Romola Garai interview with The Gardian regarding banning lads mags

(49 Posts)
Ridersofthestorm Sun 13-Oct-13 11:52:41

Just read this Guardian article regarding the actress Romola Garai's support of banning lad mags from supermarkets.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/13/lads-mags-problem-romola-garai#

I was just wondering what other people thought of this campaign?

I think it's an excellent idea as I've always thought these mags are just porn. However what are the implications of removing them? Surely you can still access them online? Won't it just encourage people to find what they want online and therefore end up coming across much more sordid and degrading material?

I am no expert, just interested, and glad to see women and probably men coming together to do something about the increasing sexualisation of women in our society.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 13-Oct-13 12:37:11

I love love love Romola Garai. I totally agree with her. That is all smile

Ridersofthestorm Sun 13-Oct-13 13:08:08

Sabrina I love her too! I think she is great to be using her 'celebrity' to highlight such issues

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 14:50:16

I'm not sure if lads mags are porn.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 15:14:09

I'm still not sure. They are normally accompanied with an interview and the sale of a movie, album, tv series. However, I haven't seen these mags for 15 years so they maybe different now.

ArmyDad Sun 13-Oct-13 15:29:18

Seriously. Lads mags are porn? There are pages of sport, comedy, articles about crime/real life etc. There are pages and pages of entertainment Games and TV/film/music reviews. Probably less than 20% is pictures of topless women. Hardly puts it in the same league as Porn

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 15:35:04

Lads mags are topless now? 15 years ago they were movie stars and interviews. Maybe nuts wasn't around then. It was fhm and maxim.

TheCrumpetQueen Sun 13-Oct-13 15:38:14

This looks like porn to me confused

TheCrumpetQueen Sun 13-Oct-13 15:38:41

Wouldn't call it 'art' personally

ArmyDad Sun 13-Oct-13 15:39:47

Nuts and Zoo are mostly topless as is Loaded and Front. FHM not so much

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 15:43:40

I didn't realise they were topless. Topless images are pornographic, I'd imagine in the magazines context. I wouldn't describe the whole mag as porn, but definitely those topless images.

I think it's good to identify the publications like nuts and zoo, and seperate them from fhm and maxim. I reckon loaded is somewhere in the middle

ArmyDad Sun 13-Oct-13 15:55:42

So are some of These Don't see anyone trying to ban them or put them behind modesty covers.

I am not against them by the way. Just trying to highlight something.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 13-Oct-13 16:03:47

...and they're off!

Derailer no 1 made an excellent start there with "they're not porn" Vnd "I didn't realise they were topless" but has been overtaken just minutes later by an outstanding "whataboutthemenz" derail.

hmm

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:03:49

Army you have to start somewhere. I think the topless ones should have vanity covers. Or be more selective about where they are sold.
The body seems to be so taboo now and the naked body is thought to be sexual so covering the front cover maybe the way forward.
I'm supried they don't censor African or Amazonian tribes on tv at the mo lol

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:06:36

The thread police are off. Sab I didn't say they weren't porn. Where did I say that??

You are so funny, you make me giggle

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:07:40

Gay men?

TheCrumpetQueen Sun 13-Oct-13 16:09:03

African/Amazonian women aren't pushing their boobs together or spreading their legs apart showing their arse cheeks. They're just being women naked.

reelingintheyears Sun 13-Oct-13 16:09:21

I was just going to say the same Beer.

You could start it today ArmyDad.

ArmyDad Sun 13-Oct-13 16:10:03

I said I wasn't against them. That I was just pointing out that some people are offended by lads mags and consider them porn. Yet Attitude does not come in for the same definition. I'd argue that Attitude is a Lads mag too. I have no problem with this. Interesting how the my post has come in for a "whataboutthemenz" as if I am bringing up the same old boring points.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:12:47

Crumpet it was a joke. I'm saying it's down to what is perceived as being sexy. If boobs being pushed together turns you on then fair enough.

Can you identify someone's sexuality from a photo?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:19:40

I think ones with pornographic images should be vanity covered.

Also beer, posing for a 'gay' mag doesn't make you gay

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:27:03

Beer - you could get rid of them. It would involve scrapping most mags, adverts, etc.

How could you only ban those mags, legally?

slightlysoupstained Sun 13-Oct-13 16:31:10

Getting back to the OP's original question, I hope the campaign succeeds. It would send a strong message that misogynist shite is not considered socially acceptable.

IMO, tit count is missing the point - you can probably find titties in parenting mags. The point is what they're meant to convey - "here's a good latch" versus "here's a piece of meat" is laughably easy for any grown up to tell apart.

I couldn't be less worried about my son being exposed to normal, unexploitative images of naked people as he grows up. In fact, I hope he sees plenty of examples of all shapes, sizes, and ages just doing normal things (though that's less likely here than in e.g. Germany). But hateful, spiteful nastiness? I want that to be rare, not on every supermarket shelf so he thinks it's normal.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:36:24

I think less taboo around nakedness is a positive.
Would you be happy with a vanity cover? The only way to get rid of these mags is by reducing sales and putting them out of business. The vanity cover must reduce sales or the publications wouldn't be against them. Unless the vanity covers are expensive to implement and fit

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:39:42

Yes beer, I agree, but it depends how much artistic value you give adverts to sell a product. At least most of the celeb culture mags would go too.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArmyDad Sun 13-Oct-13 16:43:27

Well having read the article the mags are in decline anyway. So it won't be long until they are gone. Can't say I'll miss them.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:45:37

No it doesn't mean that beer, but it is a factor on whether deciding something is pornographic or not

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 16:55:17

That's what I'm saying. Be it an actor or actress selling perfume. These mags will add in an 'artistic element' like adverts do. That is why it is hard to ban. All you can do is vanity cover them or sell them in restricted shops.

