. That's why there are cries of 'censorship!' - people see this representation of women as normal, so getting rid of it is 'extreme.'

If we imagined living in a culture where only men were offered up to women as sexual commodities, we would see that as 'normal' too.

There is also research into young people's views, we know the prevalence in girls of insecurities, low self-esteem and the pressure to always look 'hot' and we know that there is a high acceptance (by girls and boys) of some degree of violence within a relationship.

And no, you can't blame lads mags for all of this, but they are a publicly visible reminder of women's place and role, and we can't minimise the effect they have.

libertarianj Mon 14-Oct-13 14:10:27

No you are still trying to assume how everyone thinks and behaves and lots of people are not sucked into advertising gimmicks either.

There is no reliable research at all and most of it is agenda driven by the anti porn lobby.

As i have said on previous threads objectification is just a made up term to try and make normal physical attraction into something sinister. I think you would find that men/ women would still try to make themselves look 'hot' regardless of any media influences. It's a natural instinct to attract the opposite sex (or same sex in some cases).

and Annie as i said before there are already numerous places you could shop at/ get home delivery where you kids would avoid seeing any lads mags. Even if you do insist on shopping at the 'big four', then they already have measures in place anyway. The magazines are now on the top shelf and they have modesty screens in place, so you can just see the title of the magazine. So YABU.

emcwill74 Mon 14-Oct-13 15:45:41

'Objectification' is not a made-up term. Made up by whom? According to the OED it has been in use since the mid-19th century. And FYI this is a blog discussion not an AIBU thread.

Darkesteyes Mon 14-Oct-13 17:23:00

If a teenage boy lives on a diet of lads mags he can't avoid taking on an unconscious belief that that's what women are - and girls growing up seeing these images on view also imbibe that message.

I had a youngish lad scream something out at me from the passenger seat of a car while i was out excsersising today. he basically tried to scream in my face as the car was going past.
Stupid boy did it just before traffic lights so i was able to memorize the number plate.

SinisterSal Mon 14-Oct-13 21:14:57

The fact that they are in public spaces, everyday spaces is another factor as nicely illustrated by Libertariaj

there are already numerous places you could shop at/ get home delivery where you kids would avoid seeing any lads mags.

They are basically saying this is what i think of you, my right to ogle young women's tits trumps your right to feel comfortable in public spaces, and if you don't like it stay at home. Why should it be us to be discomfitted/offended/psychologically harmed? Who will be harmed by by waiting til they get home to be titillated?

Whether porn is acceptable or not is one thing, but public porn, even the 'soft' kind is a big fuck you to women and children. It serves no purpose. Well. It doesn't just serve the purpose it pretends to.

libertarianj - you think I should hide in my house to avoid exposing my children to questionable things? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and is victim-blaming at its best. Should everyone who is insulted, marginalised, spat at, beaten and generally considered "less worthy" or "other", like Muslims, the disabled, blacks, homosexuals and women stay home if they don't want to experience these negative things. Do you really advocate all of us going into hiding so that heteronormative, healthy, male white male Christians can run amok doing what the fuck they like. Because of course, they are only people who actually matter.

Your privilege is showing.

libertarianj Tue 15-Oct-13 13:15:28

No i didn't say that, i just said that there are numerous options if one shopping store doesn't suit your requirements, i wasn't implying you lock yourself up at home. Slight over reaction there me thinks. shock

Oh and Christians and other religious bigots are normally on the side of the anti brigade with issues such as these. You make too many assumptions.

The reason I find pro-censorship feminism so tedious is because it's been the same old shit for over twenty years and it remains a complete dead end for feminism. Women are objectified as breeding stock and domestic servants, the repository of men's superstitious fears and the nurturers of men's professional and everyday egos far more than they are objectified sexually.
If you look at the stuff that your children are going to see and be exposed to unless you withdraw yourself and your family entirely, not only do we have the proleporn mags with their close ups of exploding wombs and pulped faces and 'Raped to Death by Grandad' coverlines, and the 'Starve yourself or be Fatshamed' gossip mags, but we have the cynical moron-fodder that is the fate and destiny and Psychic Pspudface mags, full of exploitative premium rate numbers. We have the newspaper headlines screaming dishonest, manipulative rage against 'scroungers' and 'asylum seekers' and 'single mothers are sluts'- and the insides of those newspapers full of dimwits insisting that women who are not baby factories or male property have 'failed' even if they are millionaires and own their own companies.

