Romola Garai interview with The Gardian regarding banning lads mags

[Ridersofthestorm]

Just read this Guardian article regarding the actress Romola Garai's support of banning lad mags from supermarkets.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/13/lads-mags-problem-romola-garai#

I was just wondering what other people thought of this campaign?

I think it's an excellent idea as I've always thought these mags are just porn. However what are the implications of removing them? Surely you can still access them online? Won't it just encourage people to find what they want online and therefore end up coming across much more sordid and degrading material?

I am no expert, just interested, and glad to see women and probably men coming together to do something about the increasing sexualisation of women in our society.

I love love love Romola Garai. I totally agree with her. That is all

Sabrina I love her too! I think she is great to be using her 'celebrity' to highlight such issues

I'm not sure if lads mags are porn.

I'm still not sure. They are normally accompanied with an interview and the sale of a movie, album, tv series. However, I haven't seen these mags for 15 years so they maybe different now.

Seriously. Lads mags are porn? There are pages of sport, comedy, articles about crime/real life etc. There are pages and pages of entertainment Games and TV/film/music reviews. Probably less than 20% is pictures of topless women. Hardly puts it in the same league as Porn

Lads mags are topless now? 15 years ago they were movie stars and interviews. Maybe nuts wasn't around then. It was fhm and maxim.

This looks like porn to me

Wouldn't call it 'art' personally

Nuts and Zoo are mostly topless as is Loaded and Front. FHM not so much

I didn't realise they were topless. Topless images are pornographic, I'd imagine in the magazines context. I wouldn't describe the whole mag as porn, but definitely those topless images.

I think it's good to identify the publications like nuts and zoo, and seperate them from fhm and maxim. I reckon loaded is somewhere in the middle

So are some of These Don't see anyone trying to ban them or put them behind modesty covers.

I am not against them by the way. Just trying to highlight something.

...and they're off!

Derailer no 1 made an excellent start there with "they're not porn" Vnd "I didn't realise they were topless" but has been overtaken just minutes later by an outstanding "whataboutthemenz" derail.

Army you have to start somewhere. I think the topless ones should have vanity covers. Or be more selective about where they are sold.
The body seems to be so taboo now and the naked body is thought to be sexual so covering the front cover maybe the way forward.
I'm supried they don't censor African or Amazonian tribes on tv at the mo lol

The thread police are off. Sab I didn't say they weren't porn. Where did I say that??

You are so funny, you make me giggle

Gay men?

African/Amazonian women aren't pushing their boobs together or spreading their legs apart showing their arse cheeks. They're just being women naked.

I was just going to say the same Beer.

You could start it today ArmyDad.

I said I wasn't against them. That I was just pointing out that some people are offended by lads mags and consider them porn. Yet Attitude does not come in for the same definition. I'd argue that Attitude is a Lads mag too. I have no problem with this. Interesting how the my post has come in for a "whataboutthemenz" as if I am bringing up the same old boring points.

Crumpet it was a joke. I'm saying it's down to what is perceived as being sexy. If boobs being pushed together turns you on then fair enough.

Can you identify someone's sexuality from a photo?

I think ones with pornographic images should be vanity covered.

Also beer, posing for a 'gay' mag doesn't make you gay