Lads' mags have 6 weeks to "cover up": your reaction, please!

(290 Posts)
HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 29-Jul-13 09:58:26


You may already have seen/heard the news today that the Co-op has given "lads' mags" six weeks to cover up their front page with sealed "modesty bags" or be taken off sale in its stores.

The Co-op says it's responding to concerns by its members, customers and colleagues about images of scantily-clad women on magazine covers.

We're being asked what Mumsnetters think of this move by the Co-op. So we'd love you to let us know: please do post up your views on this thread.

CaptainJamesTKirk Mon 29-Jul-13 10:02:44

I think it's excellent. You can't stop stocking them unfortunately because people buy the sodding things, but I hate seeing them when out shopping with my 3 year old DS especially as they are often at his eye level. Sometimes they are quite explicit thank goodness he can't read yet!

I don't want him to grow up and think that the women on the covers are the norm and something to aspire to in a girlfriend so the less he sees of this at such a young age the better.

CaptainJamesTKirk Mon 29-Jul-13 10:06:35

And I don't believe covering them amounts to censorship. Censorship would be if they and any publication like this were banned altogether. Covering them enables those that want to buy this awful stuff to continue to whilst protecting children from growing up seeing images like this and growing up thinking this is something that they must aspire to and/or find attractive.

theboutiquemummy Mon 29-Jul-13 10:11:37

I think we should cover all magazines that show naked flesh not just lads mags but some women's magazines doing "art" covers and the mens health magazines then it's fair blanket rule and my children are not exposed to this kind of sexualisation

I support the principle just wish our society wasn't so obsessed with using sex to sell

PennieLane Mon 29-Jul-13 10:11:40

Excellent step in right direction!

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 10:13:49

I think its a good move.

It gets them out of sight of kids - not just toddlers but older kids too - I dont' really want my 14 yr old DD seeing these on a rack.

Despite the huffing of the former editor of Front (and no doubt others) its nothing like censorship. I don't know but I'd guess that these publications can give the content information from the cover on-line somewhere.

I understand the POV that these mags should be entirely banned but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon so this is a pragmatic solution. Hopefully where the Co-op leads, other retailers will follow.

treaclesoda Mon 29-Jul-13 10:25:26

I'm in favour of it. I hate these mags with a passion. In my local shop that mags are all at children's eye level, the shelves are only about four feet high, so its particularly horrible to see them sat there just a few inches from the My Little Pony magazines etc.

ButThereAgain Mon 29-Jul-13 10:32:01

It's a very good development. But as soon as you see a shop taking seriously the awfulness of these publications, it makes you realise that covering them up is an odd sort of half-way house. Now we have seen a company recognise that a product is so awful it doesn't want its staff and most of its customers to even glimpse it, it seems more unquestionably bizarre and wrongful to stock the thing at all.

So I think and hope this will lead to a revolution of rising expectations: once its covered, we should step up the pressure and get it gone altogther.

ButThereAgain Mon 29-Jul-13 10:34:54

(I think that the Co-op has already "denied me the freedom" to buy battery eggs and other welfare-compromised animal products, as well as some non-fair-trade products, so I don't see any crashingly awful new threat to hiuman freedom involved in denying me the right to buy the humiliation and objectification of women from them.)

milktraylady Mon 29-Jul-13 10:35:01

Excellent move, well done coop.
The front covers are revolting.

Bramshott Mon 29-Jul-13 10:37:53

Well done Co-op!

Mopswerver Mon 29-Jul-13 10:40:42

Agree with all the above.

Of course it is a complete no-brainer. Allow them to be sold without inflicting the images on the vast majority of shoppers who would rather not see a thonged backside thrust in their face when popping out for bread and milk.

The fact that our children have been subjected to these images for so long is really shameful but I think the images have become progressively worse over the years and it has crept up on all of us.

Huge cheer for step in the right direction. Now we just need the rest of the retailers to get on board.

EauRouge Mon 29-Jul-13 10:45:28

This is a fantastic step in the right direction- thank you, Co-op, for listening and not simply blathering on about consumer choice. It's a big deal for a major retailer to finally say that having this kind of imagery everywhere is not acceptable.

Hopefully this will just be the beginning and we'll see women being presented less as sex objects and more as actual human beings.

milktraylady Mon 29-Jul-13 10:50:38

Actually in our little local Tesco I turn the mags over if the front covers are particularly offensive. Generally it's an aftershave advert on the back, much less revolting.

Frettchen Mon 29-Jul-13 10:53:59

I think this is brilliant news. Co-op are completely entitled to refuse to sell items that don't match with their corporate ethics. The fact that they're listening to what a large number of people want, and that they're not afraid to put their money where their mouth is makes me much more likely to shop there. (Just have to find out where my local Co-op is!)
And anyway; they're not necessarily refusing to sell these lads' mags; just refusing to sell them if they're displaying images deemed unsuitable for display around children. I'm completely in favour of this compromise. The bonus is that it's challenging the normalisation of treating women like sexual objects. Nothing bad about that!

cocolepew Mon 29-Jul-13 11:09:03

I think that being behind the opague boards is good enough to be honest. As long as you can't see the front.Both my local Asda and Sainsbury do this, you can only see the title. Next to the covered lads mags in Asda was Attitude magazine with a very buff man lounging back in his skimpy underpants. Really these type of covers should be covered up too.

slug Mon 29-Jul-13 11:24:27

I've said this on the Femisit boards as well. I think it's a cop out on the Cooperative's front. they still want to financially gain from selling sexually exploitative images of women. All they are doing by putting the covers on is turning a blind eye to their own involvement in the industry.

They should stop stocking them all together.

yegodsandlittlefishes Mon 29-Jul-13 11:28:51

I think it is great, and hope to see all shops following suit. I will rethink where I but my craft, ar, history and science mags and journals and try to get them from the co-op to support them.

AlwaysOneMissing Mon 29-Jul-13 11:29:49

I am really impressed with Co op for making a stand and actually listening to what consumers want.
It's soft porn that has been thrust into mainstream society, and having it close to children's magazines was disgusting.

Well done Co op, lets hope other big chains take note (maybe Tesco can try to reclaim some popularity after the horse meat scandal by taking a stand against these lads mags too!)

kim147 Mon 29-Jul-13 11:33:08

Great development - but what about papers like the Sun and the Star.

Just look at the front page of those on most days.

alreadytaken Mon 29-Jul-13 11:49:40

think I should spend more money at the co-op. For those who dont have a co-op nearby maybe consider using and

The electrical shop gives 60 minutes delivery slots too

SoupDragon Mon 29-Jul-13 11:54:09

Now we have seen a company recognise that a product is so awful it doesn't want its staff and most of its customers to even glimpse it

Except they've not done it because they don't think anyone should see it, it's to protect children and those who are offended by the covers. That's not the same thing at all and is a good compromise.

Davinaaddict Mon 29-Jul-13 11:57:00

I agree with a lot of the other posters - great move! It saddens me that at least half of the magazine stands are covered in mostly naked women with the odd token half naked man thrown in. Is that all we are interested in now?

I'm certainly not interested in it and I'd much prefer it if my children were not subjected to it in every supermarket and newsagent. If they choose to be interested I'm it at an appropriate age then fine, but I feel it should be a choice, not on display for all to see.

JaquelineHyde Mon 29-Jul-13 12:00:49

Excellent news! I am really, really pleased about this and shall be continuing to shop at the Co-Op as much as I can.

I've just read the BBC news website article on this and this little gem jumped out at me...

'A former editor of Front magazine, Piers Hernu, said the Co-op's decision was "very dangerous" and amounted to "censorship".

The firm had "caved in" to a "vociferous campaign from some fanatical feminists", showing itself to be "weak-willed and spineless", he argued on BBC Radio 5 live.'

What a twat!

ProphetOfDoom Mon 29-Jul-13 12:05:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 12:07:23

Its companies which don't take sensible action like this which are weak-willed and spineless, IMO.

Kafri Mon 29-Jul-13 12:12:07

I appear to be in the minority but I just think if they don't agree with them, then don't stock them.
I can honestly say that I never look at them while I'm in a store so them being covered up wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. Some blokes read them, just like some read Horse and Hound.

Snapespeare Mon 29-Jul-13 12:13:34

i fully support this move and will be writing to tesco to see if they have any plans to follow suit. i could shop at the co-op more regularly, it's a bit further than my local tesco, but this is important enough to switch.

Morgause Mon 29-Jul-13 12:39:59

Excellent news. I hope they ban The Sun next.

TheFallenNinja Mon 29-Jul-13 12:48:15

This takes it off display and satisfies the staff handling problem that was highlight recently. Job done, nothing more to see here, move on.

Malemum Mon 29-Jul-13 12:49:53

This approach is both pathetic, ludicrous and PC gone too far.

The magazines affected are no where near anything like the original Pornographic magazines and putting them in the same category is utter nonsense.

Watching the feminist & model on Auntie this morning was interesting, besides the magazines which are viewed are no different than scantly clad bikini females on our UK or overseas beaches....

I'm so pleased - that's a conversation I now don't have to have with my 4 year old... The shelves aren't very high in our local co-op and it used to be right at her eye level

NigellasGuest Mon 29-Jul-13 12:57:00

why do some people think it's the same as people wearing beachwear on - um - beaches?

AgathaF Mon 29-Jul-13 12:57:28

It's a step in the right direction but it is a shame that they won't just refuse to stock them outright.

Im pleased. No problrms with my children seeing nudity, but prefervthey dont see pornography

K8Middleton Mon 29-Jul-13 13:02:00

Good. It is a good start.

I don't have a local coop but I do have a branch of Britannia (part of Coop) and a child's savings account to open so I'm going there.

About time The Sun's page 3 and The Sport and co went the same way too.

NigellasGuest Mon 29-Jul-13 13:05:07

The Sport in particular is a disgrace, blowing open on my garage forecourt while I'm walking in to pay for my petrol blush

K8Middleton Mon 29-Jul-13 13:05:21

Last time I was on a beach Malemum there was quite a lot of flesh on show but nobody was being objectified. There were also all shapes and sizes and both sexes as well as trans because we were in Brighton.