With all that going on, it starts seeming slightly less worrying to contemplate explaining 'Sexy Sally Says Bukkake's Great For My Complexion' to an eight-year-old.

SkivvySkiving Wed 16-Oct-13 00:06:35

sorry SGB I found no logical thread in that post I could follow.

SinisterSal Wed 16-Oct-13 10:49:52

I'd put it all in the same category tbh honest SGB - I fail to see why you don't.
It's weird to say ohhh sexual objectificaton is fine, it's the other types of objectification that aren't. Surely it's all connected and all pretty shit and I don't know why you'd defend one strand while dumping an all the rest. It's inconsistent.

As to the charge that fighting objectification is a deadend for feminism - I would disagree. It's a struggle that's ongoing. It's only a deadend if you accept defeat to the wankbadgers who want women in their place - obscene and not heard as the Lennon quote goes.
(Before people get excited no I am not saying lust is wrong. Two different things)

ElephantsAndMiasmas Wed 16-Oct-13 11:06:19

Yeah I do.

libertarianj Wed 16-Oct-13 13:08:29

It's weird to say ohhh sexual objectificaton is fine, it's the other types of objectification that aren't. Surely it's all connected and all pretty shit and I don't know why you'd defend one strand while dumping an all the rest. It's inconsistent.

That's because in most cases when rad feminists term something as 'sexual objectification,' in reality it is really just perfectly natural physical attraction.
It's a lame attempt on their behalf to re-badge it to make it sound shallow and bad, so that it fits their agenda.

SinisterSal Wed 16-Oct-13 13:23:00

I knew you'd be along with that silly nonsense Lib so I clarified it in that post you selectively quoted - Lust is not the same thing. There it is again.

emcwill74 Wed 16-Oct-13 14:08:01

It is not only rad fems who talk about objectification, and if, lib, you think it is then you do not actually understand what radical feminism is. However, as a clue, what it is not is just 'anyone who wants to take your boobies away', and neither is it 'anyone who feels the commodification of the female body to sell media is A Bad Thing because of the repercussions this has for all women'.

Furthermore, as has been explained to you many times now, and each time you ignore it, it is obviously not as simple as objectification is really just physical attraction. The fact is that the media vehicle has objectified the models in the first place by presenting a woman with no top on (which, like it or not, and I have no doubt you don't, is not how women walk around in daily life) in a contextless image, purely for the sexual gratification of men, in a publication where this is what women are for (and, in the case of the Sun, what men are not for - they, by glaring contrast, wear clothes and do newsworthy stuff). You personally may feel sexually attracted to the woman in the picture and say it is natural for you to do so, but the objectification started before you saw it or felt that. The objectification started when a magazine was created to supply women for you to get a hard-on to and then sold in a supermarket as though it's no different to a bag of apples, despite the fact that supermarket claims not to sell porn.

I am not a rad fem, and I don't say that in any way to diss rad feminism, just that it is not how I identify and don't believe radical feminists would identify me as part of that movement either. I am not trying to fit anything to an agenda because what would be the point? There is enough sexism plainly apparent that I don't need to go creating it in order to call myself a feminist. I would rather live in a society where all sexist crap was long gone so feminism was an entirely irrelevant concept.

anon2013 Wed 16-Oct-13 14:52:43

The lads mags will vanish soon enough. Things far worse are readily available and free just a mouse click away.

I was reminded of this thread last night when a "diet coke break" came on.

Before you get started, anon2013, feminists are against objectification of men too. So, no, feminists are out there getting their panties in a twist about lad's mags and them coming home and getting their jollies to the Diet Coke ads. It's a common misconception that feminists don't care about inequality or sexism when men are the victims.

Feminism cares more for men's rights than men's rights activists do. And then we get roundly criticised for being man-haters with double standards. It's very tiresome.

libertarianj Wed 16-Oct-13 22:57:58

wrong Emcwill74 the models represent themselves, not the media. The media is just their platform. They are not being objectified by the media, their images are being sold by the media in the same way as any other images of people are sold. It's no special case just because they are semi naked. Whether women walk around topless in everyday life or not is irrelevant too. Who says that lads mags are there to portray real life? It's a bit of harmless escapism/ fantasy at the end of the day. And even if they were just presented as 'topless models' that still doesn't make them objects, or lesser individuals as you try and make out. Do you not think their modelling is a worthy achievement?

