This topic is for discussions about campaigns Mumsnet is running or may be planning to run. Go here for other campaigns or petitions.

Should we be setting our sights on lads' mags and internet porn as the next leg of Let Girls be Girls?

(496 Posts)
JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 28-Jul-10 17:58:06

Following on from our Let Girls Be Girls campaign, we're thinking about what we might do next in the area of campaigning against premature sexualisation. We know that many of you are concerned about explicitly sexual imagery on the covers of lads' mags and the Sunday Sport, particularly when these publications are displayed at child's-eye level. We also know that some of you are worried about the ease with which children can access frankly pornographic imagery - some of it violent and disturbing - on the internet, whether on PCs or mobile phones.

We'd like to canvass Mumsnetters' views on these and related issues. Are you angry or embarrassed about lads' mags in plain view, or are you not too bothered? Do you consider the Sunday Sport or Zoo magazine to be pornographic, or merely cheeky? Is child access to internet pornography something that concerns you? If so, who do you think should be responsible for filtering out this content: parents/carers, or the internet service providers? If you have already set up parental controls on your computers at home, how effective do you think the filtering software is? An internet entrepreneur in the US has just started selling domain names ending in .xxx, with the intention of making this domain the "red light district" of the internet - see details here; does this sound like a good idea to you?

Obviously porn and sexuality is always a touchy <cough> subject. Just to make it clear, we?re not interested in clamping down on the adult use of (legal) porn; we purely concerned with its availability to children.

We would be very grateful to know your thoughts.

StewieGriffinsMom Wed 28-Jul-10 18:04:48

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SirBoobAlot Wed 28-Jul-10 18:06:07

I would like to see pornography magazines restricted to "adult" shops. I don't think they are suitable to be selling in shops that children are walking into, even if they are out of direct eye line.

As for PC access; that has to be a delicate balance, though think it has to mainly fall to parents to set up access levels on family computers.

foureleven Wed 28-Jul-10 18:06:15

I would be 100% behind this.

Its not just the visability of 'lads mags' in shops for kids to see but the way that they are marketed as comicy rather than 'adult'

The fact they are pocket money prices and the whole layout makes them like young boys magazines.

Sorry , ionly have asecond on here so no time for detail, but yes I think a good idea.

SirBoobAlot Wed 28-Jul-10 18:06:32

Oh, and yes I think its a great idea grin

foureleven Wed 28-Jul-10 18:08:02

Oh but also, its not the fact that its too 'hard core' or too much nudity for little ones to see. I couldnt care less if my kids saw 100 naked people lined up. Its the negative way women and sex are portrayed that is inapproprite for impressionable children to see.

ByThePowerOfGreyskull Wed 28-Jul-10 18:11:26

I think the .xxx is a great idea, it will promote the sites to those adults who are capale of making their own choices and make it easier for parents to use filters. HOWEVER I question whether we would be complaicant (sp?) and assume that all other .org/net/com/cco.uks etc are safe for children when it may have violent/degrading imagery that is just as damaging as the overt sexual stuff.

I think the pictures on the front of all magazines should be rethought for the sake of young children Boys and Girls. they look in the newsagents at images of thin airbrushed totty every day in all manner of magazines (people friend and crochet monthly aside) and are led to believe that this is what normality is and that this is what we should aspire to.
So yes, target the plastic boob brigade of FHM and Zoo etc but it could be so easily widened to cosmo and other teenage girl magazines.

(sorry rant over blush)

foureleven Wed 28-Jul-10 18:16:01

Greyskull, it could be widened to girls magazines too if we're talking about negative images as in all models being thin and pretty.

But to me, whilst that is a huge worry, the primary concern is the women in Nuts/Zoo posing in a way that infantilizes or degrades them.. Lets tackle that first then look at the bigger picture. In my opinion.

ISNT Wed 28-Jul-10 18:18:55

Definitely think that publications that have scantily clad women in procative poses on the covers should be top shelf, or ideally, brown paper back or over the counter. So that's "lads mags", porn mags, and newspapers like the Star (is it the star I mean? I think so).

I don't see why it should have to be a normal part of my daily life, by myself or with the children, to be confronted with images of women in string bikinis bending over.

Porn on teh internet - my children are too young to be browing yet. I imagine that when teh time comes I will be able to set up adequate child filters (I hope so anyway). But not sure where that leaves all the children whos parents don't (for whatever reason). Plus browing on mobile phones is a big problem I understand. Not sure how you deal with that TBH. maybe they could have "under 18" tarriffs which would not allow access to everything.

I do think this would be a brilliant thing to campaign for though - about the magazines. That really pisses me off.

ISNT Wed 28-Jul-10 18:19:58

*provocative

mountainmonkey Wed 28-Jul-10 18:21:51

Agree with Ms Greyskull- tis the portrayal of women in all sorts of publications. Though the objectification of women is so deeply ingrained in our society how would you even begin to root it out?

ByThePowerOfGreyskull Wed 28-Jul-10 18:24:11

foureleven you are absolutely right , there are levels of image some worse than others but I think that mountainmonkey has just used the phrase I had been trying to think of, the objectification of women. I hate it!!

foureleven Wed 28-Jul-10 18:28:33

horrid isnt it.

Excellent campaign MN. Whats next then? How do we get involved?

frankie3 Wed 28-Jul-10 18:29:46

Yes I feel very strongly about this. I have 2 DS's and feel very worried about what the future holds for them.

When I was young it was normal for boys to look at Playboy magazine, Mayfair, etc, these are similar to Nuts magazine now, which are far from top shelf magazines and are widely available and are seen as normal magazines for men to look at, just like Cosmopolitan for women.

I am worried that it is the norm that teenagers have access to porn on the internet. This is totally different to the old fashioned porn magazines of a generation ago and real hard core porn is seen as the norm on the internet. Indeed, a lot of porn is looked at as a joke, and passed around like a comedy sketch. A lot of men do not realise that the women taking part may be vulnerable in all sorts of ways and are being exploited. TV programmes like Confessions of a Call Girl do not help.

I am very strict about internet access for my DS's, and do not let them have free access to sites like You Tube, which has links from each page to more dubious pages. We have parental filter on our PC but I found my DS looking for videos of animals as he likes dogs, and there was a link on the page to 'fake' films of animals having sex. I know that most people I am friendly with do not check what sites there children are looking at.

So YES YES YES I am behind this campaign as I want my DS's to grow up with a healthy attitude to sex and women.

BellevilleRendezvous Wed 28-Jul-10 18:44:32

I would definitely back this campaign.

I was very shocked by some of the reactions on other forums and by a few (newly registered!) posters on MN in response to the Dr Pepper/ Facebook/ scat porn issue.

Their take was that this was nothing outrageous, that all 14 year olds (and younger) would be looking at porn on the internet, it was a part of life, funny, thre's far worse out there ... I couldn't believe how normalised porn, and not just vanilla porn has become - thanks in the main to the internet I believe.

Of course some 14 year olds will be trying to look at porn, and if they were just able to find the softer stuff I would not be so worried (although it's not ideal) - it's the issue of how much and how extreme that bothers me most.

Baileysismyfriend Wed 28-Jul-10 18:53:53

Yes!

I was in a petrol station the other day and all it sold was dirty magazines - well apart from petrol obviously - they were all at child's eye level too, awful.

BeenBeta Wed 28-Jul-10 19:02:12

While I support the idea behind the Let Girls be Girls campaign and also feel the same about explicit material easily accessible to children I think this might backfire - which would be a shame.

What I suggest is perhaps MN should campaign actively against extreme body imagery in fashion and teen magazines as well as TV and billboard adverts. In other words the kind of images a girl is very likely to be seeing many more times a day than the front cove of FHM/LOaded/Nuts etc.

There is at the moment a momentum building against the use of airbrused female images in the media and there was a campaign against using underweight models. MN might be better to put its weight behnd those campaigns and focus on getting normal female body images in the media.

My concern is that focussing on porn will cause the message to be lost under a blizard of media comment that MN is anti-porn and lots of jokey references to a bunch of modern day Mary Whitehouses and journalists combing the more risque threads for examples of MN hypocricy.

dittany Wed 28-Jul-10 19:09:06

I reckon when you've got Coke sending references to scat
porn to a fourteen year old girl's website, worrying that someone thinks you're like Mary Whitehouse would probably be a skewed priority.

I think this would be an excellent part of the campaign. Girls (and boys) are not being protected by the ongoing pornographisation of our culture. It is shoved in all of our faces, including children's and children don't have the sort of defenses against this stuff that adults do.

frankie3 Wed 28-Jul-10 19:10:36

This is precisely why we need the campaign.
BeenBeta - what is so wrong about being anti-porn? We are not anti mainstream porn that is soley for the use of adults, but we are against horrifc hard core porn being avaible for young teenagers to view, and also against porn magazines being so freely avaible for children to look at. I have friends who have Nuts magazines etc around their houses where children can look at them.

This is also contributing to the body image problems that women now fight against. I would assume that most men of the age of 17 or 18 have viewed pornagraphic images on the internet. When they start having sex they will then have unreal views of what women should look like (ie totally shaven) and will have unreal views on what women should be doing (ie anal sex etc).

sunshine74 Wed 28-Jul-10 19:20:42

I would support this. It is an issue that bothers me a lot. When I go into our local co-op with my two young girls I cringe at some of the images on the front of the Sunday papers that are easily visible at their eye level.
I very rarely get the chance to post on mumsnet but I would absolutely support a campaign along the lines of the one you have described.

archstanton Wed 28-Jul-10 19:21:09

I agree with Beenbeta!

What I'd really like to see is part of the KS3 citizenship curriculum to include teaching teenagers about airbrushing etc. A curriculum pack full of lots of before and after pics to show how unrealistic most of these pictures are.

I do not want my DS growing up believing that all women look like that all the time and to then think that most women he knows fall short.

I'd sometimes wonder if a mag designed specifically for teenage boys is the answer. The girls in it could be consenting bikini/underwear models. But, crucially 2 points;
1) No airbrushing allowed
2) The mag contains lots of articles showing women doing everyday but maybe exciting stuff that doesn't include posing in next to nothing. So, girl athletes, girls with intersting careers etc.
You know, so he gets to see real women late teens/early 20s doing interesting stuff.

Maybe a regular feature with a girl who is really (not faking for her boyfiend) into cars.

Just a thought!

LeninGrad Wed 28-Jul-10 19:28:54

Anyone see the front cover of The Daily Star today, absolutely awful once again. I now don't shop where papers like this or lads' mags are are eye level for me or the DC.

I'm not sure we should worry too much about things backfiring. I think it's time to say that images like that are not acceptable to be on display in mainstream shops for those who don't want to see them.

We are going to look back on all this in years to come and wonder what on earth we were thinking allowing porn to be peddled to us and our kids whilst shopping for food.

PosieParker Wed 28-Jul-10 19:29:24

I think Porn is to big a fight, it is already easy to prevent a child accessing it on the home computer. I would like to see people having to sign up for porn though, as opposed to block it, iyswim.

As for lads mags, I would like it to be eye level and age appropriate and more honest about the aim and content of the mags. So Zoo could have the strap line 'this has poorly researched articles and loads of shit made up as well as cosmetically enhanced girls pretending to love lesbian sex'wink. I would like an eighteen cert on these mags, if there isn't. And it has to be displayed with porn mags so that the person purchasing is under no illusion that what they are buying is fantasy and deluded shite.

I, for one, have never let a tabloid into the house let alone a 'lads mag'. I don't want my children to have a messed up idea about women and their main purpose,.

I agree with Dittany that it distorts men's views of women and therefore a girl tries to live up to her perceived image that men want her to have. Huge breasts, tiny waist and massive lips.

So, definitely go for the lads mags (which should also be 'let boys be boys') let's see if by changing the shelf level the publishers won't change their focus? Afterall if it could just resist the nipple less front cover and promise of school girl action and reduce the smut to one article and a sexy photo shoot not sexual, I think it would be a massive step. I'm sure FHM was relatively palatable in early 90's.

PosieParker Wed 28-Jul-10 19:30:52

too bigblush

HerBeatitude Wed 28-Jul-10 19:31:09

If we worry about being demonised as prudes or Mary Whitehouse figures, we may as well just lie down and accept that we'll always be portrayed as fuck-objects and there's nothing we can do about it because we want pornographer's to like us, not laugh at us for being prudes.

Fuck that.

I think ISP's should be responsible for what they allow to stream into our homes; it's all very well that I can set up netnanny etc., but how do I know tht when my DS goes round to his friends' houses, their parents have done the same? The answer is, I don't, and it's not a reasonable proposition to say that in that case, I should keep him grounded until he's 18 and never let him go out with his mates.

PosieParker Wed 28-Jul-10 19:31:40

not eye level....

must check before posting

ISNT Wed 28-Jul-10 19:34:18

I think that taking on the worlds media, fashion houses, advertising agencies, television channels, etc etc may be a slightly taller order than engaging with retailers in the UK and asking them to sign up to an idea whereby they move certain publications away from the eye level of children/cover the covers. Additionally it is already happening - I understand that some shops put covers over so only the titles are visible, and I managed to get the Star moved in my local branch of Smiths. There is awareness in general about this, it is already half-recognised as a problem, a good shove from an influential direction (MN) could really make a difference.

