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.

The campaign against Lads' mags, the Sun and page 3 is just another front in the class war against what is perceived as an uncouth underclass.

Whilst I'm sure that lads' mags might be offensive to some, the attempt to ban them represents yet another bourgeois attempt (along with minimum alcohol pricing, the war of pornography and the plain packaging of cigarettes) to demonise those at the bottom of the pile 'for their own good'.

This isn't censorship - they've not been banned. I think it's heartening to see a company responding to consumer demand for less naked flesh, rather than insisting that marketing always be a race to the bottom. (Pun intended.)

No. Its not a class war (are co-op shop workers part of the bourgeoisie?). Its not even a gender war as there are plenty of male parents who don't want their little kids exposed to these images.

It is not a ban.

I don't really see what the big deal is. They are still available to those that want to buy them and if covered up less offensive to those that find them offensive. Win win all round surely.

I wonder what people (particularly those men criticising this move) would say if there were equivalent 'soft' gay porn mags available at child eye height in shops.

Would they be so keen to condemn the covers as censorious or say 'I just don't want to see sexual images of men when I go to buy a pint of milk, there's a time and a place for it and it's not the supermarket'...

Just a thought.

So "Lose the Lads Mags" and "No More Page 3" are not campaigns to get these things banned then?

Perhaps what the campaigners would really like are voluntary codes of practice, underpinned by some, er, guidelines?

These middle class campaigners focus their energies quite specifically on the consumption habits of those in the C2DE demographic. That's a class war.

manform Well done on completely missing the aims of the campaigns.

cloudskitchen Exactly.

Lose the Lads mags

"What we?re calling for"

"We?re calling on high-street shops to lose the lads? mags ? or risk possible legal action."

Sounds like a call for a ban to me, with a threat thrown in for good measure...

Losing them from children's view is so awful is it?

Ah, hadn't spotted, you've come on a thread about a campaign to stop children being able to see these magazines to talk about a separate campaign to ban them entirely.

This thread is discussing the move by the co-op to request that the mags be provided with covers. So they are still available for purchase, just not visible to people who don't want them on show.

What on earth is the problem with that?

Fantastic idea and it should be rolled out in all stores not just coop?? I don't want to see it and neither do my children!

The link is obvious - Lose the Lads' Mags has specified that it's target is high street retailers:

"It?s a national scandal that high-street supermarkets and newsagents still stock lads? mags. It?s time to hold them to account. Over the coming months we?ll be targeting some of Britain?s best known retailers until they lose the lads? mags."

So there can't be two separate campaigns at the same time then?

I have a lot of time for the co-op. I think they have a good product range and decent fair trade and animal welfare policies. I am delighted that they are doing this too.

I think Manfrom is fighting for children to have the right to see sexual images in out of context places, places where their parents have no choice but to expose their children to them

Yes ?

no i think he's saying all i give a shit about is men and class is a good thing to hide it behind so let's call this a middle class campaign against working class men and totally ignore the huge (half of the demographic of the world) elephant in the room: women.

Perhaps it is even simpler than that

He wants to preserve the status quo

Currently people from all walks of life and demographic are confronted by sexualised images of women and he thinks men's rights to wank over big plastic tits makes that absolutely fine

Trying to paint this as some kind of attack on working class men is a weak and feeble tactic that:

1. Insults, demeans and patronises working class men.

2. Ignores the existence of working class women and their rights not to be demeaned by tedious, misogynistic shite.

Games I don't play: class vs gender. Try harder Manfrom. Why don't you start doing the "slippery slope of censorship" argument so we can laugh at that too.

Wtf is it with these men who think women should accept any type of shoddy treatment and that any type of fighting for our rights is somehow detrimental to society.

So, this covers "lads mags". How about magazines such as Cosmopolotan which have scantily clad females on the front or semi-naked male celebrities?

Much easier for mags such as cosmo to adapt though as this is not their main focus. If it became an issue they would just not use those types of pictures.

I agree Soupy, all magazines of that type should be in "pervert pouches".

Manfrom, you are Piers Hernu AICM£5. :o

The Co-op has had a lot of financial problems lately, and seemed in danger of having to sell off banking, so it's very good to hear them reminding us what the Co-operative businesses are for.

tbf i'd happily see cosmo and every other magazine stuck in a black bag too. magazines that make you feel fat and worthless in order to sell you the solution to your fat and worthless self in the form of make up, clothes, fake tans etc would be no great loss to the world.