You are also effectively implying that men only have one dimensional thoughts and can't be trusted, so these kind of images must be censored for their own good. Nice!

libertarianj Wed 16-Oct-13 23:07:28

AnnieLobeseder until peeps on here can start respecting other women's choices to do the careers they want to, be that a nuclear physicist, or a page 3 model for example then i fail to see how they can define themselves as feminists. It's really just a group of people who think they know better, telling another group of people how to live their lives. Nothing more to it than that really.

libertarianj - you have very little understanding of feminism.

Can I assume you are a man?

Or more correctly, am I right in my assumption that you are a man? Because you seem to have no idea what it's like to be a woman in this society of objectification and constant sexism.

emcwill74 Thu 17-Oct-13 07:57:29

At no point have I ever made out the models are lesser individuals and I have said before that is not what I believe.

Yes Annie he is a man, lib is the PBP Daddancer.

SinisterSal Thu 17-Oct-13 10:15:58

How tiresome

But a little gigglesome that he chose what he clearly imagines is a noble sort of name, as though his motivations are on a higher, more principled, plane grin

emcwill74 Thu 17-Oct-13 10:29:47

To finish my post I didn't have time for earlier: Yes, lib, they are being objectified by the media. Media their platform indeed! Right - so what happened in the 70s was that a group of glamour models went to petition the Sun to be allowed to get their tits out in it to express their sexuality and empower them. And the men at the paper said 'well I'm not sure, we are a NEWSpaper, but OK, in the spirit of women's emancipation, yes we will let you'. Or was it that a group of men in a board meeting said, 'you know what would sell more copies? Tits!' and they got some models in. And similarly, a group of glamour models got together, presumably, and found a publisher and said, we'd love it if you set up some magazines that used photos of us semi-naked, and lo, Nuts and Zoo were born! You know this is nonsense! At one point one of those titles (can't remember which now) actually invited women to send photos of themselves topless in and showed them as just floating tits with the heads cut off so male readers could mark them out of 10! If that isn't objectification - a women reduced to absolutely nothing more than her boobs - I don't know what is! So yes it is a special case that they are semi-naked, it is the whole point of why they are there!

As I say I do not for one minute think the models lesser individuals. Do I think modelling a 'worthy achievement'? I'm not sure what the relevance of this question is, except that you want me to say 'they're a load of brainless bimbos and I'm better than them' - but I don't think that! I think modelling takes skill as well as being of a particular appearance, and couldn't do it myself. But I don't know that it is any more or less 'worthy' then any other job, like working in advertising, which I did at one time. Is that a 'worthy achievement'? Not really. It was a job. It wasn't teaching or nursing or curing cancer. Do I think glamour modelling a worthy achievement? No, I suppose I don't. I think it profits the model whilst being detrimental to women as a whole. Doesn't mean I think glamour models 'lesser individuals' than me in any way whatsoever.

I'm not saying 'men can't be trusted', but you only have to read the @EverydaySexism feed on Twitter to see what the experience is of women collectively in a society where these magazines and page 3 encourage men to see women as things to have sex with, things to pretty up their day. There is no way you can understand this experience because you are not a woman and you don't actually give a shit about women. All your supposed anti-censorship views amount to nothing more than keeping the porn, lads mags, tits and strip clubs available for you to look at naked women to get your hard-on. I suspect the majority of women in this country have been at some point or other subjected to unwanted attention of some kind: beeping/leering from men in cars/being shouted at with a sexual comment/told to cheer up love/groped whatever. There is a whole spectrum and most of us have experienced it, and at the risk of you telling me off for making 'massive assumptions' I suspect the majority of women don't want it. I was out with my kids recently and was wearing shorts as it was hot, and some bloke beeped at me. Why do that?! What does he expect me to do? Leave the kids and drive after him shouting 'yeah! Let's get it on right here right now! I am, after all just something for you to shag!' So don't come on here telling women about men's experience of viewing these images, because we have enough experience of where it all leads of our own thanks!

libertarianj Fri 18-Oct-13 12:58:36

why do you always try and make this a man vs women issue? You only have to youtube objectification and guess what the most popular videos are?....................................WOMEN debunking objectification. Please check out these:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6f5kdGp9p8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUhW41Qpjg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N9daqANcw

At one point one of those titles (can't remember which now) actually invited women to send photos of themselves topless in and showed them as just floating tits with the heads cut off so male readers could mark them out of 10! If that isn't objectification - a women reduced to absolutely nothing more than her boobs - I don't know what is!

well fair point, but why not complain about the offending article, instead of calling for a total ban? These magazines have already toned down the covers at the request of Tescos so they are obviously willing to compromise.

