Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think it's Wrong to put GQ magazine Below the chocolates in tesco metro

25 replies

BlueberryPancake · 02/03/2011 12:40

I for some reason went to our local tesco metro yesterday afternoon with my two boys, to buy them a little treat. I was suprised, to say the least, to find that right at the entrance of the shop, there was a row of chocolate bars and sweets, and just below (BELOW sorry about shouting) that there was GQ magazine with Naomi Campbell naked in a pool! yes, it is a beautiful photo but hey, who is the idiot who thought it would be a good idea to put a soft porn magazine on a shelf at eye level of children (my boys are 3 and 5 and I'm sure they were more interested in the chocolate!!) and below sweets and chocolates!!! I was fuming. I had a real go at the manager in front of everyonee and stormed out of the shop making a real fuss. It was funny really, I really took myself seriously! I know I wasn't unreasonable, but thought I'd share with you my non-English sense of exhuberance when I complain about something...

OP posts:
GabbyLoggon · 02/03/2011 12:53

Blueberry...you were right to complain if you feel strongly about it. Most of us just shrug and walk away. "Gabby"

worraliberty · 02/03/2011 12:57

At least you did complain instead of keeping quiet and then moaning later.

To be honest seeing Naomi Campbell's mug anywhere would make me want to complain lol.

trixie123 · 02/03/2011 13:05

GQ isn't soft porn - compare it to Nuts, FHM etc but no, there is no real reason why it couldn't be higher up - though if it was the the sweets would be at grabbing height for every toddler and someone would prob. complain about that!

sixlostmonkeys · 02/03/2011 13:13

soft porn? It's a photo of Campbell with no clothes on...that's all.
A child wouldn't bat an eye at the sight of nudity, unless of course they are made to believe there is shame in it and that of course can lead to all sorts of problems/issues.
I do hope your 2 DCs didn't hear you complain.

MrSpoc · 02/03/2011 13:14

since when has CQ been porn? I bet you did not see any nipples on display. UABU

Original poster
BlueberryPancake · 02/03/2011 13:20

No nipples! But a very sexy booty! I'm not a prude, but I just think that GQ sometimes pushes the boundary a bit and someone should have had the judgment of not putting this magazine at eye level for children! I still think it was a bit borderline...

www.gq-magazine.co.uk/girls/articles/2011-01/30/gq-girls-naomi-campbell-naked-truth-on-blood-diamonds-and-war-crimes

OP posts:
MrSpoc · 02/03/2011 13:38

I dont see anything wrong with the cover at all. My boys see more than that when they go swimming or get changed in the ladies changing with their mum.

That is not soft porn and maybe your just a little over sensitive.

Original poster
BlueberryPancake · 02/03/2011 13:42

What? I thought and still think that I am right you really don't think there's a difference between a swimming pool changing room and commercial magazine mild nudity three feet off the floor, just below chocolates and sweets aimed at children? I think it's plain wrong.

OP posts:
MrSpoc · 02/03/2011 13:45

there is not differance between seeing ladies in a small bikini or the side of a woman. You cant see the naughty bits and the magazine does not have topless madels in it. So i really do not see the problam.

your kids will see more on holiday / at the beach. What will you do then?

MrSpoc · 02/03/2011 13:45

sorry models

Original poster
BlueberryPancake · 02/03/2011 13:48

But it's different! We go to France every year, we spent a week in St Tropez last summer, topless everywhere but this is different. Well anyway, I think it's different. Even if I'm the only one who thinks it's different...!

OP posts:
MrSpoc · 02/03/2011 13:53

is ok on the beach to be topless flashing your boobs while kids are there but its not ok for a cover of a magazine to show just the side of a body?

By the way there is nothing wrong with going topless in beaches. i do it even with my man boobs Smile

Original poster
BlueberryPancake · 02/03/2011 14:05

Sorry Mr spoc but I think there's a big difference. Nobody has to give people on the beach money to take their clothes off. There is a commercial use of nudity which I don't have a problem with in principle, but I have a problem with it when it is presented to children as if it's something you can buy along with your bar of Kit Kat.

OP posts:
Original poster
BlueberryPancake · 02/03/2011 14:08

which of course you can do (buy along with your bar of kit kat).

OP posts:
sixlostmonkeys · 02/03/2011 14:13

blueberry - it is fine to have this opinion but I worry that the details of this opinion will not be understood and your complaint could be construed by you DCs as being that naked bodies are 'wrong' which as I said up there, could lead to problems for them

TheEvilDead2 · 02/03/2011 14:20

This wouldn't bother me. The Sun is much worse.

MillyR · 02/03/2011 14:30

Of course it is not the same as walking topless on the beach on holiday. There is no way Tesco would have displayed a magazine cover, of a naked man in this exact same pose, by a chocolate display.

It is very odd that Tesco have done this. Most supermarkets now sell magazines like this either in Morrisons style (in box, only title visible) or on the highest shelf at the furthest point from items of children's interest. I know that if magazines like this are at child height or directly above children's magazines in a branch of the Co-op they request that you report the branch to HQ.

CheeseandPickledOnion · 02/03/2011 15:11

YUABU. In fact this whole arguement annoys me to be honest. It's not been an issue since Nuts etc came in many, many years ago. One US supermarket does something homophobic in covering up Elton and everyone jumps on the bandwagon and now we mustn't have a single body part showing on the front of any magazine or else everyone is up in Arms. :rollseyes:

MillyR · 02/03/2011 15:18

C&PO, what are you talking about? These magazines are on display in every supermarket except Morrisons. I haven't seen 'everybody' up in arms when I have been in a supermarket. Where have you seen this happen? Have you actually had difficulty yourself attempting to show a series of magazines with naked women on the front to your children in any particular supermarket?

grumpypants · 02/03/2011 15:20

Oh. I thought this was in a kind of 'because dh keeps whining til I buy it for him' type thing from the OP...Blush

squeakytoy · 02/03/2011 15:35

Considering there are huge billboards all over the place with near naked women (and men) advertising underwear, perfume, jewellery and all other manner of items, I hardly think a magazine cover of GQ, is going to warp the minds of any child.

YABU

CheeseandPickledOnion · 02/03/2011 15:44

@MillyR Do you not listen to any news/current affairs programs? There's a whole big campaign to protect precious eyes from any body part and cover up all these magazines. Hence the campaign encouraging the OP to make a scene in a shop because they've not followed the campaign and done it!

MillyR · 02/03/2011 17:14

C&PO, I am well aware of the campaign. It is about sexualisation not nudity. One of the issues with exposure to sexualised images is that people start to having difficulty understanding that a sexualised person is different to a naked person or a sexual person. Your posts illustrate that perfectly.

manticlimactic · 02/03/2011 18:26

What? I thought and still think that I am right

So what was the point of postingon AIBU? You obviously didn't want opinions on whether you were BU or not! Hmm

MrSpoc · 03/03/2011 10:24

Mens Health is also in tescos next to childrens magazine. Guess what it has a topless man showing off his six pack. should they move this magazine to the top shelf?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page