On that basis I support the campaign as it stands. Taking on the worlds media etc can come later.

PixieOnaLeaf Wed 28-Jul-10 19:34:20

Message withdrawn

BeenBeta Wed 28-Jul-10 19:35:58

dittany/rankie3- I dont disagree with how you feel and what you said but just think MN should be careful pick a winnable battle.

archstanton - good idea. I know a fair few teenaqe lads when I was young used to (secretly) read Cosmo.

PixieOnaLeaf Wed 28-Jul-10 19:37:10

Message withdrawn

PosieParker Wed 28-Jul-10 19:39:02

Perhaps if the eye level idea had mags categorised by type it may force publishers to change the focus.

IE grade 1 (top shelf) if naked person is shown, any genitals, nipples, naked/topless cover.

Nope can't categorise but I'm sure someone can.

Just trying to avoid the off Harpers/Tatler/Vogue cover that also has a naked by covered women (think Demi pregnant).

sherby Wed 28-Jul-10 19:41:00

Brilliant idea

100% behind the lads mags bit. I really don't want to have to explain to my 5 yr old DD as I had to the other day why the woman on the cover had taped up nipples, boobs out and was wearing a school skirt angry

Perhaps a rule that any magazine cover showing more than 30% of the body naked needs a modesty sleeve in the newsagent would be a good idea?

It's not just kids too, I don't want to see tits and arse when I'm buying magazines either.

LouAnnVanHouten Wed 28-Jul-10 19:51:07

Its the poses on the covers of lads mags and the sport that are so bad rather than the nudity. Sometimes the women are quite covered up (by pornography standards) but have their arses in the air and a fuck me expression on their face. Very difficult to quantify.

I think that they should be under the counter or on the top shelf on a plain cover but I don't know how you could rule a women in a short skirt and bikini top is not ok on FHM but is okay on heat. Its obvious when you look but how would it be worded if it was the law?

I have no thoughts on the internet as mine aren't old enough yet so I don't know the problems.

God yes
Lets say farewell to the lads mags and 'newspapers' with women in bras and pants bending over, being sold next to my sunday paper, or in the stand that we walk past every day to go to town.
It's depressing and degrading.

PixieOnaLeaf Wed 28-Jul-10 20:07:41

Message withdrawn

SpawnChorus Wed 28-Jul-10 20:08:46

I would definitely support this.

Ewe Wed 28-Jul-10 20:17:40

I agree with all the comments about lads' mags, disgraceful to have them at eye height for young children, utterly irresponsible retailing.

Ok, so what can we do?

Contact publishers to try and do it from source? (Most already losing money hand over fist on magazines so unlikely to be thrilled about it)

Speak to the distributors?

A taskforce of different MNers in local areas speaking to independent?

Getting some MPs on board (I am attending Lab and Con party conferences in Sept/Oct for uni, would be happy to represent MN and raise it where possible, could blog live?)

Endorsements from celebrities - possibly other parents?
Slight rebranding of the campaign, let children be children? Doesn't just impact girls.

Speak to journalists and see if we can get someone writing a vaguely controversial comment piece on it with the hope of there being responses from blogs/other publications = more press coverage.

POFAKKEDDthechair Wed 28-Jul-10 20:20:38

It is NOT about the percentage of nudity on display AT ALL, as has already been pointed out. I mean at the moment you would very rarely get a woman breastfeeding a baby on the front cover of a magazine but it is routine for a woman to display herself in a way that objectifies women. So whether that woman has a bikini on or not is really by the by. As Posie Parker pointed out, Demi Moore naked is not objectifying women at all [wasn't that a Leibotwitz shot?]
So a very hard battle to fight and message to get across. Because I'm happy for my children to see naked bodies. I am not happy for them to routinely see women in subordinate and humiliating poses, clothes on or not.

MinkyBorage Wed 28-Jul-10 20:22:41

What about tv porn. I have a virgin media tv box, and there are loads of pay for view porn channels on there. Virgin have told me that they are not allowed to remove the saucy screensavers. Apparently it's a matter for ofcom.
...............so when my 4 1/2 year old is pressing buttons on the remote control and comes across a screensaver of a scantily clad lady or man advertising red hot wives, or gay nightly or whatever they're called, she's wondering what they are. I am currently trying to find an alternative, but struggling, and am loath to go back to terrestrial.

MinkyBorage Wed 28-Jul-10 20:24:09

I agree with the your ideas for the new campaign btw, sorry, forgot to say that bit

midnightexpress Wed 28-Jul-10 20:24:52

Yes, I agree with what most of the other posters are saying. I was walking through town today with my two pre-school boys - they saw a funny looking customised bike in a tattoo shop window that they wanted to look at, but it was partly obscured by a life-size decal on the window of a woman, crouching down in a g-string and nothing else. Then we got to the garage to pick up our car and there was a huge poster with a barely dressed woman lounging over the bonnet of a car (and this is the reception area rather than the garage itself). I don't hae DDs, but I don't want my DSs growing up thinking that this is an acceptable way to think of women. It just all seems to have become so normalised - I felt like I was in bloody Life on Mars. In the late 80s, early 90s, that sort of thing was so not OK, it just seems like we've regressed about 30 years. Oh Germaine, whatever happened to the cause?

justaboutblowingbubbles Wed 28-Jul-10 20:33:33

I think this is a really really really really really really really really really really really really good idea for a campaign.

Really, I do.

LeninGrad Wed 28-Jul-10 20:38:44

Agree, it's not about nudity per se, but the way the shots are taken, look at The Daily Star, just look at it, and the man controlling that wants The Sun and just got a mainstream TV channel I think.

I don't buy any papers now because I can't bear to venture into that section so all those libertarians with their anti-censorship stances can sit and watch their livelihoods disappear because more and more people will not be associated with it at all.

No 'glamour' shots on the front pages of anything at eye level, simple as that.

Just sent DH to the corner shop and asked him to see.

It is 'The Star' out on a stand at eye level on the pavement.
And he agreed that it shouldn't be there
Am disgusted
LG , was it you who got 'The Star' moved in your WHSmiths?

llareggub Wed 28-Jul-10 20:42:15

Definitely. Excellent idea.

My 3 year old has just started hassling asking me for magazines from shops and I've become really aware of the negative portrayal of women on the majority of magazines.

As my boys grow older I really wonder how I can influence their attitudes to women when they are bombarded by such terrible images.

Are there guidelines or rules for newsagents re magazines/newspapers?

Sorry, for the display of newspapers/magazines with adult covers/content

midnightexpress Wed 28-Jul-10 20:45:27

Are you sure justa? wink

ISNT Wed 28-Jul-10 20:50:00

That was me darrell smile

KERALA1 Wed 28-Jul-10 20:51:32

Great idea for a campaign. I worked in a corner shop as a teenager and remember feeling very uncomfortable with the fact that the Sport was treated as normal newspaper. Quite why the desires of teenage boys and few sad men for wank fodder trumps the right of women and children not to be confronted daily with degrading images baffles me.

ISNT, good on you
How did you go about it?

bibbitybobbityhat Wed 28-Jul-10 20:53:05

Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes please.

Especially re. internet porn.

We faithfully set up filters on our pcs at home but it is almost pointless when children have access to the internet in so many places other than on the home computer.

Not long ago, within the past couple of months, a mumsnetter posted a link to a broadsheet article written by a journalist mumsnetter, about pornography on the internet becoming something you could opt into instead of trying to filter out (like trying to hold water in a sieve, afaik). I thought it was a reasonable and convincing piece. Will try and find the thread.

ravenAK Wed 28-Jul-10 20:53:31

'What I'd really like to see is part of the KS3 citizenship curriculum to include teaching teenagers about airbrushing etc. A curriculum pack full of lots of before and after pics to show how unrealistic most of these pictures are.' - Arch Stanton

I do this as an English teacher - a year 9 unit on 'The Beauty Business'.

Absolutely agree re: Nuts etc. I've known 11 year old boys bring these in for 'Silent Reading' in year 7 registration periods. Not appropriate.

Putting them on the top shelf or behind the counter would be a start, although ideally I'd like to see an age certificate on them, as for videos.

ISNT Wed 28-Jul-10 20:56:15

I can't quite remember blush

I think I emailed them and got a bog standard response.

So I replied and insisted and they said they'd pass the info onto the branch manager

And then I went in a couple of weeks later and it had been moved.

Thing is in our one the newspapers are on shelves, so to move it from the bottom shelf to the top shelf wasn't that much of an ask. I'm sure the outcome would've been different if it was one of those carousel things.

Deptfordwife Wed 28-Jul-10 20:57:54

Yes, do it! Do it! Hate top shelf material on lower shelves for all the reasons in the posts.

But...

Does anyone know why these images have crept down from the top shelf? Is it the newsagents or is it the publishers? Like Ewe, just wondering who to target.

Share concerns with some posters that this could be seen as a threat to media (and ad) sales, and also to the existing power-without-responsibility situation the media enjoy. Which could make this could be a very hard-to-win campaign.

But still do it!

ISNT, the shop I have in my sights is an independent and so may be trickier to approach.
I do wonder why things seem to have changed over the years

CMOTdibbler Wed 28-Jul-10 21:08:02

The Sainsburys I go to has got a good balance with the 'lads mags' - they are on the top shelf with their covers obscured by an opaque piece of plastic which has the appropriate names on, and allows the top of the magazine to be seen. Some of the bike and car magazines live up there too as they often feature naked women draped over vehicles. Seems like a perfect solution to me.

I've got absolutely nothing against these magazines, but I don't want to discuss them with my 4 year old. Especially not in a shop

Effjay Wed 28-Jul-10 21:39:23

Fully supportive of this. No more to say.

Ewe Wed 28-Jul-10 21:39:23

Deptford, I think these lads mags are deemed to be "lifestyle" (heaven help us!) as opposed to "adult" hence the lack of restriction. They are a male version of crappy gossip/ladies mags I think, lack any real intellectual editorial, just pictures and advertising mainly.

The collective media would not be especially happy, have to look very carefully at who owns what, if I ran a website wouldn't want to piss off Time Inc or Bauer Media. I think MN should look at own advertising base before anything else just to check no conflict of interest (if they haven't already! No doubt they're one step ahead of me).

jenny60 Wed 28-Jul-10 22:16:32

Yes, I would support this 100%, for the sake of my DC, but also for mine. I DO NOT want to have to look at that stuff when I go to the supermarket.

bibbitybobbityhat Wed 28-Jul-10 22:20:35

I must say one thing I find odd: I have travelled in Europe a good deal, and in many ordinary day to day street markets, or newspaper kiosks, have seen hardcore pornographic magazines for sale on open view. Yet I do still find Holland and Spain, for example, to be very civilized countries.

And I gather that the pornography in Japan is not kept exactly under the counter either.

I wonder what the feeling is in the rest of Europe and the States (porn capital of the world).

funnysinthegarden Wed 28-Jul-10 22:21:33

yes, would support this, for everyones sake and not just children

loves2walk Wed 28-Jul-10 22:29:20

I would totally support a campaign of this nature. Surely there must be something that can be done to prevent internet porn being so readily available? The idea of boys (or girls) seeing some of these really extreme porn images with violence and degradation of women is horrific - that they see it in the first place is bad enough but that they might become de-sensitized to it and see it as normal, is chilling.

We don't know how this could affect the development of their sexuality and as a parent of boys, I feel quite disgusted that they may come across some of this stuff.

FrameyMcFrame Wed 28-Jul-10 22:30:47

yes yes yes

foureleven Wed 28-Jul-10 22:31:32

MN I have been thinking of this and I think it best if you tackle the lads mags first as internet porn is just... well... at the risk of sounding defeatist.. a battle that will not be won.

Trying to tackle it may make people just shrug off and laugh at the whole campaign.

OBJECT have loads of info about lads mags as im certain you know. Join forces with them?

mamas12 Wed 28-Jul-10 23:41:20

This is a great idea. I have been put into the position of policing my ds phone regularly unfortunately as porn gets onto it through the ring tone requests route, and other things like that.

I would love for there to be a way to register a phone as a childs phone so therefore anything innappropiate will be automatically blocked as it's recognised.

Is there anything like that available now or am I just wishing.

I also turn stupid negative images on any publication to the wall on the top shelve or even get the manager to take it away and they do after they actually look at it.
But not all of them so I would be right behind this!

sunangel88 Wed 28-Jul-10 23:43:22

I don't even think these lads mags should be on the "top" shelf which children can see when they look up! Most certainly not in Smiths, the local Smiths we have in Hampshire has childrens' books and sweets marketed at children and lads mags on the way to the toys! Cigarettes are sold behind the counter... why can't these mags be the same? It's the objectification of women that gets to me.

Though if I'm honest, if both men and women are equally objectified then it's different. To do it to one but not the other is not right. Unfortunately that would probably dilute the message....

sungirltan Wed 28-Jul-10 23:56:41

count me in. i don't care if anyone thinks i'm mary whitehouse (yes you twitter man!) i only have one chance to teach ddto value herself beyond her sexual attractiveness and objective qualities to men

Astrophe Thu 29-Jul-10 00:19:36

hi MNHQ . Great work on this

You really must see this website from ausralia -Kids free to be kids

http://www.kf2bk.com/

they are running a very similar campaign against pornographic adfvertising and the sexuaisation of kids in ads -lots of big stores(equiv of M&S types) have been taken to task for the way kids are posed in their clothing catalogues etc.

