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

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

I agree with BeCool!

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.

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.

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!

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!)

Oops "imaginable" should of course read Unimaginable!

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!

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.

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.

This is fantastic news! Hooraaayyyy!

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

Pervert pouches! :o 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.

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.

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

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...?