Do you see the difference?

NigellasGuest Mon 29-Jul-13 13:07:40

I wear a bikini on the beach but I don't bend over and shove my thonged arse in kids' faces in my local Tesco when they're trying to buy an icecream. It's all about context, Malemum, get it?

Spartacus101 Mon 29-Jul-13 13:13:52

excellent news smile

TiredyCustards Mon 29-Jul-13 13:20:31

I'm pleased by it, but troubled by the phrase 'modesty bags'.

Anyone else dislike this phrase? I can't quite put my finger on why I do, perhaps because the concept of modesty is all tied up with religious fundamentalism nowadays?

Perhaps 'pervert pouches' would be better...?

DownstairsMixUp Mon 29-Jul-13 13:40:23

NigellasGuest said it right. I totally agree with the move. I don't think they should be banned, no, but I don't want to see it when I go shopping tbh and some of the front covers are a bit much for kids to be seeing, my lo is 4 and has asked before why a lady was naked on a magazine (she wasn't, she had a thong on but you couldn't see it and only black stars covered her nipples)

123rd Mon 29-Jul-13 13:40:57

Good job. It really annoys me seeing them in the shelves. I'm glad the coop are doing this.

Snazzyenjoyingsummer Mon 29-Jul-13 13:41:10

I welcome the move. People aren't being stopped from buying the product; it just means the pictures aren't on display alongside all the other goods in the supermarket, as if naked women were an equivalent commodity to a box of teabags. It's analogous to plain packaging for cigarettes in my view.

'Modesty bag' as a name does not trouble me. If it's tied up with religious fundamentalism then let's reclaim it.

NicholasTeakozy Mon 29-Jul-13 13:48:31

Pervert pouches! grin Great description. Any publication that has a cover objectifying women and men should be covered. I include Chat!, OK! and all the other vacuous celebrity obsessed shitrags in that.

TiredyCustards Mon 29-Jul-13 13:50:55

I think calling them modesty bags implies the bag is there to protect models' modesty, and that the onus is on women to be modest.

It's just slightly dodgy wording.

flatpackhamster Mon 29-Jul-13 13:51:11

I think it's evidence of a growing censoriousness and puritanism, and I don't welcome it. But I've been seeing it grow over the last few years.

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 13:51:31

People who compare two plastic-titted women rubbing their nipples together on the front of a mainstream magazine and people of all shapes and sizes wearing swimwear on the beach are a bit thick, IMO

BeCool Mon 29-Jul-13 13:51:52

Well done Co-op - be very proud. I'm delighted.

It does astonish me how some people can't/don't see the difference between blatant objectification of women in magazines and elsewhere, and someone wearing a bikini on the beach. There is still a long way to go!

BeCool Mon 29-Jul-13 13:53:41

I don't see how striving for equality in our society can or should be linked with puritanism!!

GherkinsAreAce Mon 29-Jul-13 13:54:44

Very good news - good for you co op smile

waps Mon 29-Jul-13 13:58:57

Well done Co-op, I shop from Ocado mostly but if I need to nip out for extras I try to use the Co-op rather than Tesco precisely because Co-op are willing to make this kind of stand. I have 2 sons and I don't want them to think of women in the way portrayed on these mags. Also, The Star 'newspaper', on the bottom shelf right in kids' eyeline is often pure pornography. I have no problem with pornography but in the right place.

hermioneweasley Mon 29-Jul-13 14:04:58

Clearly MN is populated entirely by fantastical feminists, if this reaction is anything to judge by. Another person here who thinks this is nothing but a good move.

Well done Co-op, great to see a company standing up against objectification of women

SoupDragon Mon 29-Jul-13 14:08:32

I think it's evidence of a growing censoriousness and puritanism

But it isn't. If it were true censorship they would be removed from sale and banned completely. This is a compromise whereby they are still on sale and visible but not shoving a pair of breasts or an arse in your/your child's face.

DelayedActionMouseMaker Mon 29-Jul-13 14:25:52

This is fantastic news! Hooraaayyyy!

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 14:26:31

>I think it's evidence of a growing censoriousness and puritanism

no - it is welcome evidence that ordinary parents can get listened to nowadays.

Banning these mags would be censorship, but even that wouldn't equate to 'puritanism'. It would be in the cause of anti-objectification which is an entirely different thing as I'm sure anyone with two brain cells to rub together can easily understand.

meditrina Mon 29-Jul-13 14:28:25

Good decision.

And I note that it's the Co-op (workers co-operative) that is leading the way on this.

And it's no more censorious or puritanical than the decision by British terrestrial TV to drop Miss World from the schedules - again, that was "nothing worse than you see on the beach" but that is not, of course, synonymous with being appropriate everywhere. Nor of being acceptable to customers and potential customers in perpetuity.

BeCool Mon 29-Jul-13 14:29:19

It's really not all that different from the change in the law to smoking.
The smokers right to smoke still exists and is now balanced with non-smokers/unwell/children/elderly/workers etc right to not be subjected to 2nd hand smoke.

Not that long ago, smokers smoked everywhere and in places that are imaginable now: tube trains, aeroplanes, pubs etc. Changes happened, the world was going to end. Guess what, it didn't and society is largely a better place for the restrictions.

Smoking isn't banned outright but the right to smoke is now balanced with the right of the entire population have to unnecessarily suffer tobacco smoke.

These magazines can be sold - and the people who want to buy them can. I can't see how the reader at all 'suffers' in anyway from not having sexually exploitative pictures on the covers of these magazines. What exactly is being lost here?

But now, my DD's and your DC and you and I and people in generally who don't want to see women being sexually exploited and objectified on a regular basis don't have to suffer these images when they are buying milk, just because they are stocked so Joe X and co can indulge himself.

So rather than being fanatical and puritanical, what it is really about is achieving a more balanced and fair society - for everyone!

BeCool Mon 29-Jul-13 14:31:05

Oops "imaginable" should of course read Unimaginable!

I'm thrilled by this news. Its a real step towards attitudes to women and sexuality being in your face all the time being challenged and changed. I will definitely be shopping at the Co-op more in future and I really hope that other stores follow suit.

Its not ok to have such sexual images within sight of children or those of us who don't want to see them while buying bread and milk. I don't buy the mags for the reason that I have no interest in objectifying womens bodies and having the covers obscured means my choice to avoid them actually means something. (very wordy but I hope it makes sense!)

YouCantBuyCommonSelsne Mon 29-Jul-13 14:51:09

I'd like to see this go further and into TV and media. Lets start with Corrie, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks, Holby City & CSI wherever.

All of the above should be shown after the watershed to ensure that kids aren't subjected to adult based content such as violence, scenes that depict accidents and scenes of murder or killing.

And let's be honest, soaps don't really paint a realistic picture of real life do they? Look at EastEnders, a soap so unrealistic, it might as well be set on the flippin' moon.

Lets also teach our kids some common sense and morality. So lets get rid of Jeremy Kyle & Top Gear. Cartoons should also be given the push too. You ever seen some of the stuff on the Simpsons?

So we've made a good start with TV there. This affords me the opportunity to segway nicely into the culture of celebrity and music. Let’s start with music. The only thing more sexually oriented than the lyrics is the content of the music videos and the behaviour of the so-called artistes. So take those iPod’s off your kids! The stuff they are listening to is way to explicit. Don't believe me? Check out Rihanna's 'Birthday Cake'.

Ok, celebrity next. Well, that's all we really need to say isn't it? A bunch of empty headed nitwits who are about as much use to society as a button is to a sock.

Ok, what's left? Err, ok let's have a pop at art and literature. 50 shades certainly has to go. I mean come on? that's got more filth in it that a pig farm. I'm fairly certain there's one or two painting that contain nudity not to mention all the sculptures that are kicking about that flaunt body parts like it's going out of fashion.

And finally Video games. Pack away those controllers and consoles. They are the devils work!

Ok, I'm sorry. Getting a bit carried away there. But as you can see there's a lot more 'damaging' material out there that YOU already allow your kids to watch and listen too.

I don't really want all this stuff banned (well apart from the garbage soaps). So what have we learned? Well, expect kids to occasionally stumble across this kind of stuff. Answer their questions like a responsible adult, and they'll grow up all sensible and normal.

Now lets all calm down and relax. Put the kettle on, and watch Lose Women. Ooops. Way too smutty. That's gotta go as well! smilewinkgrin

ohforfoxsake Mon 29-Jul-13 14:54:51

It's a half- arsed step towards acknowledging the front covers aren't acceptable without actually making a stand.

Will the magazines take it further as a result and have more explicit images beneath the covers?

Will Footasylum stop putting their provocative naked women t-shirt displays in their windows?

Will David Cameron stop gaffawing with his cronies about removing The Sun from Parliamentary buildings, and removing page 3 altogether? He'll continue to make noises about Internet porn filters but won't actually put a stop to any of it.

I loathe all of the above. I write, complain, turn magazines over. At least The Co-op acknowledge there is an issue here, but aren't really doing anything. If they really wanted to make a difference they'd stop selling them. That really would be a statement to be applauded.

Putting covers on won't make a difference. Might make it worse if anything.

Sparklingbrook Mon 29-Jul-13 15:03:15

I think it's brilliant. Page Three next to go please.

I also think that some 'womens' magazines could do with a blank cover also.

gleegeek Mon 29-Jul-13 15:06:20

I agree with BeCool!

Sparklingbrook Mon 29-Jul-13 15:08:49

Sorry, but it's a no from me to getting rid of Top Gear. Not the same at all.

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 15:30:37

>But as you can see there's a lot more 'damaging' material out there that YOU already allow your kids to watch and listen too.

I certainly didn't let my DD watch/listen to that sort of tripe when she was small. Do many parents? TV/net etc are within our power to control what our kids see, to a large extent and certainly when they are very small. Its entirely different to the mags on public display in food shops. False analogy... whereas BeCools is very good.

