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

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

You may already have seen/heard the news today that the Co-op has given "lads' mags" six weeks to cover up their front page with sealed "modesty bags" or be taken off sale in its stores.

The Co-op says it's responding to concerns by its members, customers and colleagues about images of scantily-clad women on magazine covers.

We're being asked what Mumsnetters think of this move by the Co-op. So we'd love you to let us know: please do post up your views on this thread.

[flatpackhamster]

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.

[Jarrod]

Page 3 is a right of passage....

[ohforfoxsake]

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.

[Itsjustafleshwound]

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

[Jarrod]

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.

[TolliverGroat]

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.

[AnyFucker]

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 >

[MurderOfGoths]

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.

[Thisisaeuphemism]

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?

[Pan]

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.

[Pan]

Co-op's bread, obv.

[Pan]

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

[Thisisaeuphemism]

men's right to gawp at tits while doing the food shopping outweighs anyone else's rights.

[GrimmaTheNome]

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

Of course its a compromise. Its a compromise between having them on display and having them not available for sale in supermarkets etc.

There's nothing wrong with nudity. Little kids use changing rooms with parents of the opposite gender, most people don't mind that...because its normal bodies going about normal life. If you do mind - well, you can avoid that sort of changing room. Its your choice.

Introducing the wrappers gives people choice... if you want your kids to see these pouting girlies, you're free to buy them. And everyone else's kids now aren't exposed to them when all you want to do is get some food.

[Pan]

Co-op are involved as they no longer wish to offend a number of their customers. Good business sense. If people wish to buy the stuff ( and so not lose business) they still can.

[AnyFucker]

Pan, my 47yo boobs are equally as worthy as a 17yo's of public viewing, non ?

They are just boobs, after all. Just like what you see on the beach at Magaluf and suchlike.

[AnyFucker]

Funnily enough though, Nuts are not exactly beating my door down to feature me on their cover. Incomprehensible, really.

[GrimmaTheNome]

I don't see why Co-Op needs to get involved.

because they're responding to input from their staff and their customers.

[AnyFucker]

Yep, and I hope others follow suit

< looking at you, Asda >

[DownstairsMixUp]

I have facepalmed about five times already on this thread. Why is it so hard to understand it's about concept?! Arghh!!

[AnyFucker]

It's shame really, DMU. Some people are a bit slow on the uptake, innit.

[Thisisaeuphemism]

It's a terrible shame when a store listens to its customers, eh, king rollo.

I think they should ignore their customers and just have more and more tits. The tit market is not sufficiently catered for.