Lads Mags In Black Bags!

Is putting overtly sexual content magazine covers in plain liners a move forward?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 34.5%
  • No

    Votes: 12 41.4%
  • Remove them completely from the shelves if they are offensive.

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • Couldn't care less!

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29
daugs":26b3542a said:
gtRTSdh":26b3542a said:
However much we enjoy them, being open for children (especially girls) to see is not good & is not helping girls' self esteem when they can't possibly compete with the cosmetically enhanced airbrushed beauties on display. It takes a grown up to realise girls that put all their efforts into their appearance aren't the most rounded (mentally) of people.

quite, with a daughter I have moved from not caring to thinking just don't need the covers, a lot of the comments above refer to contents, it's only the cover that needs changing and publishers to accept it is visible to all, the mags only have themselves to blame, could have had toned down the cover and avoided the issue.

I don't think even fashion magazines are safe for young girls, anything that gives young teens a false sense of reality is a bad thing. My teenage daughter is already at 13 talking about how she looks, fortunately she is concerned about how skinny she is, so no trying to starve herself on the cards, and I've never let her look at fashion mags or girly mags, she's much better off with the books she reads.

Alison
 
Isaac_AG":3gjbepy2 said:
daugs":3gjbepy2 said:
gtRTSdh":3gjbepy2 said:
However much we enjoy them, being open for children (especially girls) to see is not good & is not helping girls' self esteem when they can't possibly compete with the cosmetically enhanced airbrushed beauties on display. It takes a grown up to realise girls that put all their efforts into their appearance aren't the most rounded (mentally) of people.

quite, with a daughter I have moved from not caring to thinking just don't need the covers, a lot of the comments above refer to contents, it's only the cover that needs changing and publishers to accept it is visible to all, the mags only have themselves to blame, could have had toned down the cover and avoided the issue.

I don't think even fashion magazines are safe for young girls, anything that gives young teens a false sense of reality is a bad thing. My teenage daughter is already at 13 talking about how she looks, fortunately she is concerned about how skinny she is, so no trying to starve herself on the cards, and I've never let her look at fashion mags or girly mags, she's much better off with the books she reads.

Alison

Parenting.

You're doing it right. ;)
 
KDM":dfxksi4j said:
minger feminist.
It always is.

As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do. Likewise in reverse, although with a lot fewer indignant bores going on TV.

As long as she's sitting next that other one rest assured nobody is taking any notice of her, far less thinking of her sexually.
 
Cover them up- yep for sure a good idea especially the daily sport. Not what children should be seeing.
 
technodup":kwjnrfdo said:
As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do. Likewise in reverse, although with a lot fewer indignant bores going on TV.

Kudos just going with instinct, there...

Many of us do have those big old brains, though, with that whole frontal lobe thing going on, so occasionally - just occasionally - on the 3rd Sunday of a month, we can behave with just a smidgen of intelligence, and in those rare moments, manage to be that bit more than pure instinct.

Doesn't happen very often, though, so it's probably best left forgotten.

We_are_Stevo":kwjnrfdo said:
They'll be 'dressing' tables again next! :roll:

So long as they don't go after crack and meth.
 
Neil":2onya0ku said:
technodup":2onya0ku said:
As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do. Likewise in reverse, although with a lot fewer indignant bores going on TV.

Kudos just going with instinct, there...

Many of us do have those big old brains, though, with that whole frontal lobe thing going on, so occasionally - just occasionally - on the 3rd Sunday of a month, we can behave with just a smidgen of intelligence, and in those rare moments, manage to be that bit more than pure instinct.
For me (and I imagine most although most on here wouldn't admit it) the would I/wouldn't I question comes before any other consideration. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or lack of.

I can find out if she likes animals or hates the rain sometime later. Because if she's a munter I couldn't care less.
 
I'm a Co-op member and former employee and I never remember members harping on about this at the intermiable members' annual meetings or in the in house magazine. I smell the sulphur of a witch hunt about this, or at least a hunt led by witches...

An equivalent situation happened at work a few months ago when my mate got told to take down the tiny Mac tools calendar he'd been sent, which was potentially the tamest totty shots ever, apparantly it was too provocative, even though it wasn't say, Nigella licking a strawberry, which would have been blood thunderingly provocative. Yet the female champions of the men of West Yorkshire Fire Brigade calendar [Dudes as sex objects posing with fire hoses (Surely symbolic of something)] have successfully resisted all attempts to get it removed from the office wall and burnt.

Back to the Co-op lad mag Jihad. If I was the editor of F.H.M or Loaded or whatever I would call the bluff of these Feminazi's thus;
Have a really provocative cover shot of a stunning "Babe" practically falling out of her [Wet?] bikini. Something to draw the fire of Harriet Harperson MP, Guardian "Social Affairs" commentator and patron saint of self rightousness Polly Toynbee and all the usual suspects, including "Spokeswoman Sophie Bennett" who seems to have Magazines and the Co-op in her crosshairs. They will get themselves into a right lather about "Objectifying women" and "Degrading the female form", except get this; the cover model wouldn't be a lady, "She'd" be a ladyboy and thus under the laws of England and Wales she would be... male. All these lady-zealots arguments about the exploitation of women would fall apart as they had clearly failed to look beyond the cover. Polly Toynbee gets a ten minute grilling on Channel 4 news and looks embarrased, Church bells rung in celebration, freedom of expression is allowed to continue.

The end!
 
Isaac_AG":28ck68rh said:
daugs":28ck68rh said:
gtRTSdh":28ck68rh said:
However much we enjoy them, being open for children (especially girls) to see is not good & is not helping girls' self esteem when they can't possibly compete with the cosmetically enhanced airbrushed beauties on display. It takes a grown up to realise girls that put all their efforts into their appearance aren't the most rounded (mentally) of people.

quite, with a daughter I have moved from not caring to thinking just don't need the covers, a lot of the comments above refer to contents, it's only the cover that needs changing and publishers to accept it is visible to all, the mags only have themselves to blame, could have had toned down the cover and avoided the issue.

I don't think even fashion magazines are safe for young girls, anything that gives young teens a false sense of reality is a bad thing. My teenage daughter is already at 13 talking about how she looks, fortunately she is concerned about how skinny she is, so no trying to starve herself on the cards, and I've never let her look at fashion mags or girly mags, she's much better off with the books she reads.

Alison
Every Wednesday free magazines get given out at Leeds City Station [Apparantly bus passengers don't get them, they are the wrong "Demographic" or too poor or something], anyway the male one is full of titanium smartphones and new videogames and a load of wibble about whether or not turn-ups are the new black. The female one, called "Shortlist" is full of too skinny women modelling clothes. They are so skinny that they look like I [Male] did when I was about 15. These photo's aren't to attract mens attention they are to sell lipstick and handbags and other wierd&*^t to women. When it comes to objectifying women's bodies the female led fashion industry is far worse than Loaded or Nuts might be because it is pedalling a female ideal which is unhealthy. To get that thin most girls I know would have to live on a diet of Cheesy Wotsits and amphetamines.
 
Back
Top