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
gtRTSdh":34bbjkxl said:
Neil":34bbjkxl said:
has society become some vapid and vacuous that "sex sells" needs to encroach practically everything?

Yes.

Can you think of anything that hasn't got a pretty (instant I would) girl selling it?

Well yes, acksherly. A computer monitor I bought, recently, seemed completely devoid of any scantily clad women in any adverts for it I've seen - same with a mobile phone. In fact I can think of plenty of things that I'd buy that don't (from what I can remember, anyways) seem to leverage T&A to sell them.

On the other hand, there does seem to be some kind of arms race mentality with the inclusion of it in certain magazines. As I said before, T3 and Stuff are the ones that most puzzle me - they don't seem "lads mags" in quite the same way as what I think we're discussing (although, admittedly, both, perhaps, are predominantly bought by "lads" - of various degrees of maturity, though).

I suspect they obviously understand their demographic, but all the same, it does seem a bit artificial and stilted - in a way that other magazines focused or targeted on techies / nerd don't seem quite so played.

As to the impact - well it's not something I feel strongly about - but then I don't really object to them covering them up with black bags, either - I'm not getting the harm of that, either. I suppose the thing with it's impact, is you can't unsee things, and as much as we may want to believe it's all the fault of parents with kids who assert they are screwed up because of unrealistic media portrayal - all the same, we can't ignore the wider aspect of societal conditioning in the maturing of kids - people don't live in a bubble, and there's only so long that the parents are viable role models during a childs evolution, before their natural pathos makes them look to the wider society for influence(s).

If there's any real "crime" it must surely be false bloody advertising - photoshhop, airbrushing and that special magic they work that somehow manages to fleetingly disguise the cynical sneer or any true hint of the person behind the eyes, can't be that far from breaching some ASA guidelines, surely?
 
legrandefromage":an2vn93x said:
Phhhoooooar!

55952d1241642854-3rd-monitor-laptop-blue_tits.jpg

You certainly have a stunning pair there LGF! You should think about signing up with Max Clifford.
 
Neil":2nub3b9w said:
On the other hand, there does seem to be some kind of arms race mentality with the inclusion of it in certain magazines. As I said before, T3 and Stuff are the ones that most puzzle me - they don't seem "lads mags" in quite the same way as what I think we're discussing (although, admittedly, both, perhaps, are predominantly bought by "lads" - of various degrees of maturity, though).

I suspect they obviously understand their demographic, but all the same, it does seem a bit artificial and stilted - in a way that other magazines focused or targeted on techies / nerd don't seem quite so played.

As to the impact - well it's not something I feel strongly about - but then I don't really object to them covering them up with black bags, either - I'm not getting the harm of that, either. I suppose the thing with it's impact, is you can't unsee things, and as much as we may want to believe it's all the fault of parents with kids who assert they are screwed up because of unrealistic media portrayal - all the same, we can't ignore the wider aspect of societal conditioning in the maturing of kids - people don't live in a bubble, and there's only so long that the parents are viable role models during a childs evolution, before their natural pathos makes them look to the wider society for influence(s).

If there's any real "crime" it must surely be false bloody advertising - photoshhop, airbrushing and that special magic they work that somehow manages to fleetingly disguise the cynical sneer or any true hint of the person behind the eyes, can't be that far from breaching some ASA guidelines, surely?

Nicely put.

I don't have a problem with what grown adults want to do but for me the issue comes when you have to explain to a 5 year old. I don't think it possible to explain semi nude unrealistic women without an understanding of sexuality that a 5 year old just doesn't need to be aware of, and that probably goes as far as 10year olds. Maybe I'm being naïve. I'm not for censorship, but the marketing industry targets children (and their parents spending power) and the manipulation of children by marketing muppets is something that is very deeply wrong in our society.
 
Agree with sentiments re age appropriate exposure. As for marketing to children, when wasn't it so?
 
our daughter aged 5 asked the other day why things seen on TV often weren't as good in real life, she'd seen a toy advertised that she really wanted but we had refused as clearly ad hype, anyway she got it for last birthday and since realized for herself - result.

whatever you do as a parent it is difficult to combat what goes on at school and comments from girls in class / friends about weight which has already happened, as an aside I remember seeing my first "gentleman's" magazine - it was at school but knew what it was from seeing in newsagents, difficult to see how parents can do anything except explain.
 
Aah the original furby! My daughter was so unimpressed I ended up taking it apart so we could see what was inside. Wired it to a transformer, permanent furless furby! They soon learn. As for appearance etc you just have to explain and reassure as others have said/done.
 
The History Man":uqq9xy5k said:
Agree with sentiments re age appropriate exposure. As for marketing to children, when wasn't it so?

The magazines are sold in regular food shops and newsagents where young children will be, if they were sold in pubs, a primarily adult environment then it would be different.

I don't know a date when the marketing peeps realised that advertising to children on a vast (TV) scale was efficient. When I grew up there were four TV channels, two of which had adverts, there was afterschool TV for a couple of hours and Saturday morning TV with a few Tom and Jerrys every now and then. Now (and I've only got freeview & freesat) there are probably more hours of toy advertisements than there were of TV when I was a young'un. I can rarely find a program actually playing on TV for all the adverts inbetweeen (and lest not forget the BBC advertises it's own programs continually).

I've not watched the childrens channels & I assume/hope they're not allowed to constantly advertise toys, I will have to check.
 
Back
Top