They have also had some sucess getting porn mags removed from petrol stations etc. Lots to learn from them.

Also, this book is a must read on the topic and what people are currently doing - will save you reinventing the wheel.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Getting-Real-Challenging-Sexualisation-Girls/dp/1876756756/ref=sr_ 1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280359088&sr=8-1

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 03:01:52

great idea, it's catering to a minority audience (of pervy teenage boys mainly) at the expense of loads and loads of kids and women and men who don't want to see porn on their way to buy felt tips FGS.

What about a day where at midday MNers all over the country hit their local newsagents (or one particular one perhaps, e.g. Smiths, or even Tescos etc) and turn all the grim mags to the wall?

ProfYaffle Thu 29-Jul-10 07:06:00

Just adding my voice to the 'yes' votes, as funnsyinthegarden says, it'd be good for everyone, not just children.

Deptfordwife Thu 29-Jul-10 07:33:40

Often wondered same as Bibbitybobbity. Other countries having much more 'relaxed' attitude to things ... but when we adopt it here doesn't seem to work out the same. Another example, 24 hr drinking!

Thanks for links Apostrophe, I am really interested in finding out about what is working/what people are doing elsewhere.

theyoungvisiter Thu 29-Jul-10 08:07:55

Hmm... while I agree with the sentiments behind the campaign, I think it would be quite difficult to "market" in a positive way, and so as not to dilute the LGBG one, if you see what i mean.

It runs a real risk of MN being portrayed as a kind of "No Fun Mums" brigade, poking their noses into publications aimed at adults, and trying to force the world to do their parenting for them.

I am thinking of the very negative reaction to the coca cola story - which received a pretty much universal hmm from the press. And that was a very, VERY clear example of a porn reference targeted directly at a teen girl who Coke KNEW to be a teen girl. I can't help but think that it would be even muddier with publications aimed at adults and sold to adults.

I don't know - it's a tough one. I'd like to make it clear that I do actually agree with the concerns Justine sets out, and I do realise that it's NOT about trying to police the sexual choices of adults, but I think it runs the risk of being presented that way.

epithet Thu 29-Jul-10 08:59:34

Visibility of 'lad mags' - yes.
Internet porn - absolute hiding to nothing.

Tee2072 Thu 29-Jul-10 09:01:22

I would have to agree with the posters who are saying it would be better to encourage all media to use real women, non-airbrushed, rather than try to take on the porn/lads mags industry.

Have you thought about talking to Dove and their Campaign for Real Beauty?

I think that's a much more realistic goal than trying to get lads mags removed or internet porn policed.

Especially the internet porn bit since probably 99% of it isn't produced in this country, but overseas where there are no rules about it. This is why it is impossible to police the internet, because whose laws do you follow?

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 09:02:45

I think supermarkets are the ones to target as they control a vast amount of the magazine market and already do not stock adult porn.

They can pressure publishers to tone down the front covers of their soft porn mags - Nuts etc - and refuse to stock them if they do not do so.

The difficulty is that publishers are unlikely to appreciate supermarkets bosses telling them what they can or can't put in their magazine.

At least The Sun puts its topless model on page three.

I hate hate hate seeing this crap when I go to the Co-op with my kids, just above the Charlie and Lola mags.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 09:05:18

I agree with BeenBeta.

And I would rather MN focused its LGBG campaign on encouraging parents and society to help girls develop skills that will make them better adults rather than on getting things banned and broadening the nanny state.

midnightexpress Thu 29-Jul-10 09:25:16

small orange: The difficulty is that publishers are unlikely to appreciate supermarkets bosses telling them what they can or can't put in their magazine.

I disagree - I reckon Tesco probably have a great deal more clout than publishers, who are no doubt struggling for ad revenue at the moment. Indeed, this is probably a very good time to make a stand on this issue, as I imagine that lots of these magazines are having some problems attracting advertisers.

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 09:40:02

Nobody it talking about banning, just move the stuff away from the eyeline of those who don't want to see it.

By that logic you may as well have porn streaming on terminals next to the tills because we wouldn't want to infringe on the rights of adults who want to view and buy this stuff.

There's a tension (ahem) between allowing people to see and buy what they want and allowing others not to. I don't think it's hard (ahem again) to just do as someone said Sainsbury's do and just have the titles showing.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 09:41:34

I suppose they could pressure publishers to put an opaque plastic wrap over the top of the magazine.

I have a vague memory of supermarkets in the states doing similar, will google.

PosieParker Thu 29-Jul-10 09:42:07

bibbity.......... Perhaps porn is on every corner in Europe, but they probably BF more, have better attitudes to sex generally, less teen pregnancy...tis very complex!!

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 09:43:01

I am a bit disheartened that people are saying that asking shops to move a magazine or put something over the cover - as is already being done in some shops - is too much of an ask, prudish, and nanny state gorn mad.

If someone sat my little girl down with them and started leafing through nuts with them they'd be arrested. Yet people feel that asking shops to move mags is going to far?

I think this idea from MN is a great idea, personally.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 09:44:55

Actually they do this already...

press gazette

BeenBeta Thu 29-Jul-10 10:20:37

Who will decide which publications get banned to the top shelf status behind opaque plastic covers? How will it be policed? How high should the shelf be? How opque the cover? Is it just magazines obviously aimed at men or will magazines aimed at women with body distorted images of women in ligerie and scanty clothes also be branded as unsuitable?

Should we see a similar banning of TV adverts and content. I certainly think there is plenty of explicit material on TV before 8 pm I would prefer my children not to see.

Even if the campaign is successful I could see legal challenges everywhere by publishers and a myriad of arbitrary rules being poorly enforced.

Maybe a soft campaign for retailers to use their discretion about how magazines are displayed might be a good thing and could work with big retailers such as WH Smiths but not sure it would work with local newsagents.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 10:27:54

At least an opaque wrapper avoids this. It's up to the supermarkets where they put the product.

As for TV at least I have control over what my daughters see. Don't want to be looking at it when buying 'Sparkle' magazine in Co-op.

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 10:37:03

Why are you talking about banning BB when everyone else is talking about moving?

Of course it would be a soft campaign, I don't want a law about it, I just want my wishes and concerns listened to and retailers to act.

I do not want my sons growing up thinking everyone thinks it's ok for women to be presented bending over because they've seen this everyday on the front covers of newspapers and magazines.

It's really not difficult.

noddyholder Thu 29-Jul-10 10:42:16

Great idea.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 10:45:34

Heaven forbid we should try to do something difficult in order to prevent porn being forced on kids.

I don't think anyone wants soft-porn publishers to be sent to the tower, or for someone to sit around measuring the square mm of flesh on view. I don't care if someone (e.g. a sport mag) publishes a magazine with a woman in a bikini on the cover, but I do mind soft porn in full view of kids or anyone who happens past.

Do you think the fact that these pictures aren't humiliating depictions of your sex has anything to do with your feelings on the matter, BB?

noddyholder Thu 29-Jul-10 10:48:39

I don't think trying to promoite something which will avoid children being presented with images of women as a sum of their parts is akin to a nanny state!

BeenBeta Thu 29-Jul-10 10:50:13

I just think MN is in danger of setting itself up for a failure here.

I dont disagree with any of the sentiments being expressed. I DONT like my DSs seeing the front covers of some of the magazines and newspapers on the shelves either. There is clearly a war to be won but picking the battles carefully is the way to go.

theyoungvisiter - I think you set the issues out rather well.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 11:00:52

I don't know - I think a lot of people object to the sexualisation of children. I mean if you had a girl posing near naked, arse in the air, on the shop floor then most people would avoid taking their kids in there (you would hope )

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 11:06:47

I don't give a stuff what Her Majesty's Press thinks of it.

No one is fighting the corner of parents who do not want their children exposed to soft porn on a visit to the shops.

sunangel88 Thu 29-Jul-10 11:35:35

Astrophe great links. Particularly like the links to the research. Many thanks.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 11:45:10

As a mother of a DD, I would rather teach her the right attitude to adopt when faced with inappropriate images of women than have her wrapped up in cotton wool and to grow up thinking that the world is a pretty place.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 11:53:00

That's just silly Bonsoir. Of course there are things you can't avoid, and children need to be taught how to deal with them. But passing up the opportunity to remove some of this crap, especially since it's in front of kids from their earliest years, seems bonkers. It's not an either/or situation.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 12:04:08

Also I am sick of being told it's up to me to teach my children to negotiate these issues all the time.

Sometimes it would be nice if society helped us out a little bit.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 12:06:29

And what do you say when your three year old asks why that girl on the front of the magazine has no pants on?

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:11:27

"Also I am sick of being told it's up to me to teach my children to negotiate these issues all the time."

It is your job as a parent to teach your DCs to negotiate the world as it is.

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 12:13:20

Or change it

gothicmama Thu 29-Jul-10 12:13:27

this would be a worthwhile campaign as it would show girls and boys women are not objects, as parents you try to teach your children about the 'right'types of behaviuor and these magazine covers undermine it all

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:14:57

You are a zillion times more likely to win the battle of teaching your DCs to negotiate the world as it is than to win the battle of changing the world.

And if everyone just did their parenting job properly, the market for the kind of crap this thread is about would shrivel...

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 12:16:46

That's probably true, Bonsoir, but campaigns have succeeded before, many times. No point giving up before you begin.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 12:17:08

You think that teenaged boys want to look at pictures of naked women as they haven't been raised properly?

I agree with Lenin, if something is wrong, people should fight to change it. If no-one bothers, where does that leave us.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:19:10

Yes, campaigns succeed (sometimes, for a while - stuff gets pushed underground) and then DCs are protected from learning about the seedier side of life and grow up ill-armed to confront the realities of the world.

Personally I concentrate my energies on bringing up my DCs and offering them (and their friends) as many new experiences and opportunities to see the world as possible. I believe that strength in the face of adversity derives from experience...

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 12:20:24

But don't you feel the 'blame the parents' argument is too easy?

Doesn't the whole of society have a responsibility toward the next generation.

Everywhere we go there is junk food. Everywhere. And I try to teach them to negotiate it. Ok, I can do it. Ditto stranger danger, internet safety, crossing the road, swimming in deep water, the list goes on and on..

But when it comes to soft porn on the shelf above kids magazines I am helpless. Why doesn't that lady (actually 'girl' is what she said) have any pants on? Or top?

What would you say?

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:21:19

Pornography is aimed at adults, not teenagers.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of pornography IMO, as long as you know what it is.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 12:22:11

And yes new experiences, opportunities are great.

But I am talking about young children here, not teenagers.

Isn't this about the sexualisation of young girls?

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:23:26

I don't think my DD notices particularly - here in France the billboards and newspaper kiosks have all sorts of images of naked/semi-naked women and men (gay mags). Why should she notice?

DCs are much more likely to get all excited about those images if they already have all sorts of body issues.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 12:23:43

Well then Bonsoir that is fine, you don't have to get behind this if you don't want to.

Personally I can't see how asking retailers to move soft porn mags to the top shelf will result in children being entirely protected from the seedier side of life - more's the pity - so you don't need to worry on that score. Certainly I count all of the experiences where I have been made uncomfortable by men doing seedy things as valuable and important growth experiences confused

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 12:24:45

confused again

I thought things like nuts and zoo were aimed fairly squarely at teenaged boys

noddyholder Thu 29-Jul-10 12:29:12

Fgs bonsoir your drive to be contrary is making you sound silly now

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 12:30:27

grin

I'm well excited though.

<knits bunting>

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:31:24

I have no "drive to be contrary". I do not agree that Mumsnet should be actively driving a censorship campaign. It makes MN sound shrill and naïve - not a good voice for women.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 12:35:27

What would your campaign be Bonsoir?

PosieParker Thu 29-Jul-10 12:35:36

Bonsoir, you live in a completely different culture where porn is probably not such an issue as it is unlikely to be the only context in which impressionable children view, at the very least, breasts. The relationship with sex and nudity in France is far more balanced and open. But then family life seems much more idyllic there too, with families much more likely to sit eating together, affairs are more acceptable etc etc. You cannot squeeze French culture into the UK just for the interests of porn. Let's face it some people are much less opposed to nuts magazine than they are bfing, all about sex and sexuality is rather confusing in the UK. We goggle at page three and accuse a bfing mother as being perverse and 'not here' thanks....

PosieParker Thu 29-Jul-10 12:36:37

And, as far as I'm aware, French and Euro Porn is quite different to UK porn. Aren't we more interested in false breasts and shaven bits?

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 12:37:08

Well "shrill and naive" women have done some amazing things in the past to change the world. I am proud of the heritage of standing up and saying this isn't good enough.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 12:37:53

I've already said what my campaign would be: get parents to teach their children to negotiate the world as it is (rather than wasting their energy campaigning for the world to become utopia). Let's put our energy where we can really make a difference...

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 29-Jul-10 12:38:53

I don't think anyone is suggesting giving up parenting for lent and abandoning the kids to stage a sit-in at Tescos <ponders>

maria1665 Thu 29-Jul-10 12:46:04

I have no issues with porn, but I do object to the Daily Star and lads mags showing very explicit images, being displayed at eye level along side the newspapers and ordinary magazines.

