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/

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?

"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.

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.

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)

So what would you actually do then, 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.'

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...