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

Seenenoughtoknow

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.

AnyFucker

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.

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

*saf

We are getting closer to it, sad...

don't you mean boobies grimma?

I can do you a nice pair of tits too.

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

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'?

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.

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

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.

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

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....

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

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

*daughter's

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.

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.

AnyFucker

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.

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.

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.

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.