The Daily Star is the worst - showing voyeuristic camera shots of starlets getting out of taxis etc. And then putting the pictures on the front page and proclaiming them to be news.

I agree we should teach our children to negotiate the world as it is - that includes setting an example of empowerment as we stand up for what we know to be unacceptable.

What's that phrase - evil will triumph if enough good men do nothing. Well, that includes women too. Mums in particular.

witlesssarah Thu 29-Jul-10 12:48:10

I'd love to see a campaign tackling these issues, but I think it is a tough road. The let Girls be Girls campaign has been really succesful so far and I think it would be better to keep pushing with it pretty much as it is. I'd be nervous that if we push into the more difficult and broader issues of controlling access to porn (and lets face it there's much more money being made out of that) the original campaign could be less successful/written off.

You could set up a follow on campaign about distortion of children's sexuality by porn with little steps - porn type images off billboards might be a good first step, 'lads mags' out of children's sightlines another.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 13:05:50

Yes - keep it simple, small steps.

Campaigning to ban internet porn is 'shrill and naive'

Having a debate about lads mags is not...is it?

<worries about turning into Mary whitehouse>

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 13:25:44

Oh anything women want which is good for women and asks men to view us as full human beings is "shrill", naturally. hmm

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 13:33:59

What a depressingly reactionary viewpoint it is, that it’s our job to teach our kids to negotiate the world as it is. No, it’s our job to change the world so that it’s better for our kids and to teach our kids not to be afraid to stand up for what’s right, even if it means powerful people will take the piss out of them, call them shrill and not like them.

All of you who think that MN just can’t take on the porn industry because it’s too big, too powerful, too ubiquitous, we’re on a hiding to nothing etc., what do you suggest we do about it?

Bend over, spread our legs and just accept we’re stuck with it? Do nothing because we're too small and they're too big?

Christ, thank goodness people like Wilberforce, the Chartists etc., didn't have that view. What a counsel of despair. MN can't change the world by itself, of course it can't - but it can be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem. All of us can.

BertieBotts Thu 29-Jul-10 13:34:20

Just marking my place/adding my support

witlesssarah Thu 29-Jul-10 13:45:16

sorry herBeatitude I am nearly professionally cynical about social change - which I find depressing as well.

I agree that we have to try, but I also think that Wilberforce succeeded largely because there were economic forces that supported the end of slavery (it is in fact cheaper to pay people poorly than to have to buy them and to lose your investment when they die, esp when you have dangerous working conditions)

I don't care if we are seen as shrill - I just want there to be something which is actually acheiving social change rather than just making the point. Let Girls be Girls seems to be doing that. Right now we need practical successes to motivate us.

so that's why I said little steps.

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 13:53:12

Was quoting a previous poster hmm

SkaterGrrrrl Thu 29-Jul-10 13:56:48

Hi Justine

What a fantastic idea. Would it be worth partnering with Object to save us from re-inventing the wheel?

I'm pregnant with number 1 and hope s/he is born into an equal & just world where sex is an expression of love, not a commodity.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

SkaterGrrrrl Thu 29-Jul-10 13:58:00

Oops, meant to hyperlink Object in my post above.

noddyholder Thu 29-Jul-10 14:08:21

Pmsl @ objecting to this sort of tat may deem us 'shrill'

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 14:22:27

I also think there is scope for educating parents regarding Internet porn, social networking etc. I think the technology is moving so fast it is difficult to keep up with children using it.

Friend in police had to go to house to ask 14 year old girl if middle aged man she had been exchanging explicit texts/ web cam with, had actually had sex with her.

Parents, very wealthy, respectable types, were bewildered by what their daughter had been doing (and furious)

In terms of porn - I think it's a difficult one because it is impossible to 'police' the web and , let's face it, many adults use it and enjoy it.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 16:07:33

Definitely in support. I think that the first item to be tackled should be:

lads' mags/Sunday Sport/Zoo in plain view

I think that the campaign has to be targeted direct at the retailers - this way it will be seen as a logical extention of what has already been done.

So I am thinking look at what the current besst practice is re some shops coverning over the Nuts/Sunday Sport etc and then writing to other retailers saying - why aren't you doing that.

This should be an "easier" area to win on quickly through consumer pressure.

Surely the Coop can have its mind changed on this given its "ethical" stance etc.

Once you get all the main retailers on board then presumably in percentage terms they will have most of the market so if that start producing opaque covers etc then these will be there for the corner shops etc.

Re child access to internet pornography - this worries me massively. I think that there has to be a change to an opt-in rather than a filter out. So ISPs and phone providers normal basic service should be one which automatically filters out porn.

Then there could be a special web page and you have to opt in/sign up and have a password or something to get access to porn.

Most MNers will I dare say set up the filters etc but the cultural effects of children seeing porn will come from those parents who do not set up these controls.

I feel very strongly about this issue and find it embarrassing and degrading that such images are everywhere and no attempt is made to hide the plethora of magazines and 'newspapers' which are full of these pictures objectifying women. When I was growing up any magazines with nude images were on the very top shelf, now they are right on the lower shelves where children see them. I hate it. It has been normalised far too much - the availability of such magazines should be restricted to adult shops.

I have filters but it isn't enough. ISPs need to take more responsibility in my opinion. I find it very worrying that porn is so easily accessible. The effect of pornography on adult relationships is disastrous in itself, and thus far more damaging for children to be exposed to it. It can seriously skew a person's perspective of what a healthy relationship is, what is realistic, what is normal in terms of sexual activity but also body image, and irrespective of one's views on adult use of pornography, it is totally unacceptable to make it available in any shape or form to impressionable minors.

I really object to the fact that you have to take lots of precautions to avoid internet porn. It should not be so readily available and should only be accessible if people have signed up to sites, rather than those who don't want it inadvertently finding pop-ups and advertising for it thrown at them from every direction when they're online. No wonder it's so easy for kids to get hold of it! I think a much harder line needs to be taken with regards to porn generally, in order to protect under 18s.

Ohforfoxsake Thu 29-Jul-10 16:55:19

yes. please.

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 17:49:21

I'd support this campaign solely because Bonsoir thinks it makes us look shrill and naive. Luckily there are also more substantial reasons to support it.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:06:26

Dittany - do you realise how flimsy that last OP makes you look? smile

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:06:46

last post

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 18:14:36

Not really Anna. As I said already, there are substantial reasons to support a campaign like this, but when you come on with your sexist stereotypes claiming women standing up for ourselves and children makes us look "shrill" and "naive" it merely strengthens the determination to support it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to resist sexism and the pornification of our culture and its effects on children. It's a good thing to do and it certainly isn't flimsy people who stand up to misogyny. The weak ones are the ones who bow down to it and pretend there's nothing we can do and we shouldn't complain.

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 18:15:31

Sorry, that should have been "Not really, Bonsoir".

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:18:28

It is hardly "standing up for yourself" if you campaign to have the danger removed. Standing up for yourself means having the inner strength to resist danger, temptation and all other evil - not campaigning for utopia where those things are removed from sight (never mind).

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:18:41

Message withdrawn

It's got my vote.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 18:20:21

witlesssarah - of course movements succeed because there is a head of steam behind them - but we have to ensure that as individuals, we put the head of steam behind this one.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of women in this country are deeply uncomfortable about the pornification of the culture. Maybe even a significant proportion of men are. Most of those women don't self-identify as feminists, but they don't like what is happening, they are consumers and they have consumer power, and they need an outlet to express their discomfort and dislike of the turn things have taken. It's right that they should be given a voice and if MN is part of that outlet, that's a good thing IMO.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:20:26

My DD (and her friends) are growing up to be strong and courageous girls, whose mothers are all strong and courageous women, aware of all the evils of the world and quite able to brush them aside and pursue their own more purposeful paths. Not victims who yearn for a fluffy utopia that will never be.

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 18:22:56

Huh?

What's this got to do with resisting danger and temptation? This is about protecting small children whose minds are still very vulnerable from being exposed to inappropriate sexual content and about challenging the sexism that exists in our culture that trains girls and women to think that their job is to be sexual objects for men's use.

We're not talking about utopia. 40 years ago this stuff wasn't in everybody's faces. There's no reason why it should be now, except so many people cravenly accept it.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 18:24:21

How is opposing the porn culture being a victim wanting a fluffy Utopia?

Is it really Utopian to think that women should be given the respect of being portrayed in normal, everyday media as full human beings? Utopian? Really?

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 18:25:19

It's only in the last 10 years that it's become so ubiquitous.

So presumably up to about the turn of the century, we all lived in Utopia?

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:25:25

Message withdrawn

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:26:02

Pornography exists. There is a market for it, ergo people want it. Why not educate children about it rather than bring them up not knowing it exists?

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 18:27:24

In what way does your courage evidence itself Bonsoir? Striding purposely past French advertising full of naked ladies? How brave of you.

Some of us see ourselves as part of a culture and community and realise that we are all affected by cultural expressions, including porn. And because of that we want to do something about it.

There are real people making the choices to fill our public space with sexually objectified imagery of women. It doesn't just happen by magic. If they can make those choices, the rest of us can certainly make the choices to resist them.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:29:02

Message withdrawn

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:30:08

Oh dittany, why don't you just go out and see the world for itself and what it is and actually live a little, rather than stay at home complaining about how horrible it is?

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:31:29

Message withdrawn

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 18:31:55

What a pity the 2 women a week who are murdered by their partners or ex partners, or the 1 in 4 women who are raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, just aren't strong and courageous enough, to simply "brush aside" the evil of their attackers.

FFS Anna, do you have any idea what you sound like?

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 18:32:28

Nuts will make us strong.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 18:34:05

And before you ask what that's got to do with the porn culture, a third of young men think most rape allegations are false and that it's OK to hit a woman if she annoys you enough.

The porn culture is part of the climate in which men are encouraged to de-humanise women adn to feel entitled to have some kind of control and ownership of them. It's all part and parcel of living in a society where women are not valued as much as men are.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:36:49

Message withdrawn

Can we march please? smile

I like marching and am very good at carrying banners.

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 18:37:53

I shouldn't have picked up on your post Bonsoir, but some of your attitudes are just so funny.

Seriously, feminism and standing up for women is where it's at now. Don't you pride yourself on knowing what is current? Jump on board, don't stay stuck in the sexist past.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:38:03

Up to you. Either you hold on tight, waiting for that golden age where men worship women and never, ever have inappropriate sexual thoughts...

Or you deal with reality, and teach your daughter to do the same.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:39:38

Message withdrawn

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 18:41:11

Message withdrawn

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 18:41:12

I'm teaching her to look after herself. Which is what you all ought to be teaching your daughters, rather than wasting your time trying to prevent any risk whatsoever.

msVal Thu 29-Jul-10 18:51:35

I am totally behind this campaign. Rags with photos of semi-naked women should not be displayed at childrens level. I do not want my children or their friends to form this picture of how women should behave or how men should view women.

Good work mumsnet!

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 19:11:19

So teaching women to look after themselves will stop men abusing them will it?

Interesting. I think that one's been tried Anna, and it doesn't seem to be working that well.

1 in 4. 2 women a week. All not looking after themselves?

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 19:12:24

What is really really funny Anna, is that you appear to be in favour of porn at eye level to children.

Why on earth would you be arguing that it is a Good Thing and we should shut up about it?

What can possibly be your motivation?

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 19:13:16

Yes it will.

You cannot change others, only yourself.

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 19:14:23

You may not be able to change others but you can certainly defend yourself from their behaviour.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 19:15:20

HerBeatitude - taking a position against censorship in no way equates to a position in favour of whatever the other party wishes to censor.

I am in favour of learning the skills of self-defence. The world is a hard, hard place. We do our daughters (and sons) no favours at all by pretending it isn't.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 19:15:33

You can change the climate in which you operate actually, which also changes behaviour - of you and others.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 19:17:16

Change the climate? Driving things underground changes no climate.

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 19:20:45

Would you look at what one Mumsnetter achieved when she objected on Mumsnet to a porn reference being used in an online campaign by Coke/Dr Pepper:

Coke axes Lean Mean Fighting Machine after porn scandal

Now that's got to hurt - an agency losing the Coke account because they were careless about referencing porn. Ouchies.

I don't really understand your logic anyway Bonsoir. You seem to be saying that women shouldn't stand up for ourselves and for children, almost in the same breath as saying women should stand up for ourselves and teach girls to do the same. Or do you mean that women should only take a stand in a Bonsoir-approved way?

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 19:21:45

"Pornography exists. There is a market for it, ergo people want it. Why not educate children about it rather than bring them up not knowing it exists? "

"Or you deal with reality, and teach your daughter to do the same. "

DD is 3. Is this a serious suggestion?

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 19:22:14

dittany - you don't understand because you are too stupid obtuse to understand wink

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 19:25:36

It's not stupidity or obtuseness that's making it impossible to reconcile the glaring contradictions in your arguments Bonsoir.

But nice try on the rudeness.

Bonsoir Thu 29-Jul-10 19:28:15

There are no contradictions in my argument, dittany.

There are none in yours either. I just believe that campaigning for utopia is a waste of energy. But carry on, if it makes you happy. I'm very liberal, and each to her own wink.