NoComet Mon 29-Jul-13 15:34:04

I really don't care. I don't find nudity offensive.

What I find offensive is that schools and parents are too scared to talk to DCs about sex, respectful relationships and how these are distorted by the media in general as well as the porn industry.

A bit of plastic doesn't solve anything. It just allows people to side step having the conversation that society needs to have around sex and the exploitation of women easier angry

A really good move.

There is the sex talk and then there is also the sex talk.

Continuing the availability of these sort of mags gives the whole porn industry a level of acceptability and some sort of distorted expectation of sex and a awful benchmark that girls are expected to achieve.

NoComet Mon 29-Jul-13 15:47:21

waps as the mother of two DDs I'm delighted you don't want your DSs to see women portrayed as they are on the Star cover, but sadly whatever the Co-op do they still will.

I'm sure you realise this and will talk to your sons when they are an appropriate age, but loads of parents clearly don't or the sort of street heckling and other shit women get would be dying out.

While we're on can we close down every Ann Summers and make it online only

YoniBottsBumgina Mon 29-Jul-13 16:14:52

There's a big difference between objectification and nudity. You can have objectifying images of women who are fully clothed, and respectful/tasteful nudes. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. I'm glad that objectifying images of women are starting to be treated as though they are not normal. Perhaps it will help change opinions on the subject.

Well done co op! Good news! Hopefully they are just the first and others will follow

meditrina Mon 29-Jul-13 16:53:51

Don't the 'others' already have opaque display units for some publications?

Of course, that's not so good, as mags can get misplaced. The "pervert pouch" idea is much better protection, and I hope it catches on more widely.

The Sun might be notorious for Poge 3, but when it comes to covers, it's The Star that is the regular for crotch shots with small thong only. Not fun explaining that one to DD. (I flip other papers over the pix when I can - I assume those who want it can find it by title only).

flatpackhamster Mon 29-Jul-13 17:06:52


I don't see how striving for equality in our society can or should be linked with puritanism!!

That's because your definition of 'equality' is skewed.


But it isn't. If it were true censorship they would be removed from sale and banned completely.

Censoriousness is hypercriticality, usually with a moral bent. That's exactly what this is, not censorship.

This is a compromise whereby they are still on sale and visible but not shoving a pair of breasts or an arse in your/your child's face.

There is no compromise here, just as there is no compromise with the tiny group of people who have achieved this. They're not interested in compromise.

Jarrod Mon 29-Jul-13 17:07:29

Why shouldn't we cover the whole lot then? Gossip mags which depict naked women on the front? I am female/bi and I am not at all offended by these magazines. Each to your own. There are far more offensive things in the World than some silly magazines. Get over yourselves.

flatpackhamster Mon 29-Jul-13 17:09:56


Why shouldn't we cover the whole lot then? Gossip mags which depict naked women on the front? I am female/bi and I am not at all offended by these magazines. Each to your own. There are far more offensive things in the World than some silly magazines. Get over yourselves.

Oh, they'll be coming for the gossip mags next once they've dealt with the Sun.

Jarrod Mon 29-Jul-13 17:11:22

Page 3 is a right of passage....

ohforfoxsake Mon 29-Jul-13 17:11:46

I have two pre-teen boys. I would feel worse about finding them with lads mags at home in the living room than top shelf porn at the back of the wardrobe when they are older. (I'd rather have neither and it'll all be on gadgetry anyway I suspect). At least they would hide the porn and show some modicum of shame, whereas Nuts could be left lying around for my DDs to see.

I have no problem with nudity or sex. I have a problem with girls being made sex objects and I don't want my girls copying or thinking its acceptable.

The glamour model on Breakfast this morning didn't come across as very eloquent and had her bra on display through her see through top. <hoikes bosom/catsbum mouth/clutches pearls). wink

KingRollo Mon 29-Jul-13 17:15:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the end of the gossip mags .... It isn't much of a leap from going from Pg3 to them selling non stories to the rags or sniping about weight gain, baby weight or plastic surgery

Jarrod Mon 29-Jul-13 17:19:43

Kingrollo, I agree. If I had a son and he was looking at magazines of womans breasts, then fine! If he was looking at magazines about murder and torture then I think there would be a problem.

My children don't watch any of the soaps (and actually, yes, I think given their plotlines they ought to be on post-watershed, although I accept that there isn't a chance in hell of that's happening), Jeremy Kyle, Top Gear or the Simpsons (those are all adult programmes, as is Loose Women). They don't watch music videos (they've never shown any interest, but I'd discourage them if they did because so many these days are just inappropriate and unpleasant) and they'd rather listen to Iggy Pop or They Might Be Giants than Rihanna (I'll hold my hand up to Mr. Pop's past antics not always being family-friendly, but the most disreputable thing he's doing at the moment is flogging insurance). They don't watch reality/celebrity-oriented television. They haven't read Fifty Shades of Grey hmm (and I'd prefer them not to when they are older, to be honest -- not because of the sex or the "BDSM" (which doesn't really reflect the actual BDSM lifestyle) but because the "hero" is an emotionally abusive git and that's somehow portrayed as "romantic". Blech.). And they don't really play many video games, outside Scribblenauts or Professor Layton-type games.

I would love to read more of your fascinating thesis on how the Venus de Milo and Nuts magazine are more-or-less equivalent, though.

Still, thanks for your not-at-all-patronising explanation that "as you can see there's a lot more 'damaging' material out there that YOU already allow your kids to watch and listen too.". Gosh, I feel so much better informed now. Because obviously all our children were reading Fifty Shades of Grey before you staged your intervention.

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 17:24:14

it's not just the boobs though is it, KingRollo

it's the context < head, desk >

the cover I am recalling which made me really seethe in Asda was of two vacuous-looking, pouty, plastic-titted airheads rubbing their nipples together and simpering as if it was the best experience like evahhhh to demean themselves for a cheap boys wank

when we start to see pics of 50yo women with their tits out on the front of "lads mags" then perhaps you would have a point

< discards bra and strikes a pose >

The reason I'll argue against the ISP porn filter and then argue for covering these magazines, is because right now there is no other way to stop children having to see that crap.

You cannot compare this with 18 rated movies, post watershed TV, etc. Because those are all things you can actually stop your children seeing (within reason obviously) but a magazine display in a shop is visible to children in a way that we wouldn't make games/films/TV visible.

We already have ratings to help parents avoid the stuff which is unsuitable for children, and yet for some reason this stuff remains in plain sight? You might argue boobs are not a big deal, but you'd have to ignore the bigger picture, and some of us don't want to.

In the same way that I'd be pissed if someone in public was showing children soft porn, I'm pissed that those magazines aren't just kept out of childrens sight.

Poor men. Fancy not being able to immediately find a photo of an arse in a thong at the supermarket. That must be a human rights issue, non?

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 17:39:31

Struggling to understand the inability of KingRollo and Jarrod to appreciate the fact that tits/arse/worse on public display carries the message that such intimate things then become perceived as 'public property' and if you posses these things yourself then they are everyone's to gawp at and possibly touch. Might even start buying their bread.

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 17:40:56

Co-op's bread, obv.hmm

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 17:42:37

AF put your bra back on please, FFS. It's tea

KingRollo Mon 29-Jul-13 17:43:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KingRollo Mon 29-Jul-13 17:44:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

men's right to gawp at tits while doing the food shopping outweighs anyone else's rights.

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 17:49:22

>There is no compromise here, just as there is no compromise with the tiny group of people who have achieved this. They're not interested in compromise

Of course its a compromise. hmm Its a compromise between having them on display and having them not available for sale in supermarkets etc.

There's nothing wrong with nudity. Little kids use changing rooms with parents of the opposite gender, most people don't mind that...because its normal bodies going about normal life. If you do mind - well, you can avoid that sort of changing room. Its your choice.

Introducing the wrappers gives people choice... if you want your kids to see these pouting girlies, you're free to buy them. And everyone else's kids now aren't exposed to them when all you want to do is get some food.

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 17:49:41

Co-op are involved as they no longer wish to offend a number of their customers. Good business sense. If people wish to buy the stuff ( and so not lose business) they still can.

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 17:50:29

Pan, my 47yo boobs are equally as worthy as a 17yo's of public viewing, non ?

They are just boobs, after all. Just like what you see on the beach at Magaluf and suchlike.

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 17:51:10

Funnily enough though, Nuts are not exactly beating my door down to feature me on their cover. Incomprehensible, really.

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 17:52:07

>I don't see why Co-Op needs to get involved.

because they're responding to input from their staff and their customers.

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 17:53:41

Yep, and I hope others follow suit

< looking at you, Asda >

DownstairsMixUp Mon 29-Jul-13 17:53:50

I have facepalmed about five times already on this thread. Why is it so hard to understand it's about concept?! Arghh!!

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 17:54:31

It's shame really, DMU. Some people are a bit slow on the uptake, innit.

It's a terrible shame when a store listens to its customers, eh, king rollo.

I think they should ignore their customers and just have more and more tits. The tit market is not sufficiently catered for.

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 17:55:48

Well, without wishing to crush your soft porn career before it has begun, AF.....would men/women pay to view your boobs, AF? Outside of a niche market?

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 17:56:24

Or are being deliberately obtuse?

DownstairsMixUp Mon 29-Jul-13 17:57:42

I just don't understand what there isn't to get? I worry about people, I really do. Obtuse, thick, who knows?!

AnyFucker Mon 29-Jul-13 17:58:58

uughh @ "niche market"

Perhaps Saga magazine would consider me. For 10p or summat smile

Everybody has a price, in this commodifying world.

GoshAnneGorilla Mon 29-Jul-13 18:02:46

Good. These magazines are just vile, depressing objectification of women.

I found it hugely amusing to find a sign for erection dysfunction medication dysfunction on the shelf for these magazines in Tesco.

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 18:04:19

Thought you might like that.

We are a sentient being. We aren't ameoba-like. We apply discrimination and judgements and are open to influences, esp when young. So yes, in view of that, context, for humans, is everything.