What would you be bothered if they were reduced to be online only?

Darkesteyes Sun 13-Oct-13 17:00:12

As there are a few ppl in the Guardian comments attacking Romola i thought id make this point.

13 October 2013 4:58pm

Recommend
0

I dont recall Martin Daubney ex editor of Loaded being attacked when he aired his views and how they had changed over time.
Yet Romola is coming under attack for lettting her views be known and that they have changed since she was younger.

Proves her point really

Yougotbale Sun 13-Oct-13 17:06:22

Do you have a link for martin's views, I'd be interested in what he said in comparison romola's

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 13-Oct-13 17:23:41

Yes Darkesteyes - interesting, isn't it?

Considering the article is titled "I've been part of the problem, let me be part of the solution" you'd think that would address that particular argument against her.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 13-Oct-13 17:26:08

Plus, it's pretty well known that many people change their opinions on these things when they have a daughter.

ArmyDad Sun 13-Oct-13 17:43:43

Sara Cox also said in a documentary interview that she regretted her "ladette" days too including pictures that she had posed for.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Darkesteyes Sun 13-Oct-13 17:56:35

This was posted by someone called RedPanther in the comments section.


women should think of themselves.

As an example someone posted the contents of a lads mag v a womens in a post above. The lads mag was naked women, a few jokes (they didn't say whether they were deeming to women) and articles on sportsmen - but from the description given the only time women featured were as something to look at. They contrasted this with the women's mag saying that there were articles on sex, fashion, a celeb interview and weight loss - which they construed as more damaging to women because of the focus was on how to 'improve' themselves, mainly through the way they looked. Whilst I agree the obsession with diet and looks isn't desirable, the celeb was a successful female singer, there's nothing wrong with suggesting clothes to wear (size 0 models excluded) and certainly nothing wrong with encouraging girls to enjoy sex and get the most out of it! Equally telling men to enjoy sex isn't wrong, but the problem is that most lads mags focus solely on the man's needs, the women's role is reduced to purely being there to satisfy the man's desires. Even women's mags that have images that objectify men will still have other male representatives so the message is not one of this is all they are good for.

Also as things stand men are still in the majority of positions of power- I'd be interested to see how many of the women's magazines are owned by men and to what extent they influence the content - how many editors would be allowed to change to 'normal' sized models or stop obsessing about celebrities - not many because we're told this isn't what women want. Who is actually setting the agenda, to what extent have we become trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a similar vein I know of many men that don't objectify women and don't like lads mags but feel pressured into nodding along with the sentiment or going to strip joints, because society tells them its what 'normal' men want.

I would therefore argue that it's men's attitudes that are most in need of change and the more we can fight back against the idea that women are nothing more than sex objects whose main role in life is to look nice for men, then the easier it will be to change the general obsession of what women look like and return to a healthier attitude across the board.

Darkesteyes Sun 13-Oct-13 17:57:19

Also as things stand men are still in the majority of positions of power- I'd be interested to see how many of the women's magazines are owned by men and to what extent they influence the content - how many editors would be allowed to change to 'normal' sized models or stop obsessing about celebrities - not many because we're told this isn't what women want.

THIS THIS. THIS!

Darkesteyes Sun 13-Oct-13 18:03:14

The rest of the link Sorry i screwed it up.



RedPanther

13 October 2013 5:45pm

Recommend
1

Every time I read a comment that women's mags/ the daily heil are worse I can't help but think of the phrase two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think any publication that objectifies women and treats them as though their sum worth is based on how they look are good for anyone, but justifying one's existence because others are available isn't solving the underlying issues - sometimes you have to take one fight at a time.

In my opinion it's right to start with taking the lads mags out of the mainstream; for all their ills at least the women's mags and daily heil do occasionally have female role models on their pages and sometimes focus on something other than waist and tit size. Magazines like Nuts and Zoo rarely portray women as anything other than sexual tools and having titles like these readily available in supermarkets normalises and reinforces the idea that it's a) how men should think of women and b) what women should think of themselves

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 13-Oct-13 18:19:09

There's an element of lads mags holding up a sexualised image of a semi naked woman for the "appreciation" of men on the one side --- and the articles for women and how to become the ideal man-pleaser depicted in the lad mags (lose weight! How to please your man in bed! Fashion! Hair! Make-up! etc) on the other.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 13-Oct-13 18:20:19

It's a conspiracy wink Or the patrirachy wink wink

Ridersofthestorm Sun 13-Oct-13 18:38:34

Well I go out for a few hours, come back and all hells broke loose.

I still stick by my opinion (which you may or may not agree with, it is just an opinion) that these lads mags are soft porn. And what happens when they want a few more sales? how long will it be before they start pushing the boundaries to stand out and be a bit different?

I remember when they first came out and a young male colleague was reading one of them in the tea room. He was 16 years old at the time and I couldn't believe the level of nudity and wall to wall tits and arse inside it. And all the people he worked with were women too.

Honestly there was nothing tasteful about it, why do you need next to a so called stimulating interesting article a women with her tits out? Can't you say the same about playboy and they are what I would class as porn mags. In fact don't get me started on playboy and their merchandise which tries to make the brand seem harmless cute and fun.

Hopefully the big supermarkets will either cover them up and put them on top shelves, or just stop selling them.

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