MissBonpoint Thu 29-Jul-10 19:29:03

'Soft' porn in the printed media is far too widely accepted in the UK as part of the culture of binge drinking and loutish behaviour. I used to work for a big company which actually stocked lads mags in the cafeteria!!!! I complained when Nuts featured 2 woman breast to breast and they were soon removed. I was astonished.

Also sick of sitting next to morons on the Tube 'reading' the Sun & having a pair of ginormous *s staring me in the face before 8am. Always wanted to stare at the image to see if it made the guy uncomfortable but never summoned the nerve.

How about a Porn Tax or a rule that all porn must be stocked 7 feet above the ground (will we see lads climbing the shelves??).

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 19:29:09

Nobody reads lads mags any more, because there's real porn (much of it quite depraved) on the internet. Loaded used to sell 450,000 copies and now sells 70,000.

Men's Health, which features topless men on the cover, is now the best-selling men's magazine.

People only bought Loaded/Sunday Sport, etc. because they were too embarrassed to buy actual porn mags. Now every (99%) teenager has porn on their phone and PC.

Message withdrawn

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 19:36:05

Oh phew someguy.

When I was in the newsagent the other day, the rows of tits on display for my daughter to look at must have been imaginary. That's a relief!

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 19:42:19



These are IPC's ABC figures 2010 for Nuts magazine. Not bad for a weekly. But nothing on Look or TV Times which each have a circulation of around 300,000.

'Nuts, PPA Consumer Brand of the Year, posts an ABC of 176,835, increasing its share of the Men's Weekly sector to 63.4%, up 1.8 percentage points year-on-year. On the UK newsstand, Nuts takes 63% share – a record for the brand – up 1.4 percentage points on the year. '

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 19:50:01

"You cannot change others, only yourself." shock

I have never heard such a defeatist attitude!

Of course you can change others - some of this is by influencing/arguing/presenting facts/educating etc.

How the hell did we get the vote if not by trying and achieving a change in others!

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 20:07:51

Anna seriously, why do you want your children to be surrounded by porn? Why do you want to have to educate them to deal with it? Do you really think that there is no alternative, that we just have to accept that this is the way our culture is and the way our culture will always be from now on?

You know what is really worrying about that, is that all it takes is a very small band of very well-motivated people, to change the world and not necessarily for the better. The Ayatollah Khomeini didn't actually have all that much support in Iran in 1979 - there was a civil war and his faction won because they were more determined and better organised than the other factions (just like the Bolsheviks in 1917). And what they replaced was so awful (the Shah/ the Czar) that people lost sight of the fact that they would be awful too and went along with them. If we allow our society to be this bloody awful, we open the door to all sorts of nutjob philosophies which can flourish because the alternative - our society - doesn't look like it's worth defending.

The pornographers are a tiny fraction of the population. The people who want this mind-pollution are a miniscule number, compared to the vast majority who would prefer it to be more controlled. They are just more organised and more determined than the rest of us, that's all. All we need, is to be as determined and organised as them.

Or we could just say, oh we can't change them, we can only change ourselves. Which basically means, that you're on their side. Well why? What's in it for you? Why is it in your interest for your dd to have the media message over and over again, via TV, films, books, advertising, internet etc., that her primary destiny is to be a fuck-toy? And why is it in your interest, to have to try to counter that message? I'm really trying to understand why you are so determined that it's a Bad Idea to oppose the pornification of western liberal culture.

Deptfordwife Thu 29-Jul-10 20:21:08

Had a chat with Sainsburys manager today by his mag. rack.

There were 3 lads mags stocked, top shelf. But top shelf not high - at eye level to many under 16's and also shelves (clear perspex) are tilted forwards. Lads mags next to music mags, which some teenagers read.

Nuts & Zoo had their own blue plastic 'modesty panels' (just made up that term) which obscured about 75% of cover leaving visible the mag. title and the area above and to the right of that. On the front of the modesty panel was the title of the magazine in very big letters.

Zoo sold out, but on Nuts, there were quite a few small pornographic images dotted above and to the right of the magazine title, so these were not covered by the panel.

I asked the manager if there was anything he could do to obscure the remaining visible pornographic images. I suggested a modesty panel that covered the whole magazine, clearly labelled with the magazine title.

He said he would speak to head office to get some information about what he could do. He noted some publications pay for their shelf positioning, but wasn't sure if this applied to the lads mags.

Looking forward to an update with him in a week or so. Interested to see if Sainsburys have guidelines and what they are, and how much is left up to the manager to decide.

maria1665 Thu 29-Jul-10 20:22:22

To those who say that we can't influence social change, consider the following:-

1. Up until around the 1940's - the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' was available to men accused of beating their wives.

2. The Married Women's Property Act came in in 1971 (correct me if I'm out by a couple of years) - but basically, if your husband wanted you out, you were out, no stake in the home.

3. It only became an offence to rape your wife in 1994. Think about it - there are women alive today who were raped with violence and yet had no legal protection.

There has been huge progress - but none of these changes happened without a lot of noise, fuss, and persistence on the parts of very many inconvenient (mainly) women.

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 29-Jul-10 20:29:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 20:29:21

Quite Maria. And they didn't just change themselves, they changed the climate in which they operated and therefore the behaviour of the people in that climate.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 20:29:51

Nice work deptford!

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 20:44:22

> The people who want this mind-pollution are a miniscule number, compared to the vast majority who would prefer it to be more controlled.

The 'moral majority'?

Have you established there is in fact a majority? 70% of young men visit porn websites at least monthly, a quarter of ALL internet search requests are for pornography, a third of all internet downloads are of pornography.

Deptfordwife Thu 29-Jul-10 20:47:59

Thanks Isnt!

maria1665 Thu 29-Jul-10 20:53:09

And 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.

It isn't proposed pornography is banned. Simply that its presence isn't part of our children's daily landscape.

I think the majority of people would object to showing children pornography. Don't ask me to quote any statistics to back that up - but I think its a safe bet.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 21:01:29

SomeGuy that doesn't mean that all those young men accessing porn actually actively think it is a good idea for children to be exposed to those images in newsagents.

They just won't have given it much thought or they will be apathetic about it.

I cannot imagine young men activating them selves to run a sucessful campaign against what MN will hopefully be campaigning for!

ruthosaurus Thu 29-Jul-10 21:02:23

I'm in. If it helps to change the "oh dear, society is just like that, put up and shut up like a good girl, human nature can't be changed, it's repressive not to want newsagents' shelves to be full of smut" attitudes, or at least get people thinking, I'm in.

And 70% of young men is not a majority of the population, 75% of internet searches are not for pornography and 2/3 of internet downloads are not of pornography.

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 21:03:00

Non-made-up stats: internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics-pg4.html

maria1665, HerBeatitude above was suggesting that there is a majority opposition to pornography.

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 21:06:23

tabouleh I think this thread is a little muddled, newsagents and supermarkets, large, essentially accountable companies with accessible managements are one thing, but 'internet porn', borderless and wild, is another entirely.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 21:06:31

SomeGuy -you do realise that the main theme of this thread is - preventing the access that CHILDREN have to porn.

FFS surely the majority of men and women want to see ensure CHILDREN have no access to porn/pornographic images in shops etc.

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 21:11:10

I'm quite aware of the main theme of the thread, I just think if you're going to campaign on something it needs to be focused, and people saying 'the moral majority want porn to be banned' is not going to really help with that.

one step at a time.

That said, the pornography in lads mags is a damn sight less offensive than what's on the internet, the pictures are basically 'large-breasted woman on beach', which is the sort of thing you could (and would, assuming no access to anything else) find in a lingerie catalogue.

A 14-year-old boy is going to get hold of sexy pictures, one way or the other. I'm not aware that those in lads mags are particularly offensive. The prose might be, though that varies from magazine to magazine.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 21:12:32

SomeGuy - read the thread title - we are debating:

"Should we be setting our sights on lads' mags and internet porn as the next leg of Let Girls be Girls?"

The fact that the thread has discussed

- newsagents
- supermarkets
- intenet porn

Seems entirely on topic.

"newsagents and supermarkets, large, essentially accountable companies with accessible managements are one thing, but 'internet porn', borderless and wild, is another entirely". hmm

If you find the thread muddled then I suggest you leave it. Really what is the point in adding to this thread when your opening comment was:

"Nobody reads lads mags any more, because there's real porn (much of it quite depraved) on the internet." hmm confused

Have you looked at any of the evidence around the harmful effects of the sexualisation of children?

biscuit

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 21:15:53

SomeGuy - you just don't get it do you:

"A 14-year-old boy is going to get hold of sexy pictures, one way or the other. I'm not aware that those in lads mags are particularly offensive. The prose might be, though that varies from magazine to magazine."

What about the effect on children - eg my DS who is 2.9 - the effect on him of the Sunday Sport front cover which is right down low on the newstands where he can see it.

Why are these degrading pictures of women (with breasts showing, bums in the air, scantily clad etc) available for him to see - so that he picks up a subliminal message that women are objects.

Of course he is so young that I can't begin to explain it.

FrameyMcFrame Thu 29-Jul-10 21:32:02

reading this thread with intrest.
I'm glad other people think this is unacceptable. I don't want my dd or indeed my ds picking up these shitty messages about women from the media.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 21:35:28

A woman in a lingerie catalogue has been photographed with the purpose of selling some underwear. She is normally standing fairly innocuosly, the point is to look at the underwear. If boys decide to wank over it, that is a side effect.

A woman on the front of nuts has been photographed in order that boys/men can wank over the image. She is usually in a provocatove pose and the point is to look at her body and imagine fucking her/etc. The whole point of the image is to turn on men.

There is a difference there - surely that is obvious. It is images of the second type that I do not really want commonly displayed at child height in the newsagents.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 21:35:54

Someguy stop misrepresenting what I said.

maria1665 Thu 29-Jul-10 21:39:30

Just to be clear, HerBeatitude has not in any of her posts said that the majority are opposed to pornography.

What she has said - and this is surely the point of this thread - that the majority would object to a society that accepts images of porn be displayed, so that they are viewed by all but especially children, passively and acceptingly, as the norm.

At the moment, (and this has been a development within the past 15 or so years,) these images are displayed in newsagents as examples of the main stream press. They are on the magazine racks, next to the cooking and motorbike magazines. And Someguy - you are correct that truly dreadful stuff is very very easily available on the internet.

I am not sure we can do much about the internet, apart from warn our sons and daughters that there are some oddballs and sick minds around.

It is harder to make out these arguments when the indecent images - which degrade and objectify women - are there amongst the cornflakes and comics.

Would you tolerate a male member of your family reading porn magazine at the kitchen table whilst your children ate. No - and in the same way, it is NOT acceptable for us to turn a blind eye to these images being in the sightlines of girls and boys, whether it be on the front pages, glossies or page 3.

People are allowed to fantasise. They are allowed to use images to fuel those fantasies. This appeals to both men and women. However, mainstream daily pornographic objectification of women is NOT acceptable.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 21:40:37

I did not suggest that there was a majority opposed to porn. (I don't know any figures on that.) To be clear, I'm suggesting that a majority would agree that it is undesirable to have it saturating every single experience we undertake - shopping, watching TV, going for a meal etc. Most people, even those who are enthusiastic about porn, don't think it's something that people who don't want to see it, should have forced upon them. Which at the moment, it is.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 21:41:31

Exactly Maria, sorry, cross-posted.

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 21:45:41

It never ceases to amaze me how much people will suspend common sense in order to support the status quo or even argue that it is more desirable that some things are the way they are rather than try to effect change.

Do you want your children to see the front page of The Daily Star every time they buy sweets. I don't.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 21:46:19

At least we can get some practice knowing the counter arguments that are going to come from men on this issue! grin

BeenBeta Thu 29-Jul-10 21:46:28

It is already clear from this thread what might happen if this campaign goes ahead.

Some posters just very clearly object to lads mags and want them banned or put out of sight because they feel they are offensive. Fair enough.

That though is the problem. Some people already are clearly wanting this to go further than just removing inappropriate images from children's eye level and a list has already effectively been drawn up of named publications. Very quickly the thread is muddying the objective.

The 24/7 media only deals in simple messages and the message is already being lost in this thread.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 21:49:36

MN will be running the campaign though, and will do so as they see fit. I am sure they will take all of the comments from this thread on board, and decide on whatever approach they think will be clearest and most effective.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 21:50:15

No - this thread is as with all MN threads a debate - how ridiculous to somehow claim, that because other issues are being brought up, there can't be a coherent campaign message coming out of this.

It is no surprise that 2 MEN are anti this.

Goodjob we won't just go "oh dear the MEN don't like this" let's forget about it.

Really really pissed off with you both. biscuit

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 21:50:49

No the message isn't being lost. We're kicking around ideas here. Blue-skying as the wankers in advertising would have it.

HerBeatitude Thu 29-Jul-10 21:51:29

LOL

Anna and the Men.

Sounds like a book title. Or a musical.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 21:52:24

There seems to be an argument on here which I find odd, which goes

If any of you have any problem with porn in general, then none of you are allowed to do a campaign to get publications with porny images on the front moved to the top shelf.

I don't get it. it seems obstructive. You are never going to get hundreds of different people on MN to agree, on that basis there should be no campaigns....

Deptfordwife Thu 29-Jul-10 21:52:28

SomeGuy, yes you are right there are a few tangents on the thread but you are wrong to say the pictures in the lads mags (going by the small bit of the Nuts cover I discussed in Sainsburys with the manager today) are basically the same as pictures in a lingerie catalogue.