Interesting, when I am in supermarkets or even our local shop I have never actually seen anyone buying these items. Wonder why that is?

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 18:04:22

Excellent product placement, Gosh!

countingmyblessings Mon 29-Jul-13 18:06:25

Fantastic! I don't want my ds growing up thinking beauty only comes in one form - ie. plastic, gravity defying boobs, calfornian tan, bubble butt & so on. Nor do I think it's healthy for young girls to be exposed to the 'meat market'. Soft porn is still porn.Aspiring to be/look like a tart is all too common these days. No wonder our kids are growing up too fast.

NewsyAgent123 Mon 29-Jul-13 18:11:02

I am a newsagent and have actively made arrangements in my shop so that youngsters cannot view the "top shelf" and "lads" magazines for some time. I fully support your campaign and wish that all the magazines were available in "wrapped" versions, some are already but not enough. Its a good thing that the Co-op are responding to this, but at the end of the day it is ultimately the publishers who need to act. It would also stop purchasers treating the place as a viewing room!

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 18:14:52

News - would you consider stopping stocking them altogether? It can only be a teeny proportion of your profit? And once it's known you don't stock, and why, then your footfall would increase?

And whining at the publishers is a bit weak, or am I missing something??

KristinaM Mon 29-Jul-13 18:16:53

Great step in the right direction .well done co-op

I'm already a member and shop there regularly

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 18:21:59

>And whining at the publishers is a bit weak, or am I missing something??

I think you are. If the publishers wrapped all these mags, then unless a retailer deliberately unwrapped them, then all these covers would be hidden. Job done.

CuttedUpPear Mon 29-Jul-13 18:23:34

Well done Coop.
I've banked with them all my adult life and made sure my DCs do as well.

I cannot think of a bad word to say about them, accolades all the way.

YoniBottsBumgina Mon 29-Jul-13 18:25:05

Magazines barely make any profit, Pan. The reasin to stock them is to attract customers who may then also purchase a drink, bar of chocolate, cigarettes or a birthday card at the same time. Choosing to not stock an entire genre of magazine cuts out a large proportion of customers as a newsagent. Conversely I probably wouldn't notice if my local newsagent stopped selling a magazine I wasn't interested in. I very much doubt it would increase custom while lads mags continue to be sold elsewhere.

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 18:25:06

No, I mean newsagents don't have to supply them at all. Possibly though there are common publishers for other items and it could become very fractious.

Pan Mon 29-Jul-13 18:26:30

yeah, see that Yoni

caramelwaffle Mon 29-Jul-13 18:29:39

It's welcome news.

GrimmaTheNome Mon 29-Jul-13 18:31:42

Now if you were to say 'large supermarket chains' don't need to stock them at all - it'd barely dent their profit margins. Its not fair to expect small independents to lead the way on that.

Newsy, well done for putting the effort in to get the mags out of the way of youngsters.

Small independents are generally forced by the publishers to take the more "adult" titles if they want to stock the general interest magazines. The large chains have more bargaining power.

Back2Two Mon 29-Jul-13 18:39:52


Excellent first step, well done, co-op. I look forward to the demise of these magazines altogether. Anything like this which 'de-normalises' them is to be welcomed.

hamab Mon 29-Jul-13 20:08:07

A lot of respect for Co-op.

Patchouli Mon 29-Jul-13 20:38:21

Co-op's just gone up in my estimation smile

morethanpotatoprints Mon 29-Jul-13 20:39:49

Its a crying shame,

weasle Mon 29-Jul-13 20:58:29

Great work Co-op. I do love the co-op for their ethical policies. Will make sure I shop there even more. We have in total seven bank accounts with them and all our insurance.

also, why onEarth do we still tolerate page 3 in the Sun in 2013. How am I going to explain how society permits that in a newspaper to my ds? I hope one day it's something like the smoking ban, where we are incredulous that smoking was ever allowed in aeroplanes or restaurants.

Ohhelpohnoitsa Mon 29-Jul-13 21:32:55

well done co-op. wish petrol stations would do the same with the sport. I HATE that it is on the news stands in full view of everyone. I cant believe its taken until 2013 for people to start realising its just wrong. Reiterate, well done the co-op, lets hope others follow suit.

slightlysoupstained Mon 29-Jul-13 21:56:55

Good. Nuts & the like aren't just showing naked people, which wouldn't be offensive per se, they're particularly aggressive and obnoxious. It's not the nakedness, or the sex, it's the misogyny that makes them offensive.

PeriodMath Mon 29-Jul-13 22:33:00

They are misogynistic rags. They objectify women and therefore insult ALL women and the women who appear in them are too stupid, vulnerable or fame-hungry to see it.

Why won't the supermarkets just stop selling them? It's hardly going to dent their profits. Let the neanderthals take out a subscription if they're that desperate to see women in their pants sucking on lollipops...or whatever they do.

PeriodMath Mon 29-Jul-13 22:36:53

weasle, you don't need to explain it to your DS. Just never buy The Sun or spend time with people who buy it and would have it lying around.

I totally agree it is gobsmacking that page 3 still exists.

zippey Mon 29-Jul-13 22:53:58

I agree with this move as well and agree with the comprise to keep selling them but in an indistinguishable cover.

I also find a lot of so-called girls mags offensive. The covers are fine but the content is preoccupied with celeb weight issues, and appearances.

PeriodMath Tue 30-Jul-13 00:23:28

Good point zippey, I am expecting a DD shortly and I despair of the celeb weight crap she will doubtless be bombarded with.

Both types of magazine are just so damaging to women and young girls.

Newcupboards Tue 30-Jul-13 00:33:17

Why don't the Co-op stop stocking these mags?

QueenoftheHolly Tue 30-Jul-13 00:46:22

Brilliant decision by co-op.

I have a six month old DS & for a while thought how lucky I was to have had a boy because the idea of having to guide a little girl through the pitfalls of growing up, when surrounded by so many degrading sexualised images of women everywhere was seriously daunting.

However I feel that its also a big responsibility trying to bring up a boy to have a normal, respectful healthy view of women (including the idea that sex is something two people enjoy together, rather than something a woman does to make a man happy). This step by co-op really helps to fight the insidious idea that women are here to be used (to sell stuff, for men's sexual pleasure etc etc) rather than actual humans!

For those talking about the ''minority" having too much sway, anyone who has a vague knowledge of demographics would be aware that women are actually the majority of the population. If you add children to that suddenly the status quo (of all the sexualised pics of wonen on display in public spaces) seems very undemocratic.

CountryMama Tue 30-Jul-13 02:34:28

Such an important 'step in the right direction' for so many reasons all of which have been discussed by others. Brilliant!

2boys3girls Tue 30-Jul-13 03:54:19

The sexual covers on both mens and women's mags with the totally degrading newspapers disgust me. We buy none of these and I fully support what co op are trying to do. What infuriates me is the sun newspaper as people will read it in public and hold the paper open at page 3 without any consideration for those walking around them.

Spottybra Tue 30-Jul-13 07:24:12

Excellent news. I don't want my dd growing up thinking its normal to expose most of her body and seek her self worth from men's admiration and gratification.

Unfortunately there are not many young stars aside from Emma Watson that realise classy can be sexy.

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 08:11:01

Spotty, I don't actually think that the men who regularly ogle pics of women young enough to be their dd actually admire them

It's a lot more sinister than that

Judyandherdreamofhorses Tue 30-Jul-13 08:30:37

My 12 month old will be most disappointed in our co-op trips now. He was shrieking and frantically signing 'milk' in their just the other day.

My breasts do not look like those of the models, but he obviously recognised something there!

ShoeWhore Tue 30-Jul-13 08:30:40

Well done Coop. Good compromise and step in the right direction.

Totally agree re the Sport and Page 3 etc as well - surely it is time for Page 3 to go?

Don't even get me started on the Mail Online and its obsession with the ever increasing/shrinking waistlines of so-called celebs...

Snapespeare Tue 30-Jul-13 09:34:53

very quick response from tesco.

I am very sorry to learn you are unhappy that we stock certain magazines and I would like to assure you that we certainly do not intend to cause any offence. At Tesco we are open and listen to feedback and we have recently met representatives from the ‘Lose the Lads’ Mags’ campaign to learn more about their concerns. We are also listening closely to the views of our customers and colleagues. By way of context, when selecting our magazine range, we always keep at the front of our mind that we are a family retailer and that the product choice needs to be appropriate. We do not stock any magazines classified by the industry as pornographic, and our range is in line with other major retailers. We ask our colleagues to ensure that the titles Zoo, Nuts and Front are always placed on the back tier of the top shelf, so that the cover is obscured, with only the title visible. We are considering carefully what further steps we could take to address your concerns. We are talking to the publishers of the magazines and have agreed to meet representatives from the ‘Lose the Lads’ Mags’ campaign again in the near future. We will of course keep the campaign updated on progress.   We very much appreciate your feedback and thank you once again for taking the time to write to us. Kind regards'

if anyone else fancies writing to them.... [[ tesco]]

i'm obviously all for the lads mag cover up - or happily just burning the lot.

what i've found interesting is that wherever i've seen interviews about it and there has been a woman defending the campaign and a man defending lads mags it has been so BLATANTLY.... well, anyone watching could see what kind of man loves these mags and wants to defend their being there uncovered and what that kind of man's attitude to women with brains and opinions is.

the interviews/debates have been painful to watch! i have a great deal of respect for the women who have sat there on tv and gone through them flagrantly being called bigots, nazis, extremists, 'vocal' extreme minorities etc. i've also had to watch how interviewers allowed this and failed to challenge anything and actually fed into it with allowing a serious discussion to being watered down to false comparatives like, 'well should we not have bare male chests then?' or 'would you not wear a bikini on the beach then' etc. sadly even female presenters doing it.

ho hum. long way to go and as ever any minute victory comes with so much abuse and complaint it's untrue but a victory none the less.

it has also been interesting to see women on screen who don't smile coquetishly, self denigrate or demure to the opinion of a man. the fact that they come across as so serious and 'different' highlights for me just how used we are to women performing femininity in a particular style in the public eye.

meditrina Tue 30-Jul-13 10:50:16

I wonder if the correct interpretation of the Tesco response is 'we want to stay neutral in public for now, but will have no problem whatsoever if these publications become bagged in "pervert pouches".'

