Lads mag covers vs gals mag covers - which are worse for kids to see?

[Catmilk]

As I'm sure you all know, The Reg Bailey Review has recommended putting lad's mags on the top shelf or in plain paper bags, as they 'sexualize' children who may glance at them.

Whether there is any evidence that they are harmful, and I know many here are anti-porn so see these mags as the thin end of the wedge - when you actually look at what appears on the covers of lad's mags (girls in bikinis usually) vs what appears on mass market women's weeklies (stories of rape, incest and murder by family members usually) which do you think it better for children not to see? Which are the ones left around the house in millions of homes? Or are in doctors waiting rooms? And why did neither Reg or Anna Richardson before him notice any of this?

Here's a blog I found that compares lad mag covers to women's magazine covers. Maybe the writer is being a little selective in which ones he's shown, but I think he's generally got it right.

Thoughts please

thebockingfordkid.wordpress.com/

[Catmilk]

Crackfox - I'd leave everything as it is and put Reg Bailey and His Mother's Union on the Isle Of Wight and they'd probably all be happy with each other.




Oh God please don't say I've offended our Isle Of Wight residents, I'm sorry, I...

[Catmilk]

Can't edit, so I admit - women's mags aren't aimed at kids, so it doesn't matter if they are inappropriate for kids. But are lads mags aimed at kids either? It seems Bailey went out of his remit and followed the Stop Pimping Our Kids line about 'stuff in kids eyelines should be moved.'

[TheCrackFox]

So what would you actually do then, Catmilk?

[Catmilk]

Thanks for the link fluffles, but the COVERS of those issues of Nuts range from scantily-clad to naked-but-you-can't-see-anything (no on-all-fours-with-tongue-out, 'submissive' to my mind either, should that be a concern ) Personally I find them healthy pretty girls it would be natural for any older boy to be attracted to, and boring for any boy who still prefers dinosaurs...

But Baileys remit was not to confront 'objectification.' His review was designed to address areas of parental concern with a focus on four key issues:
? whether and to what extent sexualised imagery now forms a universal background or ?wallpaper? to children?s lives;
? whether some products are inappropriate for children, and others in dubious taste: parents are anxious about what is appropriate;
? whether businesses sometimes treat children too much as consumers and forget that they are children too, with particular concerns about the kinds of marketing techniques associated with digital media;
? how parents can tell advertisers, broadcasters and retailers about the things they are unhappy about and how they can make an effective complaint.

None of that regards worries about objectification. The second point, whether some products are inappropriate for children or is in dubious taste, while couched in language I don't care for, apply far more to the women's mags, cover and contents, as far as I can see.

The first, regarding sexualised imagery forming a background to childrens lives could, admittedly, apply to lads mags - as well as page three, TV ads and most of our culture. The fact that women's magazines in this context use 'words' not 'imagery' is unfortunate - and if it was the other way around and lads magazines filled their covers with crude sexual headlines about rape and murdering women, I don't think women would give them a pass on that technicality. I would arguie that the exposure to children to those horrific women's mag headlines (about sex, about rape, incest and the worst kinds of sex) are more cause for concern re being inappropriate or in dubious taste than healthy naked women (not having sex, btw)

[fluffles]

this is a better represntation of those magazine covers www.google.co.uk/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=640&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=nuts+magazine&oq=nuts+magazine&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2670l6752l0l24l12l0l4l0l2l298l1676l1.3.4

they are not just a bit of cleavage, they are soft porn poses.

the weeklies stories about incest and rape are awful, but they're not about 'normalising' sexual objectification in the same way. as i say, i think they're bad, i would burn them all if i could, but i don't think they're in the remit of the bailey review.

[Catmilk]

"do not automatically assume that what is written on a magazine is real life"

You are being silly, of course kids realise those are true stories.

"You can test this by standing a child in front of a magazine shelf and asking them what they notice. Every time they'll pick up the colourful Simpsons/Doctor Who/Cbeebies publication with the free toy sellotaped to the front."

Completely agree, this is what Anna Richardsom failed to prove when she attached head cameras to Peppa Pig-seeking tots. Yet still she and later Bailey claim kids might see harmful stuff so it needs hiding.

"But in isolation, often with a picture of some simpering woman pointing to a picture of dead relative or whatever, they are really not designed to catch a kid's eye."

Neither was my Rabies poster... as I say, I'm not sure ANY mags need moving - but Bailey, and maybe Cameron later, say some do, and should/will be. I think it's fair to ask, on that premise, are we sure the right targets are being picked.

[Catmilk]

And I would say that the lads mag covers as featured in that link are barely sexual (they talk of 'sexy girls' occasionally, but not of sex itself) - but headlines like 'I HAD SEX WITH MY SON' etc definitely ARE sexual - and in a much more disturbing way.