1. Women in lingerie catalogues have lingerie on. Nuts women had nothing on.

2. Women in lingerie catalogues are not in distorted unnatural poses with distorted unnatural body parts, Nuts women are.

3. Women in lingerie catalogues are there to sell the idea that this underwear in the picture is nice why don't you buy some, Nuts women are there only to say this woman here has only one function, your sexual gratification.

4. Lingerie catalogues are usually only available in lingerie shops or if you send off for them. Nuts etc. are clearly visible in the vast majority of supermarkets, newsagents and garages.

Hope that makes sense.

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 21:52:32

Of course the message would be simple and clear, they're not stupid. This is just to see what we think. I've got it as 97% supportive.

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 21:54:40

Absolutely, it's one thing to suggest how a campaign might be perceived and suggest ways to mitigate that, it's quite another to tell everyone not to bother.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 21:55:17

That is one hell of a spreadsheet Len...

<impressed>

grin

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 22:00:30

Innit ISNT. I made it up, of course on the basis of 3 against. And there was a fourth but that was a constructive objection.

maria1665 Thu 29-Jul-10 22:02:14

This may be nothing but...

Has any one seen the cover of today's Star? I make a point of turning them round when I go into my local CoOp (that and the Sport.)

Sport was its usual voyeuristic camera angle up between a girl's legs, but the Star was carrying a picture of Cheryl Cole, fully clothed, with a caption along the line of 'She's obviously feeling much better.'

This is, to my knowledge at least, the first time in, well ever, a non sexualised front cover.

Coincidence?

BeenBeta Thu 29-Jul-10 22:02:15

No 'the men' are not anti the campaign. Nor are Bonsoir and several other female posters. We are just trying to temper the arguement to reach a realsitic objective.

I really fear the LGBG campaign could be damaged by pushing too far and too fast. One step at a time and one that campaigns, for example, against distorted female body images beng fed to teenage girls (and boys) in all publications, not just 'lads mags' would be more likely to succeed and receive general public support.

In reality, I would prefer to see all of these 'lads mag' publications including several newspapers put well out of sight in the newsagent. I just think it is an unrealistic goal and there are better targets to pick for a MN campaign to turn its fire power on.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 22:08:05

Message withdrawn

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 22:08:21

Why unrealistic?

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 22:09:36

I completely disagree with which of the 2 objectives outlined in your post will be the easier to achieve, beenbeta.

Unrealistic body images permeate everything. Everything. Many of the ads we have on the TV are imported - so we would have to change the way things are done internationally. take on the fashion houses, the advertising industry, everything, internationally.

vs

ask retailers to please move "lads mags" type front pages to top shelf/or cover them. Something some retailers have already done, my local WH smith did it when I asked them to.

I have a total failure to understand why you see which is easy and which is hard, the other way around.

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 22:09:37

1. I think technically they are 'topless', you can't do genitals in these magazines, it would get them arrested.

2. Lingerie catalogue women certainly do have distorted unnatural body parts, airbrushing is done for everything.

3. For a teenage boy the women in the lingerie catalogue are no different to those in Nuts magazine.

4. Nonetheless such images are quite accessible to boys.

Putting a 'perv cover' on these magazines is self-defeating because you might as well just buy actual hardcore porn, rather than topless photos, because the embarrassment factor is the same.

'Keep the lads mags on the top shelf' seems like a decent campaign though, just don't make it too prudish.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 22:09:48

www.thefrontpagecampaign.org.uk/

Worth a click - just to see their brilliant graphic of a toddler "hiding" from these images.

BeenBeta - I think you are 100% mistaken.

I am convinced that we can get these images moved up to a top shelf or placed behind opaque covers.

Common sense says it is the porn culture, which is typified by the casual display of these mags, which is driving the sexualisation of children and thus the other images and then we can move on to

"distorted female body images beng fed to teenage girls (and boys) in all publications"

Indeed it is the porn culture which has led to the inappropriate clothing for children (existing Let Girls Be Girls campaign).

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 22:10:03

Len

Innit

Love it grin

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 22:12:35

SomeGuy - 'Keep the lads mags on the top shelf' seems like a decent campaign though, just don't make it too prudish.

Too prudish?

LOOK AT www.thefrontpagecampaign.org.uk/.

There is no need to bring "prudish" into it.

It is just not acceptable for toddlers to be seeing these images!!

smallorange Thu 29-Jul-10 22:13:03

I don't think it would be a law.

I think the supermarkets could say that they will demand a full opaque cover for the mags or they will be put behind the counter or not stocked at all.

Publishers will look at the bottom line, ad revenue and editorial will be told to either tone it down or watch circulation plummet.

Same for Star and Sport.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 22:13:37

"Putting a 'perv cover' on these magazines is self-defeating because you might as well just buy actual hardcore porn, rather than topless photos, because the embarrassment factor is the same."

Am sitting here frowning with confusion.

How is getting a cover on a magazine, so that my 3yo (and me) don't have to see it in the shop, self-defeating? It's not self defeating, the result is exactly as I want. i don't have to look at it. Victory! Hooray!

SomeGuy Thu 29-Jul-10 22:15:42

Well yes but it's not going to happen.

ISNT Thu 29-Jul-10 22:17:53

Wel thank you for your valuable input into this thread someguy.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 22:18:24

Message withdrawn

Deptfordwife Thu 29-Jul-10 22:19:18

SomeGuy

1. They had no clothes on. They were positioned so that you didn't see the details (so to speak) but they had no clothes on.

2. Ok well, actually I am no expert on either but the lingerie images I see when shopping are quite natural representations -maybe enhanced - , but the Nuts women were distorted and unnatural.

3. I would credit most teenage boys as being able to see the difference. However, I am assuming you were a teenage boy so perhaps in your experience teenage boys are that dim.

4. The issue is the lads mags are at eye level in shops that children go into on a daily basis, lingerie catalogues are not.

maria1665 Thu 29-Jul-10 22:22:49

Clare Short tried and failed to get rid of Page 3 twenty odd years ago. She failed, the Sun pitching her against Linda Lusardi and Sam Fox, basically saying that she was only objecting, because she was too ugly for anyone to want to see her topless.

It then got hold of pictures of her in her nightie, and published those.

It is a mark of how far women have progressed that noone would dare put forward that particular argument now.

I think this is a good time to push on this issue.

There will always be nay sayers. Patricia Hewitt says her greatest regret as Health Secretary was to allow herself to be talked out of going through with the smoking ban. It was a male Chief Medical Officer and a male Health Secretary who eventually forced it through.

Thanks to them, my children live in an country where they are significantly less likely to be exposed to smoke, and much less likely to take up smoking.

I hope Mumsnet shows some courage on this issue, and ignores the 'you might ruin all that you've done' pessimists.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 22:29:03

Message withdrawn

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 22:30:21

Message withdrawn

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 22:42:39

I have been confusing my Star and Sport, it was this one as I shopped for some food yesterday that I found appalling:

dailysport.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

I mean, fgs, really, just why should that be anything I see when food shopping.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 22:46:12

Message withdrawn

LeninGrad Thu 29-Jul-10 22:48:57

Exactly, it's all completely different. I agree a campaign needs to be presented carefully and I understand people think it is futile but it really is getting beyond the pale and I'd rather try and fail than not bother. At the very least you make people think. Retailers will move this stuff if they are asked.

i'm afraid to say that i am probably one of the select few, who has no problem with lads mags such as FHM/ Nuts/ Loaded, granted they do indulge in a provacative pic or 2 on the front, so moving them up a shelf may be a better but other than that i can't quite see what else can be done. these magazines aren't going to stop putting risque pics on the covers, unfortunatley sex sells.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 23:07:37

StrawberryTot - do you have DCs - and if so how old are they?

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 23:08:35

Message withdrawn

tabouleh i was kind of expecting that question, yes i do have children, i have a girl at 4 and a boy at 18 months.

pixieonaleaf you are the first person to call me that, but no not that im aware if anything im a fighter (non physical might i add )

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 23:17:55

What do you fight Strawberry?

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 23:18:44

Message withdrawn

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 23:25:02

Strawberry - can you do me a favour?

Click onto dailysport.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx and where it says calender in the top left - go to yesterday's date.

Now imagine your DD in a few year's time striking that type of "pose".

One of Justine's Q's was: "Are you angry or embarrassed about lads' mags in plain view, or are you not too bothered?"

You said "moving them up a shelf may be a better"...

So which is is? OK or Not OK?

dittany sorry to say im slightly confused as to what you mean? are you asking what causes im "fighting" for?

pixieonaleaf i agree with you, what i said wasn't exactly a fighting attitude but its not really going to be if i don't necessarily agree with the it.

tabouleh, why would my 6 year old daughter strike that pose, just because there is a picture of someone doing it doesn't mean she is going to copy.
also i'm not saying other people don't have a problem/ issue with these magazines, i can fully understand that side of the argument. by saying move them up a shelf i was merely just trying to please those that did.

PixieOnaLeaf Thu 29-Jul-10 23:36:46

Message withdrawn

dittany Thu 29-Jul-10 23:40:19

Yes, what cause do you fight for Strawberry? You've described yourself as a fighter, and to be a fighter you have to fight something, so what do you fight?

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 23:40:59

because children are impressionable!

it is a drip drip drip effect.

Does anyone know if the Government has responded to the Linda Papadopoulos report into the Sexualisation of Children.

I can't find the link to it any more due to the new Government's reorganisation of the Home Office website.

tabouleh Thu 29-Jul-10 23:42:36

I don't think Strawberry is fighting for a cause. In reponse to Pixie calling her "defeatist" she claimed she was a "fighter"!

tabouleh - i'm fully aware children are impressionable some more than others, but like i said it doesn't mean she will copy.
pixieonaleaf - whats wrong with boobies, and i didn't realise men thought women are simply sexual playthings last time i checked my other half thought i was his equal, oh darn it he must be gay.
i don't want to be rude but how old are you all?

PixieOnaLeaf Fri 30-Jul-10 00:08:58

Message withdrawn

tabouleh Fri 30-Jul-10 00:13:15

I am 33.

Please can you read the newspaper article I linked to.

I am wondering - are you in your 20's.

Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because:

"^^the boundaries have been pushed back so far in advertising, marketing and magazines that key elements of pornography are now regarded as mainstream.^^

^Young girls wear "porn star" T-shirts and it is possible to buy babies' bibs with the slogan: "All daddy wanted was a blowjob", according to Papadopoulos.^

^Taboos have been pushed back so far. They are taking their script directly from pornography.^"

dittany Fri 30-Jul-10 00:14:00

I'm 87. Does it make a difference?

What makes you a fighter StrawberryTot? I'm still interested.

tabouleh Fri 30-Jul-10 00:15:05

Pixie - your profile says you are 44? confused

oops forgot to add that im an avid supporter (fighter) of accepting tattoo and piercings in mainstream society and not to judge people by the way they choose to look, one of the causes imparticular is called the SOPHIE Lancaster campaign.

i am also a supporter (fighter) of breast feeding in public although i admit i haven't been massively involved in that recently since i stopped breast feeding.

tabouleh Fri 30-Jul-10 00:16:06

Oh - I'm the only one that answered the age Q honestly. {grin].

tabouleh Fri 30-Jul-10 00:18:04

Wow - gosh - you do realise that part of the reason that BFing in public is so unacceptable to many in this country is due to the objectification of women and the viewing of breast's function as solely sexual!

Maybe we can bring you on board with that knowledge!

PixieOnaLeaf Fri 30-Jul-10 00:19:13

Message withdrawn

tabouleh Fri 30-Jul-10 00:24:30

Strawberry - did you know Sophie sad - that's a very sad story.

To my mind judging people for how they look/lack of tolerance of piercings/tatooes etc is all a part of the porn culture/objectifying women.

It is as if there is "one look" - this is straightened bleached hair/pushed up fake boobs/pumped up lips/short skirts/revealing tops.

Does that make any sense?

tabouleh - good guess i am in deed in my 20's, i just turned 25 to be exact and to add that my partner is 37 (just incase you were wondering if he was some immature guppy, he is not he is a hard working tax paying self employed guy )

pixieonaleaf - please don't ask me anymore questions if you yourself are not willing to be honest.

tabouleh - no i did not know her personnally but i have many friends who are tattooed and pierced including myself and my partner (heavily tattooed) who works in our local studio as a tattoo artist.

ps forgot to add that whilst a good majority of my friends rock the alternative look my best friend is infact a blonde with fake boobies although thankfully she isn't orange

PixieOnaLeaf Fri 30-Jul-10 00:41:32

Message withdrawn

PixieOnaLeaf Fri 30-Jul-10 00:50:53

Message withdrawn

Valpollicella Fri 30-Jul-10 00:59:57

I haven't read the thread, although I shall do tomorrow when I get the chance.

If I ever take DS to the newsagents on a Sunday, he instantly sees the goddamn Sunday Sport with the obligatory all fours/hands over breasts/etc cover.

He sees it and says 'Mummy, that lady has got no clothes on, shes showing her bots!' Cue me deflecting questions as to why she has her 'bits' out.