And if one supermarket demands it, and other say they don't mind it, then I suspect all copies will be pouched, as the logistics of two parallel supply lines would be too expensive to sustain. So the publishers know this is the battle which, if last, changes the game everywhere. It'll be a case of who blinks first in the period to the ultimatum.

Tesco's response is as expected - not us gov, we aren't putting any money towards this until we are compelled or have our hand forced.

it's like everything though isn't it - legal, commercial etc. there is the flagship case that everyone awaits the outcome of and all then rests on what happens with that.

fair play to the coop for being the 'one' to do it.

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 12:07:15

Is there any way to help persuade the other supermarkets to align themselves with the Co-op?

Reading the article in the newspaper, there is reticence on part of some of the supermarkets because the drive is by feminist groups and not the customers - and guidelines are being followed by ensuring that they are suitably displayed (out of reach/eye line of youngsters).

The other side of the debate is that the editors/publishers have toned down and altered the covers.

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 12:36:59

The drive for changes is always going to come from pressure groups - that doesn't mean that a lot of ordinary customers and staff wouldn't wholeheartedly agree.

The resistance to this change appears to be coming from what could be termed anti-feminist groups, and 'interested' parties (the mags themselves). So that's rather a weak argument.

Viviennemary Tue 30-Jul-13 12:37:44

I'd like to see all these images banned from decent shops whether on the front cover or not. I saw somebody on TV the other day (a woman!) saying people want them so they should be legal. A poor excuse. People want plenty of things that aren't legal. But it's a start I suppose.

ringaringarosy Tue 30-Jul-13 13:36:16

Im not sure what tot hink of it,in theory its good,but wont the fact they are in plain covers make them more interesting in a way?If i was a kid and i asked my mum what was in those magazines in the grey bag and she told me rude magazines,it would almost make them seem more appealing!

manfrom Tue 30-Jul-13 13:48:52

The campaign against Lads' mags, the Sun and page 3 is just another front in the class war against what is perceived as an uncouth underclass.

Whilst I'm sure that lads' mags might be offensive to some, the attempt to ban them represents yet another bourgeois attempt (along with minimum alcohol pricing, the war of pornography and the plain packaging of cigarettes) to demonise those at the bottom of the pile 'for their own good'.


OTheHugeManatee Tue 30-Jul-13 13:49:57

This isn't censorship - they've not been banned. I think it's heartening to see a company responding to consumer demand for less naked flesh, rather than insisting that marketing always be a race to the bottom. (Pun intended.)

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 14:06:46

No. Its not a class war (are co-op shop workers part of the bourgeoisie?). Its not even a gender war as there are plenty of male parents who don't want their little kids exposed to these images.

It is not a ban.

cloudskitchen Tue 30-Jul-13 14:07:42

I don't really see what the big deal is. They are still available to those that want to buy them and if covered up less offensive to those that find them offensive. Win win all round surely.

laverneandshirl Tue 30-Jul-13 14:37:57

I wonder what people (particularly those men criticising this move) would say if there were equivalent 'soft' gay porn mags available at child eye height in shops.

Would they be so keen to condemn the covers as censorious or say 'I just don't want to see sexual images of men when I go to buy a pint of milk, there's a time and a place for it and it's not the supermarket'...

Just a thought.

manfrom Tue 30-Jul-13 14:38:25

So "Lose the Lads Mags" and "No More Page 3" are not campaigns to get these things banned then?

Perhaps what the campaigners would really like are voluntary codes of practice, underpinned by some, er, guidelines?

These middle class campaigners focus their energies quite specifically on the consumption habits of those in the C2DE demographic. That's a class war.

manform Well done on completely missing the aims of the campaigns.

cloudskitchen Exactly.

manfrom Tue 30-Jul-13 14:53:44

Lose the Lads mags

"What we’re calling for"

"We’re calling on high-street shops to lose the lads’ mags – or risk possible legal action."

Sounds like a call for a ban to me, with a threat thrown in for good measure...

Losing them from children's view is so awful is it?

Ah, hadn't spotted, you've come on a thread about a campaign to stop children being able to see these magazines to talk about a separate campaign to ban them entirely.

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 14:58:30

This thread is discussing the move by the co-op to request that the mags be provided with covers. So they are still available for purchase, just not visible to people who don't want them on show.

What on earth is the problem with that?

Yawner247 Tue 30-Jul-13 15:20:33

Fantastic idea and it should be rolled out in all stores not just coop�� I don't want to see it and neither do my children!

manfrom Tue 30-Jul-13 15:26:37

The link is obvious - Lose the Lads' Mags has specified that it's target is high street retailers:

"It’s a national scandal that high-street supermarkets and newsagents still stock lads’ mags. It’s time to hold them to account. Over the coming months we’ll be targeting some of Britain’s best known retailers until they lose the lads’ mags."

So there can't be two separate campaigns at the same time then? hmm

JohnnyUtah Tue 30-Jul-13 15:33:43

I have a lot of time for the co-op. I think they have a good product range and decent fair trade and animal welfare policies. I am delighted that they are doing this too.

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 16:20:18

I think Manfrom is fighting for children to have the right to see sexual images in out of context places, places where their parents have no choice but to expose their children to them

Yes ?

no i think he's saying all i give a shit about is men and class is a good thing to hide it behind so let's call this a middle class campaign against working class men and totally ignore the huge (half of the demographic of the world) elephant in the room: women.

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 16:49:51

Perhaps it is even simpler than that

He wants to preserve the status quo

Currently people from all walks of life and demographic are confronted by sexualised images of women and he thinks men's rights to wank over big plastic tits makes that absolutely fine

GoshAnneGorilla Tue 30-Jul-13 16:59:03

Trying to paint this as some kind of attack on working class men is a weak and feeble tactic that:

1) Insults, demeans and patronises working class men.

2) Ignores the existence of working class women and their rights not to be demeaned by tedious, misogynistic shite.

Games I don't play: class vs gender. Try harder Manfrom. Why don't you start doing the "slippery slope of censorship" argument so we can laugh at that too.

Wtf is it with these men who think women should accept any type of shoddy treatment and that any type of fighting for our rights is somehow detrimental to society. angry

SoupDragon Tue 30-Jul-13 17:03:05

So, this covers "lads mags". How about magazines such as Cosmopolotan which have scantily clad females on the front or semi-naked male celebrities?

cloudskitchen Tue 30-Jul-13 17:09:14

Much easier for mags such as cosmo to adapt though as this is not their main focus. If it became an issue they would just not use those types of pictures.

NicholasTeakozy Tue 30-Jul-13 17:12:57

I agree Soupy, all magazines of that type should be in "pervert pouches".

Manfrom, you are Piers Hernu AICM£5. grin

RenterNomad Tue 30-Jul-13 17:28:32

The Co-op has had a lot of financial problems lately, and seemed in danger of having to sell off banking, so it's very good to hear them reminding us what the Co-operative businesses are for. smile

tbf i'd happily see cosmo and every other magazine stuck in a black bag too. magazines that make you feel fat and worthless in order to sell you the solution to your fat and worthless self in the form of make up, clothes, fake tans etc would be no great loss to the world.

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 18:04:33

Suits me. Get rid of the lot of 'em. Does that answer your --loaded- question, Soupy ?

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 18:04:47


AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 18:05:23

hey, there is a tit mag called Loaded isn't there.

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 18:14:56

Yup, I wouldn't care if some of those glossy mags presumably aimed at bourgeois women were bagged too.

ok so we're agreed all magazines except like 'cars!' 'fishing!' 'computers!' etc can go in the bin and no, none of us will be crying into our wine glasses if we don't get to look at scantily clad men on magazine covers whilst popping in the shop for a pint of milk.

all strawmen covered?

K8Middleton Tue 30-Jul-13 18:40:43

Ah yes. The misogyny wimmin's mags that are so low brow these days they border on the neandathal. They can go too.

I like fashion, I like make up, I like my news glossy on occasion... and I even like a naice recipe and a few vacuous features particularly about Araminta Auld-Bobbins types latest Pedlar's find. I do not like looking at emaciated models or long lens pictures of female s'lebs on the beach. I don't want to see wrinkles, stretch marks and cellulite highlighted with a circle. I don't want to be told how to "get the look" of a photoshopped teenager.

flatpackhamster Tue 30-Jul-13 19:50:31


Trying to paint this as some kind of attack on working class men is a weak and feeble tactic that:

1) Insults, demeans and patronises working class men.

2) Ignores the existence of working class women and their rights not to be demeaned by tedious, misogynistic shite.

I think that the pompous snobbery that surrounds the whole campaign demeans and patronises everyone, but there has long been a fat vein of thought that the working classes need someone clever, preferably working in the meeja in London, to tell them what's best for them.

I hope that the irony of you demeaning and patronising working class women by telling them what they're demeaned and patronised by isn't lost on you.

SoupDragon Tue 30-Jul-13 20:01:49

Does that answer your loaded question, Soupy ?

Eh? What's your point?

Seenenoughtoknow Tue 30-Jul-13 20:02:30

Fabulous news, well done the co-op. I hate knowing they are there. My teenage daughter was also only saying a couple of weeks ago how she hates going to choose a magazine in our local store because the 'lads' magazines make her feel so uncomfortable. I will go and tell her the good news!

GoshAnne, don't you realise that working class men need to see tits when they go to the supermarket?

Flatpackhamster has decided its best for them.

Ironically, anyone who was really concerned about class issues would say that the proliferation of these kinds of mags were a way of distracting the working classes from the real inequalities in our society.

But then you're not really a class warrior are you, Flat pack? You just need to see those tits.

ProphetOfDoom Tue 30-Jul-13 20:36:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flatpackhamster Tue 30-Jul-13 21:07:27


GoshAnne, don't you realise that working class men need to see tits when they go to the supermarket?