I think many kids know what 'rape' is - and its on the covers of almost any Take A Break, Ok! Chat, etc. How is that exposure not 'sexualizing' kids - and in an unhealthy way right from the start?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Children below a certain age, even if they can read, are not sensitised to words like 'sex', 'raped' and 'brutalised', are not going to be traumatised by those headlines and do not automatically assume that what is written on a magazine is real life. You can test this by standing a child in front of a magazine shelf and asking them what they notice. Every time they'll pick up the colourful Simpsons/Doctor Who/Cbeebies publication with the free toy sellotaped to the front. If the headlines were accompanied by gory images, you'd have a point. But in isolation, often with a picture of some simpering woman pointing to a picture of dead relative or whatever, they are really not designed to catch a kid's eye.

[fluffles]

The remit of the Bailey Review was the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood.

Because while i think weeklies are the devil's work, i don't think that they fall under that remit.

[Catmilk]

Another thing, and this may vary where you live - I've been looking at where I buy my newspapers and mags over the last couple of weeks - they are not from venues that have a top shelf any higher than a child anyway! Supermarkets, mini-markets, I didn't find many places with the traditional top shelf. How are things in your local news vendor?

[RobF]

Putting the magazines on the top shelf won't stop kids from seeing the covers, will it? I remember looking at porn mags on the top shelf and wondering what was in them when I used to go to the shops with my mum as a kid.

IMO womens magazines are far worse because they are socially acceptable in a way that lads mags are not.

[GrimmaTheNome]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Cover up the lads mags; the nastier headlines on the misery mags would be better confined to the contents page rather than the front cover.

[TheCrackFox]

I don't like them seeing half naked men either. I wouldn't have a problem with them being sold in a paper cover or placed on the top shelves.

[Catmilk]

'too fast.' I hate that mistake...

[Catmilk]

Crack fox, your putative 3 year old can see half naked men on mens health-body-building mags - why is that not a problem? Or is it?

Meanwhile, the majority of children supposedly growing up to fast/being sexualised early, can read. This campaign has hardly been about pre-schoolers.

[TheCrackFox]

How about banning all magazines as they are all a lod of crap anyway?

[Catmilk]

I think any child able to read can read these headlines, (and realise it actually happened, so could happen to them) could be disturbed/traumatised by it -

'RAPED AND TORTURED BY MY SMELLY STEP-DAD - I WAS JUST 8 WHEN IT STARTED'

'ANGELS - MURDERED BY THEIR MUMMY - THEN SHE HACKED UP DADDY'

'NO NO NO! BRUTALISED BY SEX BEAST IN MY OWN HOME!'

'THE MUM WHO HAD SEX WITH HER SON!'

The point being, this thread is in reference to the Bailey Review - he said lads mags were damaging to children - but the covers there, or if you google them, are really very tame, not the 'naked women on all fours salivating' myth... and those horrific women's mag ones he did just not mention... probably because the mothers he wants to appeal to read those mags, not lad's mags. Let's be honest.

If you think a child can see these covers/mags and not be disturbed, fine, maybe not. But does anyone really think seeing a Loaded cover is worse??

[TheCrackFox]

The average 3 yr old can't actually read so the Women's Mags mean nothing to them. They can, however, be very confused at the sight of pretty much naked women on the front of lad's mags.

[Threadworm8]

That's depressing, cogito -- the Marvel thing I mean. I would LOVE it if someone brought out a brilliant Beano-style comic for girls, with Minnie the Minx as the lead character. I grew up on Sparky and Beano and Dandy, and of course they are all lovely for boys and girls. But one that had a bias towards lots of female characters, instead of mostly male, would be a wonderful addition, to keep girls away from the trashy Jackie-style how-to-wear-make-up crap.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

You're looking at those magazines with an adult understanding, however. Children are not sensitised to words like 'rape' and 'incest'... they don't register as being emotional words with a child and so they don't provoke an upsetting reaction. And I agree with the above. Once a child is old enough to read the word 'incest' and curious enough to wonder what it means, then that is probably a good time to explain it.

BTW... the 'innocent fun of reading' via comics? Have you seen the content of Marvel recently? Pneumatic breasts and thunderous thighs galore.

[Catmilk]

And equally, despite what Mr Bailey reckons, children are not interested in Nuts or naked ladies. They don't care, it's boring... This is my main point - the second if some mags MIGHT be disturbing to a child who happened to take an interest, then those women's mags are nightmare material compared to a few half-naked ladies.

[Catmilk]

Grimma, I agree! There are so few comics for either sexes anymore! If there were more, maybe they would enjoy the innocent fun of reading about the sickly ballet dancer orphan rather than rushing into the pop/soap world too soon...

[GrimmaTheNome]

The stupid misery-story 'womens mags' aren't attractive - kids are not that likely to bother giving them a second glance to actually read the blurbs. My MIL sometimes has a few in her house, DD doesn't look at them at all. Whereas if there's something with dogs or wildlife, or she comes across a Beano...

Actually what's needed is lots of good interesting mags (kids and good adult ones) on the low shelves to attract their interest. Displace all the crap.

[Catmilk]

You're trying very hard to miss the point aren't you? I think I'll ignore you from now on.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

So you're basing your whole point on your childhood misunderstanding of a perfectly ordinary, totally non-controversial poster? Teach your kids to read properly and, if they see any headlines, tell them to discuss with you anything they find upsetting. That way you'll avoid the same thing happening.