He's four! What hope is there for boys when they are subjected to this imagery, projected as the standard? (point prob covered above...but just adding my 2p worth)

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 30-Jul-10 01:39:29

PMSL @ SomeGuy's brilliant retort hmm

Wouldn't it be lovely if some of the blokes on here would look at this issue from a parenting perspective, rather than as something those mad women have got a problem with. They are your children too. If you don't mind them being prematurely sexualised is it because your brains are dulled from the delights of being male in a society where there is a non-stop stream of boner-fodder, in the form of girls who think themselves fit for nothing else?

On the other hand if you do mind your kids being exposed to this stuff, why not talk about it honestly, rather than coming on here and doing that exasperating "i'm just testing your argument!" thing.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 30-Jul-10 01:45:16

Meant to say businesses often respond well to complaints - the shops are there to cater to the public after all not the other way round.

When England played Germany in June a local bar had a board up outside saying "Come and Watch the Bosch Get Pounded" or similar - several people mentioned to me that they thought it was out of line. I went and talked to the barman and he changed it straight away - turns out the staff didn't like it either and were delighted to get a complaint so they had an excuse to get rid of it.

SomeGuy Fri 30-Jul-10 01:54:25

Yes my brain is dulled and I can't look at a woman without saying 'phwoar' or 'look at the knockers on the that'.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

SomeGuy Fri 30-Jul-10 01:54:56

'look at the knockers on that' even. See what I mean?

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 30-Jul-10 02:21:43

I'm just saying why is there a correlation between the two blokes on here and a lack of interest in what kids are exposed to? Or are men just more defeatist?

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 30-Jul-10 02:33:43

that last was a joke by the way, sorry my sense of humour turns a bit marvin the martian at this hour.

SomeGuy Fri 30-Jul-10 02:45:23

Studies have shown that men are less likely to perceive pornography as harmful, whereas women are more likely to say that it makes men go out and commit rapes and such like.

So no, it's not an isolated trend.

Astrophe Fri 30-Jul-10 06:23:25

I already said this further down, but I really reccomend [[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Getting-Real-Challenging-Sexualisation-Girls/dp/1876756756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=U TF8&s=books&qid=1280467229&sr=8-1 this book "getting real"] to anyone who has an interest in thsi topic. Its' scope is quite broad - from bill boards to porn mags etc, and it's a collection on essay by various people - 'experts' and others, including one woman who has started lobying (with much success) to get shops to remove porn from where children can see it, and to have overtly sexual billboards removed. It's Australian, but a very similar context really.

Astrophe Fri 30-Jul-10 06:24:34

ok that didn't work...

Getting Real

My DH and I both read it and found it deeply disturbing and challenging.

BeenBeta Fri 30-Jul-10 07:30:23

Elephants - you really could not be more wrong with your comment @1:39.

I do not want my sons looking at some of the magazines and newspapers on the shelves in our newsagent. The impact on them is just as damaging as it is for girls.

I would like you and some others on here to stop making this issue a man v women thing. Why is it only 'lads mags' you are talking about? There are plenty of other magazines, newspapers and media formats aimed at girls/women that damage girls just as much. Extremely thin models in fashion magazines for example and often barely dressed. Do you really ant girls to think they have to be stick thin and wearing barely any clothes to 'look fashionable'?

I really strongly object to adult conversation and sexual references on TV before the 8.00 pm watershed. Yet another example of the way that society is cheapened and sexualised. Why not have a campaign about that? It is really difficult for a parent to police what DCs are watching on TV, especially as the adverts between programmes suitable for children are often scattered with adverts for programmes after the watershed.

It really isn't a man versus woman issue. We all have children. I care about it and would like to tackle it in a different way. That is all.

supersunnyday Fri 30-Jul-10 08:02:33

I haven't managed to read all the other posts, so apologies if I am repeating but I read somewhere recently that it would be perfectly possible for all ISPs to routinely set their system to "porn off", which would then become the default (like they do when you request child safety filters) rather than the default being "porn on".

That would mean people would have to specifically ask to get access to the sites. (Anyone who wanted to see them could still arrange with an email to the ISP provider).

The article suggested this would be good as it might help make looking at porn on the internet less normalised if people had to specifically opt in to removing the filter. Would also make it harder for children to see things by accident.

smallorange Fri 30-Jul-10 08:16:08

I think if mumsnetcame out with a campaign against the depiction of women in the media - sexualised ads on billboards/cash mags/page 3/MTV/ porn- it would be ineffectual because it is too broad, to many issues to muddy the waters.

Asking retailers to move overtly sexual content to the top shelf and/or covered is most certainly winnable. I think there would be slot of support for it o/s mumsnet.

Deptfordwife Fri 30-Jul-10 08:17:03

I agree BeenBeta, some of those things you list would be good campaigns. It's just that the OP was about lads mags and internet porn. I'm just talking about lads mags as DC not old enough for internet yet but does go into supermarkets and newsagents. Agree shouldn't be man v women issue.

smallorange Fri 30-Jul-10 08:18:06

I think the .xxx thing is just another money making exercise fordomain name companies. It won't change things.

Lizzzombie Fri 30-Jul-10 08:49:54

I think the airbrushing aspect is much more important at present than targeting a specific genre of magazines.

Maybe the 'let girls be girls' retailers who are behind the campaign could agree to minimise/halt the use of airbrushing in their adverts?

I personally think that the younger generation need to understand that these images are totally unrealistic and unobtainable.

Maybe the campaign could target the typical ladsmag 'pin up girls' and get them to agree to do an unairbrushed photo shoot/calander etc to promote the campaign.
Maybe some of these women, particularly ones who may have daughters or younger sisters may be up for it?

foureleven Fri 30-Jul-10 08:53:50

You are right beenbeta, it is as damaging for boys.
We cant teach them to respect women for more than their bodies when that is what is displayed to them.

Lio Fri 30-Jul-10 11:29:31

Sorry, haven't time to read whole thread.

1. Yes, I would like to see lads' mags and the Sport displayed where children can't see them. This would include public libraries as well as shops.

2. I don't know enough about pornography to know whether I consider them to be porn or not, I just know that I don't like them and the part they play in keeping women down (don't know a good way of putting that) and I don't want my daughter or my son seeing them. For preference I don't want to see them either.

HerBeatitude Fri 30-Jul-10 11:45:09

"Studies have shown that men are less likely to perceive pornography as harmful, whereas women are more likely to say that it makes men go out and commit rapes and such like."

Um,yes, they would do.

That's because women are on the receiving end of what men do after looking at porn.

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious.

LeninGrad Fri 30-Jul-10 12:18:22

Lio I was thinking about that last night, how they make me feel, that front page of the Sport on 28th in particular, and the only thing I kept coming back to is I find it humiliating, utterly humiliating to see a women portrayed like that on the front page of a newspaper. Humiliating and demeaning.

Eleison Fri 30-Jul-10 12:22:47

It feels like an assault, seeing those images in a supermarket or wherever. Ironically it feels the same as being flashed. A penis suddenly presented to you while you are walking the dog or whatever, says 'Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, I will corner you into being my gratification'. And the same effect is achieved when an image of my own body, distorted into a porn-fetish image is thrust at me in a shop.

Eleison Fri 30-Jul-10 12:25:51

...which is the really angry-makling thing -- that my own body, colonised by porn-eyes, is the source of an attack on me.

PixieOnaLeaf Fri 30-Jul-10 12:43:18

Message withdrawn

HerBeatitude Fri 30-Jul-10 13:23:14

That's waht it's there for isn't it - to humiliate us and keep us in our place. To remind us that when it comes down to it, however uppity we get, we're just fuck toys for men - even the least desirable men (see readership demographic of the Sport).

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 30-Jul-10 13:36:17

"Studies have shown that men are less likely to perceive pornography as harmful, whereas women are more likely to say that it makes men go out and commit rapes and such like."

what a tremendous shock. I hear that the insect community is more likely to perceive fly spray as harmful as well.

SomeGuy Fri 30-Jul-10 13:47:06

Well y'know, I've lived in countries without a 'porn culture', and I can assure you the attitude to women is far less enlightened than here.

PixieOnaLeaf Fri 30-Jul-10 13:51:51

Message withdrawn

Eleison Fri 30-Jul-10 13:53:35

Your point being? That porn culture is somehow an essential partner of enlightened attitudes to women? Or that we should be grateful for small mercies, and put up with a serious offence just because other serious offences are (somewhat) rectified?

SomeGuy Fri 30-Jul-10 14:02:20

My point was that women thinking porn turns men into Neanderthals are clutching at straws frankly.

Men like to read the Daily Sport because they are Neanderthals, by comparison to them the contents of that rag are rather enlightened.

Eleison Fri 30-Jul-10 14:09:07

Men who like looking at porn are responsible for their own moral welfare. I thought the discussion was about being able to walk about in public without having their wank accessories lined up with the Radio Times.

SomeGuy Fri 30-Jul-10 14:22:10

It was, however someone questioned why there appeared to be different attitudes from men, and I was explaining why.

Lio Fri 30-Jul-10 14:27:00

LeninGrad and Eleison, that's right: humiliation and being cornered, as if I can be tripped up at any moment by one of these images.

BeenBeta Fri 30-Jul-10 14:38:25

So the debate has descended to where I predicted it would at the beginnng of the thread.

This is no longer a discussion about protecting our children and leting them grow up as children or even more crudely about putting 'lads mags' on the top shelf. It is really about banning pornography in general.

The media will pick up on that very quickly and the whole point of the LGBG campaign will be lost.

ruthosaurus Fri 30-Jul-10 14:44:38

Neanderthals, eh? Gosh, good job there aren't any of them where I live. It must just be my poor, addled female, straw-clutching attitude that makes me find tits all over the wall in my local estate agent, being yelled at in the street by random strangers, the Dr Pepper thing, the doc overseeing my post-episiotomy stitches saying that it wasn't too bad but my days in porn movies were probably over, etc etc etc ad nauseum offensive, rather than just being a grateful girl and thanking my lucky stars I don't live in Iran.

ruthosaurus Fri 30-Jul-10 14:46:39

X-post grin

Deptfordwife Fri 30-Jul-10 14:53:53

Hi BeenBeta, if you meant what you said earlier:

"I do not want my sons looking at some of the magazines and newspapers on the shelves in our newsagent. The impact on them is just as damaging as it is for girls"

then please concentrate on constructive criticism of this campaign idea to help it succeed, rather than making a sweeping, demoralising pronouncement about what this discussion is now about. I don't see anyone saying pornography in general should be banned, and this thread is not about that. It is still about the display of pornography, not banning it.

Just13moreyearstogo Fri 30-Jul-10 15:16:07

It never ceases to amaze me that hand in hand with women's advancement in the workplace has come this increasing degradation of them in the easily accessible lads' mags. The 1970s feminists would have marched into shops and pulled them off the shelves, whereas young women today seem to think they have to accept these images as normal.

LeninGrad Fri 30-Jul-10 15:18:22

Actually most contributors on here have talked about how it makes us feel to be subjected to these images and what we think might be able to be done about that. I don't think the discussion is at all how you are representing it BB.

HerBeatitude Fri 30-Jul-10 15:27:06

How is us talking about how porn humiliates us the same as talking about it being banned BeenBeta?

Does it make you uncomfortable to be told that we feel humiliated by it? Is women's humiliation something you'd rather not acknowledge?

ramade Fri 30-Jul-10 15:46:36

Could you widen it to internet servers? Have you seen the 'sex education' programe on chanel 4. They did a whole series on it. very, very scarey. Showed just how it was effecting our teens. 'Psycologies' magazine also did an article on it last month with an adress to send letters to minister of childen and families I think (it's on their website).

smallorange Fri 30-Jul-10 16:26:17

The only reason the discussion has become about banning porn is because you have turned the debate to that - even though people have been at pains to point out that this is not the point if thus campaign.

And it can be done. And if it can't shouldn't we at least try?

BTW I love it when men come on here and tell us how things really are out there in the big bad world grin

LeninGrad Fri 30-Jul-10 16:31:43

It's a salutary lesson in what will happen though (thank the lord for the mens).

So, the campaign has to be clear and concise and encapsulate all the thoughts here about why it should be moved. Getting across how it makes people feel would be a bonus.

ruthosaurus Fri 30-Jul-10 21:14:30

smallorange, yyy. Been arguing with another man about a similar topic and am feeling irritated by him taking offence and personalising the discussion when negative opinions about the effect of porn on young men are expressed. As a man, he feels offended that women think all men are like that. As a woman, I feel objectified and insulted by top shelf porn in newsagents. I get pissed off with men who find that anger unbecoming or see it as a criticism of them personally.

Who was it earlier that mentioned marching? I need the exercise anyway.

SugarMousePink Fri 30-Jul-10 22:19:50

Sorry haven't had a chance to read whole thread, but wanted to say YES add this to the campaign.

Had a very angry moment in Asda the other day where a little boy (4 or 5) was reaching for a copy of a Thomas the Tank engine mag thingy, which was but one magazine away from Nuts which had a picture of a topless woman with the gaffer tape just covering her nipples angry hmm shock

Kaloki Sat 31-Jul-10 01:12:58

Just thought I'd join in to day that I also agree with "lads mags" being put out of sight of children, as well as those publications that pretend to be newspapers (despite the lack of news).

I also think that the .xxx domain should become the domain for porn, as it will make things much easier. I remember reading somewhere that the porn industry is in support of this too (web designer articles in case you are wondering!). So although we shouldn't then become complacent, hopefully most of the porn industry will be happy to move over.