Flatpackhamster has decided its best for them.

No, I'm saying it's not your place, or anyone else's, to decide what's best for someone else.

Ironically, anyone who was really concerned about class issues would say that the proliferation of these kinds of mags were a way of distracting the working classes from the real inequalities in our society.

But then you're not really a class warrior are you, Flat pack? You just need to see those tits.


AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 21:13:42

It is my place, actually, to decide what is best for my kids

and for other children, those that may have parents that are apathetic about (or even welcome) the sexualisation of our society

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 21:18:24

> it's not your place, or anyone else's, to decide what's best for someone else.

The only people who we're remotely deciding what's best for are our small children (is that 'pompous snobbery'? I thought it was 'responsible parenting' confused). We think it's best they're not exposed to exploitative images of women in supermarkets. That's about it, really. You're trying to make something of this that isn't there.

K8Middleton Tue 30-Jul-13 21:18:39

I really don't get why anyone would defend people's rights to see tits above the rights of children not to be exposed to overtly sexual images.

Even if you don't get the objectification of women argument surely anyone capable of thought can see that making some inadequate person wait until they open the covers to see a bit of soft porn is hardly arduous?

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 21:19:51

it's the derailers that brought up class snobbery

I am most concerned about my kids, and other kids

and myself, of course

if that is allowed

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 21:21:58

FPH, do you think that the kids on a shopping trip to Asda, for example, should look out for themselves when bombarded with images and ideas like those being discussed here ?

or would it be better for the grown ups to make some decisions on their behalf ?

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 21:24:31

>it's the derailers that brought up class snobbery
>I am most concerned about my kids, and other kids

yes. Maybe what they don't get is that this isn't about men. Novel concept, but I'll credit them with the ability to take it on board (unless they want to prove otherwise). The men can buy what they want. Its about kids.

K8Middleton Tue 30-Jul-13 21:28:53

If this was about women's rights there would have been no pervert covers because the whole lot would have gone, Sport, Sun and all.

We'll start with the kids and work our way up to respect for women. One bigot at a time smile

NigellasGuest Tue 30-Jul-13 21:34:05

Grimma you are so right. Some men just can't quite get over the fact that it's not all about them.

chubbychipmonk Tue 30-Jul-13 22:58:23

So are Closer, Heat, Now magazine etc going to stop putting pics of celebs in their bikinis on the front cover?? Is Heat magazine going to stop 'Torso of the week' . .thought not.

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 23:02:54

...and ?

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 23:06:14

You are arguing then, that you want pics of topless "babes" rubbing their nipples together on display where children can see them ?

right ?

I am puzzled. Why do people keep "popping" on this thread to make a completely pointless remark ? Is it meant to quash any argument against the normalisation of sexualised images next to the semi-skimmed or what ?

One step at a time chubby

chubbychipmonk Tue 30-Jul-13 23:09:15

Because I think it's hypocritical . . Cover up the girls on Loaded, FHM, ZOO etc but on the front cover of Closer magazine here's Josie from BB in her bikini with her 2 stone weight loss & new 36DD boob job. Is it because smiling on the cover of a magazine while wearing a bikini is less offensive than pouting?

And should all men be offended by the sexualisation of Heat mags Torso of the week?

Just my humble opinion. .

I do love this assumption that anyone who is against lads mags being in a child's view are somehow not bothered by other objectification being in a child's view? Because that makes perfect sense. Is it really that odd that we could be against all objectification but still celebrating the small victories?

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 23:14:26

All of it is hypocritical, chubby, nobody has said it is not

but you present it as some sort of argument ...against what, exactly ?

I'll ask you you want busty lovelies rubbing nipples with your semi-skimmed ? For your granny to have it thrust in her face ? For your kids to increasingly never get away from being bombarded with sexual images ? Answer the question honestly, or don't use straw man arguments. It's lazy, and actually not very "humble" at all.

chubbychipmonk Tue 30-Jul-13 23:32:26

In all honesty it genuinely doesn't bother me any more than the fact that I don't look like whichever celeb is gracing the cover of Closer this week in a bikini. Not that long ago there were pictures of Jordan & her new hubby on honeymoon on front covers wearing a tiny thong & nothing else with her legs spread eagled (classy). A lot more offensive than some lads mags covers.

Maybe I'll feel differently when my 2 boys are teenagers & buying these magazines but at the moment I'm genuinely too busy trying to hide my sons eyes from the £4 comics in the Coop to worry about this weeks boob bonanza!

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 23:36:29

Ah, you fall into the "apathetic parent" category then, happy for others to do the campaigning (and take the flak) for your children. Thanks for clarifying that.

chubbychipmonk Tue 30-Jul-13 23:44:05

Please don't make assumptions as to what kind of parent I am.

I already said I may feel differently when my sons are teenagers & these types of magazines are no doubt going to be in my house.

However at this moment in time, just because I don't have my knickers in a twist over this weeks Zoo magazines busty beauties doesn't make me any less of a parent than you.

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 23:46:16

I am making my judgement based on your posts here

if you were that "not bothered" about Zoo's busty beauties, you wouldn't be posting in support of their unwarranted presence in all our lives here on this thread

AnyFucker Tue 30-Jul-13 23:47:32

I don't have young girls in the house but I can object to Primark selling padded bras for 7yo's

You sound very limited

GrimmaTheNome Tue 30-Jul-13 23:50:02

So.... if it doesn't bother you, do you actually mind this being done?

chubbychipmonk Tue 30-Jul-13 23:56:05

The nature of this thread is looking for people's reactions. .

My reaction is that these magazines genuinely don't bother me being on display & won't particularly bother me being covered up either.

My perfectly entitled to opinion.

That 'limited' enough for you??

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 00:00:18

No, you are not "particularly unbothered" put forward a counter argument for why the boobs in Granny's face at the newsagent should stay

Back tracking (and limited wink )

chubbychipmonk Wed 31-Jul-13 00:05:24

Dear God I wish I hadn't posted now. .Am just killing time on MN before I have to give my DS his next feed! Knew I should've just played Candy Crush!

Obviously you all feel much stronger about this clearly emotive topic than me so I shall bow out this thread before another bun smacks me in the face!

Night all.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 00:10:32

'don't care either way' is perfectly valid response to the co-op, perhaps better if you'd said that in the first place so it was clearer where you were coming from? smile Good night.

OK, something no one seems to have mentioned so far: what about the proleporn eg Take A Break and Full House? I think it's actually rather more distressing for a child and more complicated to explain when DC spot a magazine cover (which is right at their eye level) with a huge great screaming headline like 'Raped by the uncle I trusted' or 'Daddy left me sleeping by Mummy's murdered body' and quite often interspersed with photos of human bodies and faces cut, scarred, stitched up or bleeding - though some of these pictures are linked to stories about cosmetic surgery or getting gangrene off a dodgy kebab.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 07:16:29

Yep, get rid of them too

KingRollo Wed 31-Jul-13 07:21:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 07:36:25

Do you have something to counter it with ? Don't repeat what you said previously btw, because it was crap.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 07:40:56

SGB - yes, they are pretty nasty. I suppose in the drawing of lines as to what should be targeted for covering, the pictures are smaller (MIL used to have them - I can't remember seeing too obviously bad images on the covers) and the headlines require some level of reading and comprehension so won't affect very young children.

KingRollo Wed 31-Jul-13 07:54:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 08:20:19

Thought not wink

see i thought i said it all in one post but the strawmen keep coming.

as far as i can tell we'd happily get rid of ALL of it. we'd happily have a responsible media that didn't exploit women, children or anyone. it's not by being happy that lads mags will have to put a cover on that we think all the world's problems are solved or are thereby condoning everything else.

but it is a small step. small steps are the way great journeys are made no? as in they have to start somewhere?

and yes SGB i'd happily see the misery porn that you quite rightly point out has a class element to it (on this point class does have a relevency as those mags and the likes of JK really do have class as the bearded lady in the cage) gone too. i'd personally far rather my son accidentally caught a bit of nonsensical charicatured violence on a film on tv than an episode of JK - one is far easier to explain and process than the other. obviously i aim for neither at 6.

BIWI Wed 31-Jul-13 08:59:52

MNHQ asked a very simple question:

"The Co-op says it's responding to concerns by its members, customers and colleagues about images of scantily-clad women on magazine covers.

We're being asked what Mumsnetters think of this move by the Co-op. So we'd love you to let us know: please do post up your views on this thread."

Why is it so difficult for some people to not answer this question but to try and answer questions that weren't posed?

Couldn't possibly be because they have another agenda, surely? hmm

I think this is a good idea and I have much respect for the Co-op for doing it. Although, I'm also a bit hmm that they feel the need to ask Mumsnet in the first place. Surely they could see that these magazine covers might be offensive in the first place?

goes to show you how utterly normalised it is in our culture biwi.

when you think of it it is almost unbelievable that the sun still has a half naked teenager on page 3 every day when it's allegedly a 'newspaper' and is read everywhere - re: on the bus, next to you on the tube, at the breakfast table that your teenage daughter is sat at etc.

i'm reminded of milliband coming on and expecting a biscuit for worrying about no women on the banknotes.... there's a 'while rome burned' cliche in there somewhere.

SoupDragon Wed 31-Jul-13 09:03:24

I am puzzled. Why do people keep "popping" on this thread to make a completely pointless remark ? Is it meant to quash any argument against the normalisation of sexualised images next to the semi-skimmed or what ?

And I am "puzzled" as to why it is only so called lads mags that need to cover up.nits got fuck all to do with quashing argument and certainly doesn't deserve a snidely, sneering response.

"Although, I'm also a bit hmm that they feel the need to ask Mumsnet in the first place. Surely they could see that these magazine covers might be offensive in the first place?"

They know. I'd put money on them only asking MN to drum up publicity.

"And I am "puzzled" as to why it is only so called lads mags that need to cover up"

Many people have said that they'd like to see other magazines with non-child friendly covers covered up, and that this is a first step.

soup maybe it's because that question has been answered so many times already (if it really needs answering given it's pretty obvious that change has to start somewhere) that people begin to see it as a red herring rather than a genuine question? or perhaps you just missed all the times it's been answered by people.

