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

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

Co-op's bread, obv.

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.

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?

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.

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 >

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 (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.

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.

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

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.

Page 3 is a right of passage....

Jarrod

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.

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.

BeCool

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.

SoupDragon

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

A really good move.

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

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.