Also you are pretty blinkered if you think being wolf whistled, beeped, oggled, groped etc are things only women experience. Maybe it's just different where you live? confused

emcwill74 Fri 18-Oct-13 13:39:28

For each of those videos I can point you in the direction of a man I know who wholeheartedly agrees that the media sexually objectifies women. I don't need to YT objectification! Just because some people make videos trying to pretend it doesn't exist, it changes nothing. As I've said to you before, I could probably post a list as long as my arm of YT videos by creationists telling us their young earth theory. Does that mean the earth is therefore young?

And you are now trying to tell me that men get as much beeping at and told to 'cheer up love!' and unwanted (and sometimes sexually violent) comments from female strangers on the street! Oh come off it! You are becoming a parody of yourself now!

libertarianj Sat 19-Oct-13 04:55:36

nah that wasn't the point i was making. I was just demonstrating that gender is irrelevant when it comes to debunking objectification. It's all down to common sense and logic. I think on the face of it, objectification may initially seem like a reasonable argument and that's why certain so called feminist use it so much on here. However when you step back and really think about what it is, it's just an assumed thought, or someone's perception. (unless it's the example you gave above where individual body parts are featured without any face.)

And you are now trying to tell me that men get as much beeping at and told to 'cheer up love!' and unwanted (and sometimes sexually violent) comments from female strangers on the street! Oh come off it! You are becoming a parody of yourself now!

how do you know they don't? Isn't it true that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Also how do you know that when you get beeped it equals the person fancying you? How do you know it's not some puritan or religious moralist who's beeping because they think you should cover up and don't agree with that level of flesh being on display in public?
......mmm a bit like someone who calls for things like modesty bags or for the banning of lads mags in supermarkets.....thlwink

emcwill74 Sat 19-Oct-13 10:03:07

Because I saw the bloke's face FFS! Jeez! Of course women get more unwanted sexual attention than men! Read the @EverydaySexism thread and open your eyes to what the world is really like for women. You are so seriously in denial in desperation to drum up arguments. It's pointless trying to have any discussion.

No objectification is not just a perception, but again, this is just a total waste of time.

emcwill74 Sat 19-Oct-13 10:08:10

PS As to your 'certain so-called feminists': you are a man, you do not get to define what is and isn't feminism, simple as that. Especially when you have no interest in feminism because your chief occupations in life are porn and strip clubs.

BuffytheAppleBobber Sat 19-Oct-13 14:50:24

Eh ooop. It's not objectification, it's just natural sexual attraction, yeah? thlhmm

Did you read that paper I linked for you lib? The one that explained what the theory of objectification actually, y'know, means?

emcwill74 Sat 19-Oct-13 17:26:56

I know what it means and it's just a lame excuse to turn sexual attraction into something sinister you prude ugly feminazi loons.

This comment was brought to you by AutoLibDancer (tm) - the time-saving device to automatically post the same old crap repeatedly without having to log in to do so.

<emcwill74 is off out to get pissed with people capable of interesting and intelligent discussion that doesn't centre around making stuff up like men forever being cat called and prude male drivers shouting at women in shorts to cover up>

anon2013 Sat 19-Oct-13 22:18:45

The front cover of today's Sun has just upset me more than any "lads mag".

"Much Less Of Cambridge"
"Yummy Mummy Tummy"

As Kate Middleton shows off her washboard stomach.

I feel like shit now sad

emcwill74 Sun 20-Oct-13 10:39:58

Yet more evidence of the supposed news media demonstrating the most important thing about a woman is her physical appearance. So important it's front page news. Vile.

SagaciousOne Thu 24-Oct-13 19:42:30

I'd really like to address the fallacy of a domestic violence culture perpetrated by men as the inevitable consequence of things such as lads mags.

I'd like to draw peoples attention this article in the Guardian Newspaper which shows Home Office records showing that more than 40% of domestic violence victims are men being assaulted by wives and girlfriends. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Now when you think that's only recorded crime (how many men are likely to report they get slapped around by their wives girlfriends) you realise that in all likelihood men are at least as likely to be victims as women and it is a false point to make out that domestic violence is a male crime perpetrated on females.

Please I urge you to read.

SagaciousOne Thu 24-Oct-13 19:43:06

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

ulyssesjj Mon 28-Oct-13 07:55:47

Losing Lad's Mags for the sake of limiting exposure to kids is a good idea and should be done as soon as possible. This will not contribute much to resolving the issue of why there is a demand for these publications in the first place and there is no quick fix. A generation or two of better education, parenting and instilling sound values into our children and young adults has no substitute.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now