SoupDragon Wed 31-Jul-13 09:06:14

Why is it so difficult for some people to not answer this question but to try and answer questions that weren't posed?

Couldn't possibly be because they have another agenda, surely?

Have by never heard of the concept of talking around the wider subject?
Wouldn't MN be dull if people just specifically and blandly answered the question posed by a thread title.

Why do people want to awash ant hint of debate - couldn't possibly be because they have another agenda, surely?

SoupDragon Wed 31-Jul-13 09:09:46

soup maybe it's because that question has been answered so many times already

Really? Where? all I got was a sneery response.

It's not a red herring. Either females wearing very little and in sexy poses is wrong or it isn't. I don't particularly like being confronted by female celebrities with barely covered beasts whichever magazine they appear on. It's not liitd to lads mags is it?

But it's utterly pointless making that kind of comment because people come over all superior and condescending so ill leave you to it.

Precisely the reason I hid all the feminist boards.

no it's not limited to lads mags but it is what the whole content, point and purpose of lads mags are. it's like saying why bother getting rid of hardcore racism when you still get people doing little bits of it interspersed in the pages of their life. you start somewhere and create a cultural shift one hopes and it disperses from there. or having made one victory and gotten it conceded that something IS a problem you are then able to cite other examples that need dealing with given the precedent that, 'this is a problem', has already been set.

i haven't sneered at you or come over superior and condescending in answering your question so i kind of resent you projecting that out at me.

merrymouse Wed 31-Jul-13 09:43:06

I think they should do this to the celebrity weigh loss/cellulite/spots mags as well.

agree merry but they hold up a multi billion 'beauty' industry so you can imagine the battle that's gonna take.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 09:50:19

>, I'm also a bit hmm that they feel the need to ask Mumsnet in the first place

They aren't - they've already instigated this change, they're just asking what we think. Probably anticipating that by and large we - one of the largest groups of parents - will be generally supportive of it so adding weight to the views of 'members, customers and colleagues'. smile

merrymouse Wed 31-Jul-13 10:04:24

I like fashion, I like make up, I like my news glossy on occasion... and I even like a naice recipe and a few vacuous features particularly about Araminta Auld-Bobbins types latest Pedlar's find.

I think the problem is that doesn't really sell any more. When I was in my teens and twenties I probably bought about 3 glossies a month (Cosmo, Elle, Marie Claire) and my mum and her mum always bought Good Housekeeping and Woman's Journal (long defunct).

Now I buy a magazine about 3 times a year and I always wonder why because there is better information/writing/advice available for free on the internet and if I'm short of something to read at a bus stop I have books on my phone.

I think (despite my earlier post) that the only growth area seems to be aimed at people who like looking at pictures. It'll be a long fight to persuade publishers to let go of this market, because what else is there?

K8Middleton Wed 31-Jul-13 11:07:09

I don't know if it doesn't sell merry. I do know you can't buy it any more sad I can't remember the last time I bought a magazine.

I think the trouble is that magazines haven't really managed to keep up with technology and have become anachronistic. The "lads mags" have responded by upping the ante and displaying more and more outrageous images with covers that would have been considered too shocking even a few years ago. Heat et al have done the same but with the cellulite pics and Take a Break and co have gone for ridiculous hyperbole and misery porn.

There isn't really a very good online magazine for women. Daily Mail had cornered the market using the side-bar of shame and there's no real antidote. If there was I would read it and spend less time farting about on here

but online IS the magazine isn't it? in the sense that no one needs to put it between two covers and sell it to you anymore - you can graze and pick at whatever you want at leisure on the internet if that makes sense.

i suppose the reality is that a lot of industries are going to die but life moves on, technology moves on and old things die off and innovation flourishes.

tbh i wonder what will happen to the newspaper (as in the physical version you hold in your hands) when my parents generation dies. certainly i don't see them as a means of finding out the news anymore when i can access a wide range of sources and international news sources online rather than one, narrow range, biased source that is embarrassingly light on real news and heavy on gossip, scandal and party political broadcasts even at the broadsheet level.

NigellasGuest Wed 31-Jul-13 11:42:43

even my parents read the Torygraph online now! (I'm nearly 50)

ElsieMumofOne Wed 31-Jul-13 11:44:24

I heartily agree with this move. It's not a case of the front pages of mags having near naked people on them, its the context of that nudity. On Sunday I popped into newsagents to get a Sunday sun (football fixtures, we don't normally buy newspapers) and was shocked to see on bottom shelf next to it a magazine with naked girl straddling a chair in high heels, barely covering her cleavage. The magazine promised "celeb upskirt shots" inside.
I mean wtf?

yes and if they can access their news online at their age surely young men can fulfill their alleged need to stare at naked women online? not like there's a shortage of those images out there.

merrymouse Wed 31-Jul-13 12:04:47

Just been to local Tesco express.

Lad's mags all at back of top shelf - would only find them if you were looking for them (not sure if this is always the case, has only happened this week or is due to local staff rather than company policy).

Celebrity mags all prominently visible, at eye level of average tween. Full of pictures of women famous for their husband/boyfriend/torrid personal life/weight loss/gain. Even when a woman does have a visible career in her own right (Holly Willoughby, Dawn French) she is there because she has shrunk or expanded or because of relationship gossip.

I think this move by Co-op sends the right signals, but there is a long, long, long road ahead.

My point is that I think the misery-porn (and the misogyny of the sleb mags which reduce women to their cellulite and who they're having sex with) is actually more socially harmful than the wank-lite of Nuts, etc. Yet a lot of people will be going ooh, well done Co-op for covering up the mild sexual titillation, we'll just ignore the spite and scaremongering and stupidity-encouraging of the rest of the media.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 12:16:19

SGB - I don't disagree about the relative harm to adults; however the primary focus of this was the effect on children, who probably have no interest in reading that trash. So in this context it's the images rather than the text which is relevant.

Beachcomber Wed 31-Jul-13 13:13:56

a) I think Co-Op are "asking us what we think" because they are looking for cookies and free publicity.

b) Why don't they just not sell misogynistic wank fodder? Surely if these magazines warrant being covered up they should only be available in adult stores.

They want to have their cake and eat it by still getting the revenue from selling this crap/not piss off publishers and advertisers whilst getting a pat on the back for 'thinking of the children'.

In reality this move just legitimises selling misogynistic material - because they are doing it 'responsibly' and 'protecting non wank fodder buying consumers' . Load of crap if you ask me.

Yes it is good that children won't be exposed to these images in a supermarket but children shouldn't be exposed to porn because it doesn't belong in supermarkets, not because it is sneakily hidden from view by a pervert cover.

And we are expected to be grateful for this crumb of recognition that women and children have a right to not be exposed to porn as they go about their daily business. Gee thanks.

flatpackhamster Wed 31-Jul-13 13:57:41


FPH, do you think that the kids on a shopping trip to Asda, for example, should look out for themselves when bombarded with images and ideas like those being discussed here ?

or would it be better for the grown ups to make some decisions on their behalf ?

That would be nice. "ooh quick, hide the boobies, THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHEN THEY SEE THE BOOBIES GOD YOU MONSTER FOR NOT WANTING TO HIDE THEM" isn't grown-up decision making though, is it?

If it was based on evidence - and it isn't - then I'd have less of a problem with it. Even the government's review indicated that there was no evidence to show that semi-naked women at an Asda supermarket counter was harmful. Even the swivel-eyed nutters who got the Co-Op to cravenly cave in to them aren't claiming it's harmful to kids. They're flanneling on in their usual way about patriarchy or oppression or something.

boobies? really flatpack? i mean really????

you're talking to adult women here and they are breasts, breasts that we all have on our bodies. not titillating 'things' bobbing around on the benny hill show but breasts which are part of adult women's bodies.

please don't use the word 'boobies' with adult women - or anyone preferably.

Seenenoughtoknow Wed 31-Jul-13 14:56:29

FPH - I have daughters and step-daughters who hate to see the lads magazines displayed on the shelves in the supermarkets, in the same way that they hate to see people on trains in cafe's reading the sun with the page 3 visible. Why should our daughters's (young teenagers and younger) opinions be pushed aside? The 'evidence' from my family is that it makes my children uncomfortable so I would prefer for the magazines (and page 3 of the sun for that matter) to be out of sight (at least). I'm sure if you have any children who can speak to you in an open manner (without being bullied into agreeing with your opinion) they will give you the same answers to the question of whether or not the magazine covers make them feel uncomfortable.

Seenenoughtoknow Wed 31-Jul-13 15:07:57


BeCool Wed 31-Jul-13 15:16:11

Flatpack (and many others) spectacularly fail to be able to differentiate between misogyny and the objectification of women though out society and the insidious repetitive messages conveyed via the media about the female form, and the human body being a very nice and lovely thing.

It's very depressing really isn't it?

and it's not just about our daughters. It's about sons too - the boys who will grow into the men our daughters will partner with.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 16:25:36

One word in reply to you, FPH (it being all your ridiculous reply deserves)..... Context

It's been used a lot on this thread, and you don't wish to consider it, or don't appear to understand it, that much is clear

Your use of pejorative terms for campaigners does your limited view no favours either

have been pondering this as i get on with stuff today and what i can't get is this:

why would anyone object? if they're fine with it then fine but surely if a significant number of people are offended by it and a significant number of teenage and younger girls claims it makes them feel uncomfortable and unhappy then surely they count? you can still buy the magazines, they're not banned, this campaign is asking for covers to be put on.

so what's the problem?

the only thing i can think of is that people seriously objecting (apart from those set to maybe lose money) are those that actually resent the very idea that women and girls should be listened to and have a say in things. it just seems outrage that women's opinions are being heard and god forbid acted upon.

