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

Yep, get rid of them too

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.

'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? Good night.

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.

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

Back tracking (and limited )

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??

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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 again...do 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.

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?

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. .

One step at a time chubby

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 ?

...and ?

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.

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

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 :)

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.

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 ?

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

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?