There’s been a deeply damaging screw-up at the headquarters of the ‘big four’ supermarkets – and it’s been dragging on for years. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons all have a policy of not selling pornographic or 'adult' magazines. And yet day after day, year upon year, these stores have been stocking their shelves with sexist porn mags like Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front.
Lawyers have told the retailers that selling them can violate equality legislation. Anti-violence organisations say they fuel attitudes underpinning violence against women. And yet, there they still are, lining the shelves. So just what’s going on when self-declared ‘family retailers’ are willing to breach their own rules and risk legal action in order to sell magazines known to fuel dangerous and misogynistic attitudes towards half the UK’s population?
That’s exactly what UK Feminista and Object tried to find out when we met representatives from one of these retail giants - Tesco - back in July. Tesco insisted they don’t stock magazines classified by the industry as pornographic, that Nuts and Zoo are ‘Men’s Lifestyle’ magazines. Customers writing to them on the issue were told much the same: “Please let me assure you that when selecting our magazine range, we always keep at the front of mind that we are a family retailer and that the product choice needs to be appropriate. We do not stock any publication that we deem would be not suitable to our customers, including any adult titles.”…and… “We do not stock any magazines classified by the industry as pornographic”. Interesting, because when we posted images from the current editions of Nuts and Zoo on Facebook, another corporate giant with a 'no porn' policy, they were removed. The social networking site issued a message stating the images "violated our Community Standards".
Even staunch lads’ mags defender Barry McIheney, CEO of the Professional Publishers Association, admits “these titles certainly contain adult imagery”. Barry should know. Back in the early 2000s, as CEO of EMAP Elan publishers, he was the man responsible for launching Zoo. We also commissioned legal advice on the pornographic nature of Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front from Hugh Southey, a leading QC at Matrix Chambers. His judgment: “..the images in the editions of Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front are plainly pornographic”. So why, then, are the ‘big four’ still actively choosing to stock the likes of Nuts and Zoo - in direct contravention of their own policies?
Could it be that the supermarkets have been getting some duff advice on magazine classifications from the industry? We contacted publishers and trade bodies to find out. Turns out, the only part of the industry that classifies Nuts and Zoo as ‘Men’s Lifestyle’ rather than ‘adult’ or pornographic are Nuts and Zoo themselves. It is a self-assigned classification. It’s really not hard to fathom why these magazines would describe themselves as ‘Men’s Lifestyle’. What’s harder to understand is why supermarkets would swallow it.
It's even more perplexing when you consider these stores are risking legal action by stocking Nuts and Zoo. Years ago society decided it unacceptable to have 'girlie calendar'- style images on workplace walls because they can create a hostile and degrading environment for women. The ‘big four’ supermarkets would never allow the 'girlie calendar'- style covers of lads' mags on their office walls, so why do they have them on their supermarket shelves? It's a question that's prompted 18 leading lawyers to write to retailers warning them that exposing both staff and customers to lads' mags could constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination under the Equality Act.
Why does all this matter so much? Because as the Government- commissioned Sexualisation of Young People Review reported in 2010, “lads’ mags promote an idea of male sexuality as based on power and aggression, depicting women as sex objects and including articles that feature strategies for manipulating women.” The American Psychological Association has concluded that viewing media that portrays women as sex objects leads people to become more accepting of sexual harassment, interpersonal violence and rape myths. In essence, lads' mags fuel attitudes underpinning violence against women.
Right now, we have a crisis of violence against women in this country. Rape Crisis report that 85,000 women are raped every single year in England and Wales alone, while one in three girls has been subjected to sexual abuse from a boyfriend. If we're serious about tackling this, we need to join the dots between sexist violence and the cultures and attitudes in daily life that give rise to it. A society in which the biggest 'family' retailers deem it so normal and acceptable to view women as dehumanised sex objects that they choose to line their shelves with magazines dedicated to it is a society in which women and girls can never be safe.
That's why Women's Aid, Imkaan and the End Violence Against Women coalition are among the organisations urging the ‘big four’ supermarkets to stop selling sexist lads’ mags like Nuts and Zoo. They’re joined by 1.3 million member strong trade union, Unison, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 18 top lawyers and thousands of customers. Together we're not asking for any new laws or regulations. Tesco, Morrisons, Asda and Sainsbury's already have policies in place (and legal responsibilities) that mean harmful lads' mags like Nuts and Zoo should never have been added to their product order lists in the first place.
So far, only the Co-operative has taken significant action. As a result of lads' mags failing to meet the retailer’s new packaging demands, Nuts, Zoo and Front are no longer sold in the Co-operative's 4000 stores. It's now vital the ‘big four’ listen to the anti-violence organisations, shareholders, customers, lawyers, trade unionists and teachers all urging them to lose the lads' mags.
Do you think the 'big four' supermarket chains should stop selling lads' mags? Tell us what you think here on the thread.
Guest posts
Should we Lose The Lads' Mags?
MumsnetGuestBlogs · 10/10/2013 14:37
How tiresome
But a little gigglesome that he chose what he clearly imagines is a noble sort of name, as though his motivations are on a higher, more principled, plane 
why do you always try and make this a man vs women issue? You only have to youtube objectification and guess what the most popular videos are?....................................WOMEN debunking objectification. Please check out these:
At one point one of those titles (can't remember which now) actually invited women to send photos of themselves topless in and showed them as just floating tits with the heads cut off so male readers could mark them out of 10! If that isn't objectification - a women reduced to absolutely nothing more than her boobs - I don't know what is!
well fair point, but why not complain about the offending article, instead of calling for a total ban? These magazines have already toned down the covers at the request of Tescos so they are obviously willing to compromise.
Also you are pretty blinkered if you think being wolf whistled, beeped, oggled, groped etc are things only women experience. Maybe it's just different where you live?
nah that wasn't the point i was making. I was just demonstrating that gender is irrelevant when it comes to debunking objectification. It's all down to common sense and logic. I think on the face of it, objectification may initially seem like a reasonable argument and that's why certain so called feminist use it so much on here. However when you step back and really think about what it is, it's just an assumed thought, or someone's perception. (unless it's the example you gave above where individual body parts are featured without any face.)
And you are now trying to tell me that men get as much beeping at and told to 'cheer up love!' and unwanted (and sometimes sexually violent) comments from female strangers on the street! Oh come off it! You are becoming a parody of yourself now!
how do you know they don't? Isn't it true that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Also how do you know that when you get beeped it equals the person fancying you? How do you know it's not some puritan or religious moralist who's beeping because they think you should cover up and don't agree with that level of flesh being on display in public?
......mmm a bit like someone who calls for things like modesty bags or for the banning of lads mags in supermarkets.....
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Newsletters you might like
The front cover of today's Sun has just upset me more than any "lads mag".
"Much Less Of Cambridge"
"Yummy Mummy Tummy"
As Kate Middleton shows off her washboard stomach.
I feel like shit now 
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.