Grimma: but surely headlines in 100pt type and bright, enticing colours screaming about children raped and murdered and 'Who will love me now mummy's in heaven' are more upsetting to a child old enough to read them. A picture of a couple of women flashing their underwear and sucking on bananas or whatever can be dismissed by Mum as 'Oh they're being a bit silly/playing a grown-up game' whereas 'Forced to watch Dad kill my sister' is going to speak directly to a child.

This isn't to condemn these magazines entirely: their readers often find them a good source of help and support ie there's health advice, bargains, legal advice and humour as well as all the horrors. But when we're talking specifically about What Children See On The Shelves I think it's a very important part of the discussion.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 16:36:25

I know why they object!

The cheapskates want to look at tits without paying ! I get it now

Perhaps it is as simple as that. I can understand that one better actually. We all like summat for free wink .

sgb you don't honestly think that images have that neutral effect on girls burgeoning self image and sexuality do you?

anyfucker - perhaps it's that but given googling 'free porn' will turn up a zillion sites with a zillion images and films surely it can't be that.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 16:48:30

AF - yes, its about the only thing that makes sense. There must be plenty of free 'boobies' online - here's a nice pair for you grin

SGB - yes... would certainly be better if they'd scrap those horrible headlines. Put them on a contents page inside would possibly be an appropriate solution for those

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 16:50:15

I am just trying to get myself down to a level that I can identify with these people, saf wink

Free tits ! And I only need to shuffle to the corner shop in my underpants ! With the added bonus of making that snooty big knockered teenage girl who is no better than she thinks she is feel creeped out ! Marvelous!

I think I am getting there....

i have a drink in a proper spit and sawdust pub in the village now and then and do think there is an element of genuinely enjoying leering at page three loudly in front of the young barmaid or any woman who walks in.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 16:53:09

I love those cute boobies, grimma smile Particularly the discreetly flirtatious toss wink

so you may be onto something.

i still think it's more the, 'bloody hell, listening to what these moaning fucking bitches want? what next? they'll be having us fucking castrated just cos we want to fuck 12 year old girls before you know it', vein of things.

you know they're even saying it's rape if she's unconscious now? fuck me, you won't even be able to stick it in them when they pass out in your taxi before you know it. who the fuck do they think they are, don't they know they're walking fuck holes and tits placed solely on this earth to entertain our penis'?

GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 16:57:15

I can do you a nice pair of tits too.

(sorry, finding it hard to maintain seriousness after FPHs contribution.)

don't you mean boobies grimma?

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 17:04:01

We are getting closer to it, sad...

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 17:04:36


GrimmaTheNome Wed 31-Jul-13 17:04:50

>don't you mean boobies grimma?
no, those are tits. I did the boobies upthread.

flatpackhamster Wed 31-Jul-13 19:44:12


FPH - I have daughters and step-daughters who hate to see the lads magazines displayed on the shelves in the supermarkets, in the same way that they hate to see people on trains in cafe's reading the sun with the page 3 visible. Why should our daughters's (young teenagers and younger) opinions be pushed aside? The 'evidence' from my family is that it makes my children uncomfortable so I would prefer for the magazines (and page 3 of the sun for that matter) to be out of sight (at least). I'm sure if you have any children who can speak to you in an open manner (without being bullied into agreeing with your opinion) they will give you the same answers to the question of whether or not the magazine covers make them feel uncomfortable.

You - and they - don't have the right not to be offended by something. There seems to be a very distinct trend to assume that people have the right not to be offended by something. It's an intolerance of difference. I see stuff that offends me every day. But that doesn't mean that I demand it should be banned.

Nobody's pushing anyone's opinions aside. Just because someone doesn't accept your opinions it doesn't mean they're being pushed aside.


One word in reply to you, FPH (it being all your ridiculous reply deserves)..... Context

It's been used a lot on this thread, and you don't wish to consider it, or don't appear to understand it, that much is clear

Your use of pejorative terms for campaigners does your limited view no favours either

These extremists aren't interested in context.

extremists grin

average mums who don't want demeaning pictures of half naked women shoved in their children's faces when buying a pint of milk. extremists right? virtually nazis really.

men who get downright angry about the idea of kids not being able to see half naked women whilst buying a pint of milk and outraged at the idea of someone putting a discrete cover on a soft porn mag? not extreme at ALL, perfectly normal rational defenders of human rights.

human rights? male rights perhaps.

come on ffs - read the women here - do they sound like extremists to you? does the fact they don't want sexualised images in their children's faces really make them extreme? hardcore? outrageous? the new threat to mankind? grow up and drop the hyperbole.

beware opinionated mothers - the new threat to democracy and human rights. i wonder what level terror alert a group of mum's asking for soft porn rags to be out of sight of children would create? people might be arming missiles right now!

forget al qaeda - they're softcore! it's those bloody extremist mothers you want to watch out for. shoot on sight!

oh dear oh dear i'm going to have humorous images of babywearing terrorist groups dressed in boden popping into my head all night.

Its amazing though, isn't it, to hear some of the crap men come up with when the status quo is threatened.

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 20:51:06

"swivelled eyed extremists" now, is it ?

have you been at the sherry, FlatPackHamster ?

I think you need a lie down in a darkened room

They are not all out to get you, you know < soothing >

AnyFucker Wed 31-Jul-13 20:53:46

You sound a bit silly, FPH. Did you realise that ?

merrymouse Wed 31-Jul-13 21:39:57

Really, most (all?) men I know would prefer it if the most prominent role models for their daughters in the supermarket weren't women who were at the mercy of their partners/weight/tits/cellulite.

DownstairsMixUp Thu 01-Aug-13 09:49:53

Oh this thread hasn't progressed much has it? It's not about offending, ffs, for some, it may be, for me, it's that I don't want these images in shops where children can see and think this is normal, this is what woman do, what women should look like etc, how can you not understand that?

Oh no doubt I'll get a reply, "It's your job as a parent to protect them from that" etc sort of thing, but it's not about that, is it really? It's the fact they are in frickin shops ffs where you want to pop out to get a loaf of bread and a pair of breasts are shoved in your face. Yes of course there will be other ways to access it, but why is do you think it's so NORMAL it's a part of every day culture and we should just let our kids and us, accept this? I don't know why people can't understand this.

And why you still cannot understand the context thing is beyond me. These magazines are on a shelf for anyone to see. If you walked down the road and saw a woman breastfeeding, you wouldn't blink an eye, I'm pretty sure if a woman with a thong and her breasts out saucily pouting at you, you'd react differently? Urgh. Trying to get it through to some people. I just can't.

one of the better lines i heard during this 'debate' here, on tv, online etc (think this one was a tv interview) was a magazine editor saying, "the thing to remember is it is not consumers who want this but feminists".

cos feminists aren't consumers right? they live on a little lentil weaving island making their own stuff out of love and leaves?

honestly it was as if in this guys world it didn't even register that women were consumers. any collective noun you gave him re: society, consumers etc just conjured images of men for him. women were a little sideline niche market that you sell lipstick to.

just - well - head wall moment really.

sorry more mad multiple posting but it certainly didn't occur to him that for the coop, or tescos, or waitrose or most blumming retailers out there women ARE the consumers. we do the fucking shopping 90% of the time and choose the products etc so the coop bloody well should listen to us over the views of some pervy men who want to see tits within a 1metre radius of them at all times.

this is quite good. (Article from the New Statesman, nothing gross, totally work-safe)

queenofeverywhere Fri 02-Aug-13 07:49:36

By the same token perhaps they should also consider putting modesty covers on some of the women's magazines featuring celeb bikini bodies on the front cover. Fair's fair!

because it's so equivalent isn't it? a woman happening to be in a bikini and a pornified image of a woman posed to look like a sexually titillating object?

maybe people need to go and look at some of these covers.

look at this one for example. do you see the difference between this image (and all the text) and that of a woman in a bikini on a beach?

GrimmaTheNome Fri 02-Aug-13 12:39:07

SGB - to be sure. Filters and bags don't tackle misogyny. What they do - the thing that I think most of the posters on this thread like - is simply that they limit the uncontrolled exposure of children to these things.

This is perhaps somewhat analogous to film ratings, which are widely accepted. All sorts of films are made and legally shown; but we control what we allow children to access.

i think it also changes the climate and changes how the consumer of these mags sees themselves and their consumption maybe. and if they have to buy it under a cover maybe they won't be waving it around in young girls faces on the tube.

NicholasTeakozy Fri 02-Aug-13 20:35:04

Tesco join the bandwagon. Hopefully this will force those other magazines like Chat, Now! and the others to review their front covers. IMO they're as bad at skewing opinion.

Hitchy83 Fri 02-Aug-13 21:32:49

Totally agree with co-op, there is no comparison with women's magazines with women in bikinis or men's magazines with buff men on the cover. These magazines are purely for sexual gratification of men, the pictures are usually of topless models with massive bangers in some seductive pose! It's easier explaining to a child the pictures in women's magazines, yes son that is a woman in a bikini at the beach as opposed to that is a woman showing her assets so that men can titailate over them! They're as close to pornographic as you get and no this shouldn't be available or at least concealed from the vast majority of consumers who do not purchase nor want to see these on their grocery shop!

Snog Sun 04-Aug-13 07:20:27

hurrah for the coop
thanks thanks

JayGatsby Sun 04-Aug-13 12:28:30

About time. Lads' mags are totally demeaning to women and having them visible - even at top-shelf level - must subliminally influence children to see women as commodities.

MolehillAlchemy Thu 08-Aug-13 15:27:20

I feel the momentum building towards a new era of equality for women. The co-op are legends for this decision, and they've now confirmed they won't be stocking the magazines due the the publisher refusing to accommodate the Co-op's request for modesty bags.

Back into the cave for you Nuts and Zoo! In fact that's a good plan, only allowing the purveyors of this outdated media to sell them from caves and under rocks.

oh thanks for the update molehill.

so the coop stands alone as the publishers have refused and now we wait and see who has the guts/decency to stand with them and issue the same ultimatum.

it's a good opportunity for retailers to create loyal customers (given as said upthread women are the core customers of all these places) and show some ethics. wonder if any will?

fair play to coop. let's see if anyone else gives a damn?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

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

Register now