MojoLost Sat 31-Jul-10 07:54:18

Yes yes yes please. I know this is campaign is about girls, but this would benefit boys as well.
I am very careful at home and NEVER expose my two little boys to adult stuff on tv/etc. Don't watch sopes or anything of the sort.

I took them for an innocent icecream last week, the place had a large TV screen showing videos with sexual scenes - you know the sort - sexy kissing, lying on the bed. I had to ask them to turn it off, it should not be allowed.

I don't want to take them to newsagents either, the adult magazines are too clear to view. I don't want my boys exposed to that so soon.

WELL DONE MUMSNET FOR STARTING THIS CAMPAIGN.

WideWebWitch Sun 01-Aug-10 11:22:44

Have only read the OP but yes, yes to this being the next Mn campaign.

WideWebWitch Sun 01-Aug-10 11:26:04

And this is another interesting site on the subject, sorry if I'm repeating

www.object.org.uk/

KarmaAngel Sun 01-Aug-10 18:57:23

Yes I think it's a very good idea.

I was actually pleasantly surprised today when I went to my local Co-op. All the lads' mags were on the top shelf and hidden by ordinary magazines, so you could only see their titles. Don't know if it's just my local Co-op that does this or if it's nationwide.

KarmaAngel Sun 01-Aug-10 19:00:19

Ok clearly I need to spend time reading whole threads instead of just replying!

DwayneDibbley Sun 01-Aug-10 19:59:26

Message withdrawn

jakiD Sun 01-Aug-10 20:08:26

i think bad parenting is the real issue here! to be honest....parents should be more aware of what there offspring are upto these days ie. surfing the net. I think its due to the now much older parents out there compared to our generation who's parents where mainly in there early twenty's. whereas now most are late thirtys early fourty's when their babies are born, which means by the time their children are surfing the net they are 'to out of touch' with what they are subjecting their children too. Or from the otherend of the spectrum the teenage parents who are to busy with their own lives to care what there quickly growing up children get upto. Basically I am trying to describe 'Broken Britain'.

ruthosaurus Sun 01-Aug-10 20:42:09

Basically, you are putting down anyone who didn't have children in their early twenties. Like wot you did. This adds nothing to the debate on top shelf lads' mags; you are just enjoying blaming other parents for society's problems. Yawn.

jakiD Sun 01-Aug-10 21:26:00

Yes basically ... coz it happens to be true, whereas yawning really helps! NOT And as for the debate on top shelf lads mags, this will never change because we live in a man's world and any women that believes otherwise is dreaming if she thinks she can change that.

HerBeatitude Sun 01-Aug-10 22:10:54

Yes thank you for your insightful and refreshing contribution JakiD

Another "nothing can ever be done about anything bad. Ever" contribution.

Inspiring, truly inspiring.

ruthosaurus Sun 01-Aug-10 22:31:00

If there's no point trying to change anything, JakiD, why are you even bothering to read this thread? Did you just come on to brag about how great you are to have made the life choices that you did, and to slate everyone else's? And yes, you're right, yawning when someone is being tedious is rather rude. So is blaming all the problems of the world on other people's parenting. You really believe that? Sad.

jakiD Sun 01-Aug-10 22:39:31

Think i have hit a nerve there ruthosaurus & HerBeatitude glad i am inspiring u. I will assume you r both aging parents from your comments

ruthosaurus Sun 01-Aug-10 23:08:30

Ah, yes. Well, when you're our age one can get a little cranky. It's probably the menopause. I wouldn't assume too much, though. Night, dear.

StewieGriffinsMom Sun 01-Aug-10 23:42:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ruthosaurus Sun 01-Aug-10 23:58:22

Sorry, didn't mean to offend: I typed before I thought.blush

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 00:04:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ruthosaurus Mon 02-Aug-10 00:09:54

Phew. But still, I think I should have just said biscuit. It's hard to judge tone sometimes, esp at this time of night. [worried] The camp sounds good, and the teenagers sound like they have their heads screwed on.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 08:29:53

illegal grin StewieGriffinsMom

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 08:32:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 08:37:59

Jaki I assumed from your posts that you weren't very bright.

I wasn't going to say so as that's impolite, but seeing as how you're not bothering with courtesy, I'm happy to do without it for now as well.

HTH.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 08:43:26

bullying is illegalsad

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 08:54:31

Ah poor you.

You make what you suppose to be deliberately offensive comments about people whose views you don't like (you don't engage with their arguments you just attempt to insult them) and then when they come right back atcha, you whinge about bullying.

Give me strength.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 09:03:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

InmyheadIminParis Mon 02-Aug-10 11:37:25

I would be 100% behind this too - and willing to help out if I can.

InmyheadIminParis Mon 02-Aug-10 11:38:48

100 per cent behind the campaign - not behind bullying grin. I didn't read the whole thread. << puts self in corner>>

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 17:31:24

some women just can't handle the truth..Straight on the defensive....as i suspected! How can we possibly debate anything on here. If certain folk are not willing to accept the issues i have brought up. ie bad parenting. Things will never improve for girls as a hell of alot of women are living in cloud cuckoo land.grin

ElephantsAndMiasmas Mon 02-Aug-10 18:04:21

JakiD!!! Hi, you seem to be confusing this thread about whether MN should be targetting porny pics of women in clear view of any passing child, with a debate about the right age to have children. You are allowed to start your own thread on that topic you know, isn't that nice?

No matter how good a parent you are, you can't make your children selectively blind when presented with pornographic images. Unless you count going past a news stand/entering a newsagent as bad parenting of course.

Can't wait to see your thread! <excited>

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 18:20:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 18:54:30

JakiD if you want to discuss bad parenting please start another thread.

This is about whether MN should oppose Nuts etc. As Elephants has pointed out, the children of good parents see porn as well as the children of bad ones. This thread is about the widespread distribution of porn in all areas of our lives, not about good or bad parenting.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 20:13:38

Again you are all missing my point as usual. Its regarding the fact that people are having children to early/late in life that means they are not prepared when it comes to protecting their children from porn images. I have to say i can't believe you all think this thread could possibly put a stop in anyway to porn on the net or for sale in the shops, just by MN opposing it. I am just trying to explain that i believe that children brought up by older parents are far to independent and ahead of their parents when it comes to technology, so can only protect themselves. And children brought up by young parents are dragged up and you will find that their parents are not educated enough to be able to protect their children from such images. And that is my opinion of why society is now becoming increasingly out of control when it comes porn situations.hmm

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 20:17:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 20:23:17

And incase you want to be abusive again towards me i will give you more info about myself. I am 36 and mother to a 12yr old and a 10yr old daughters. And I am confident that no matter what offensive material is out there in the public eye - they will not be subjected to it before they are 16+yrs. Its all about common sense parenting and accepting that we live in a women degrading society and always have done. So unfortunately its our responsibility to protect our children - there is no point in trying to change the world it aint gonna happen. But good luck with your campaign anyway MN.grin

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 20:30:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 20:42:48

Well Jaki, thank you again for your inspiring viewpoint.

You keep saying we can't change the world. History shows that the world can be changed and frequently is. But not by people like you, obviously.

Luckily, there are plenty of people with energy and optimism and they are the people who do change the world.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 20:45:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Mon 02-Aug-10 20:48:26

I really have to thank some posters here - I had never previously considered that I have to either try to change the world to make it better or protect my [as yet imaginary] children from the worst parts of the world as it is.

"You can't change it" - yawn, where do you get off trying to grind everyone else down to your level of pessimism?

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 20:50:35

She re3minds me of my mother.

Suck the joy and optimism out of everythign, why don't you. grin

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 20:52:02

I suggest u move. Or at least buy her water bottles from tesco instead of her. And to be honest stop focusing on it and she won't even notice it either. I shop in tesco each week with my daughters and we haven't even stopped to look at magazines. Stop buying national rags and you will have no reason to go down that aisle in future. And as for men on buses i have to admit this has happened to myself in the past where a man has been sitting right beside me reading page 3angry. So from that point onwards i would never put my daughters on public transport just for the sake of a certain school. To be honest my children attend a very outstanding local middle school in a good area so it is very unlikely that any child would be in posession of such material. And for the record i do find all the material you have mentioned offensive ie nuts,fhm,daily star,the sun and so on... i do not allow any such items in my house - so i doubt my daughters will be aware of them.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Mon 02-Aug-10 20:54:05

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you really had us going for a minute there jakiD.

don't let your children visit shops or use public transport - well there's a workable solution we can all get behind.

You joker you.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 20:54:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 20:58:37

elephant so mature arent we (only in oneway i bet lol) your dc must be so proud of your lake of common sense - plenty of suitable shops out there and things called vehicles which can be driven by mear women believe itor not!

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 21:05:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 21:07:36

and in the meantime your dc's are being subjected to offensive material whilst you all try to change the world instead of protecting your children. But good luck with all that! anyway.....i will wait with anticipation grin

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 21:14:04

"stop focusing on it and she won't even notice it either"

I don't want to bring my daughter up to not notice the way her sex is denigrated and dehumanised. I want her to have the self-respect to know that she and her sex deserve better. It's bad parenting to teach her otherwise IMO.

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 21:16:11

Changing the world is protecting our children.

You intend to drive your children everywhere until they are 18? Won't they get frightfully fat? And are you really so complacent about the planet they are going to inherit from you?

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 21:20:06

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 21:20:21

stewie your children can do all of things you have stated if you like but be it on your head what they see! And yes my children do play out at the park but are usually busy chatting with friends on there way there rather than looking at billboards. We live beside the sea so not many billboards around to be honest. Our local shop doesn't seem to display the items mentioned where my dc shop for sweets and mags. And as for school as i have said they attend a middle school which goes upto age 13 so i suppose i probably may have more to be concerned about next yr. But fingers crossed so farso good!

ziptoes Mon 02-Aug-10 21:22:30

What BeenBeta said.

Internet porn is way too difficult to tackle, and will go underground. Better to monitor your child's pooter use. Lads mags make big companies lots of money

I'm far more worried about the normalisation of size zero. I don't buy womens mags as they just trite crap (like lads mags), but am always horrified at the images in them. (By the way, I was in the doctors the other day and the Beano had a product testing section on scent! Scent! In the Beano! Bonkers.)

Can we have a campaign to have normal body sizes, shapes, ages, colours in the media. For boys as well as girls?

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 02-Aug-10 21:24:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jakiD Mon 02-Aug-10 21:29:33

HerBeatitude like i have said before good luck with changing the world, but as far that protecting your kids, i feel that now is more important whilst they are kids rather than in the future when they will be adults themselves and will be capable of protecting themselves. And as for driving my kids everywhere not likely! I have based my family thoughtfully i feel - ie family friendly area. Thought it through prior to motherhood you see. Its not all about ME in our house, the kids are my life!

HerBeatitude Mon 02-Aug-10 21:48:43

"plenty of suitable shops out there and things called vehicles which can be driven by mear women believe itor not!"

Oh, ok so you didn't mean that.

I don't know why I'm bothering, really I don't.

ruthosaurus Mon 02-Aug-10 22:12:17

HerBeatitude, because, like me last night, you can't quite believe it's really happening and that anyone really thinks like that in this day and age?
Speaking of which, J, would you like to guess how much older you are than me? And by the way, one more crack about someone's age and I'm reporting you for being unremittingly bigoted and unpleasant.

I think Mumsnet campaigns like this are great: they send a real message to shops, magazines and advertisers. It just shows how people can change the world a bit at a time. I love the hope and optimism, not to mention sense of community that these threads inspire.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Tue 03-Aug-10 00:00:27

Clue: I am also 10+ years your junior, jakiD. Believe it or not you are not the youngest, hippest cat in town, just because you couldn't give a shit about other children (not yours with your non-porny shop, bully for you) being subjected to demeaning images. Hope you had fun, sadly our chat is now at an end <saaaad face>

jakiD Tue 03-Aug-10 08:37:40

Elephants & HerBe Unbelievable ! I really do feel sorry for your dc. Its a seriously foofd up world when women are more aggressive than men these days. But good luck with your futures and the campaign. And i hope you both enjoyd letting out your anger at my points of view. And my final point regarding nuts and fhm what is the big deal ? The women on the front covers are not in the nude - not sure about inside the mag coz i cant say i have ever been interested.

HerBeatitude Tue 03-Aug-10 10:16:55

Oh Jaki please go away. Your stupidity is neither edifying nor entertaining.

And BTW, it's pretty aggressive to tell posters you feel sorry for their DC's, as well as being bad-mannered. I'm not sure you're aware that's bad-mannered, are you? I hope you are and that that was deliberate, otherwise I might have to worry about what terrible manners you're role modelling your DC's and feel sorry for them... hmm

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 03-Aug-10 10:30:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ruthosaurus Tue 03-Aug-10 12:32:15

biscuit for JakiD

Leave it, she's not worth it...

jakiD Tue 03-Aug-10 15:58:59

HerBe feeling sorry for your dc does not make me aggressive or bad mannered. STUPID!shock And as for ruth shame u didn't think of biscuit earlier LOL

ElephantsAndMiasmas Tue 03-Aug-10 16:22:46

<turns away from unseemly scuffle>

So, MNHQ, what do you reckon?