[quote]Protesters have targeted Tesco stores across the country to urge the supermarket giant to stop selling "deeply harmful" lads' mags.
The Lose the Lads' Mags campaign, led by pressure groups UK Feminista and Object, staged demonstrations in opposition to the retail chain's decision to continue selling magazines such as Nuts and Zoo to over 18s.
Displaying naked and near-naked images on magazine covers fuels attitudes underpinning violence against women and leave retailers facing the risk of legal action, the campaign group said. Exposing staff and customers to such images could constitute sex discrimination or sexual harassment, it claimed.
Around 50 demonstrators gathered outside Tesco's Regent Street store in central London displaying a banner with the phrase: "Sexism - every lads' mag helps."[/quote]
[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/NH2qeDWT2SfgpVy1M2Otnw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT03OTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/pressass/24082013023933UKNews6-1.jpg[/img]
[url]http://uk.news.yahoo.com/lads-mags-campaign-target-tesco-022345271.html#lAEblvd[/url]
Hooray, censorship.
i guess i agree with this. some of the shit in these mags really isn't fit for publication.
edit: to the disagrees, check out [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study"]this.[/URL] it furthers rape culture and promotes really fucking unhealthy attitudes towards humans.
In all seriousness, though, so long as the stores don't display the magazines out in the open and only get them for customers upon request, it's no big deal.
Do they not realise that Nuts and Zoo are both online so even if they got it taken out of shops it'd make fuck all difference.
[QUOTE=archangel125;41951466]In all seriousness, though, so long as the stores don't display the magazines out in the open and only get them for customers upon request, it's no big deal.[/QUOTE]
in a lot of shops they're hidden behind plastic stands on top shelf, but a lot of chains ([URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387384/Co-op-takes-Nuts-shelves-publisher-refuses-ultimatum-lads-mag-use-modesty-bags.html"]like the co op[/URL]) have axed them.
[QUOTE=markg06;41951472]Do they not realise that Nuts and Zoo are both online so even if they got it taken out of shops it'd make fuck all difference.[/QUOTE]
it's part of the movement i guess, to remove one part of it from public areas.
[editline]24th August 2013[/editline]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study[/url]
this though sums up part of the problem with lads mags, well a pretty big part of it.
im being oppressed
This is so fucking stupid, they are hidden anyway so it's not like kids or women can even really see them unless they look for it.
These women are so hypocritical, have they ever looked at their own mags?
who even looks at physical porn anymore, just use the internet
[QUOTE=tdnoob;41951436] led by pressure groups UK [B]Feminista[/B] and Object[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2eozvAtlh1rtt696o1_1280.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=markg06;41951472]Do they not realise that Nuts and Zoo are both online so even if they got it taken out of shops it'd make fuck all difference.[/QUOTE]
The difference is, that you need to actively seek them out online. On the other hand, them being in shops leads to a lot of uh unwanted exposure.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41951464]i guess i agree with this. some of the shit in these mags really isn't fit for publication.[/QUOTE]
I'm certainly not a fan of these magazines, but just because you believe in that "some of the shit in these mags" doesn't mean that they shouldn't be sold.
I mean some have the same claim about 'violent' videogames that "some of the shit in these games really isn't fit for being published"
[quote=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387384/Co-op-takes-Nuts-shelves-publisher-refuses-ultimatum-lads-mag-use-modesty-bags.html]
'As has been widely reported in the media in recent weeks, this is no longer a question of whether or not you like men’s magazines, it is a question of how far you can restrict the public’s ability to consume free and legal media before it becomes censorship.'[/quote]
I've always seen them with a black cover over them, which I think is plenty enough.
It never ceases to amaze me how completely out of touch feminists are; Is soft-core pornography in magazines really their primary concern? Even if they were censored what difference would it make? There's a lot of porn on the internet.
Yeah its not like Heat magazine publishes naked pictures of and sexualises men or anything.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;41951579]The difference is, that you need to actively seek them out online. On the other hand, them being in shops leads to a lot of uh unwanted exposure.[/QUOTE]
What difference does it make? It's just depictions of the human body, even if you come across it accidentally what harm could it possibly cause?
I'd be more worried about celeb gossip mags than a pair of boobs.
Some of the stuff in those is terrible
[QUOTE=Noss;41951647]Yeah its not like Heat magazine publishes naked pictures of and sexualises men or anything.[/QUOTE]
There's also lots of gay magazines like QX and Boyz that regularly post extremely provocative pictures of men, no one ever brings these up in the censorship discussion. Why are depictions of sexualised women bad but sexualised men okay?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41951675]There's also lots of gay magazines like QX and Boyz that regularly post extremely provocative picture of men, no one ever brings these up in the censorship discussion. Why are depictions of sexualised women bad but sexualised men okay?[/QUOTE]
Because Nuts and Zoo are more popular and therefore worth talking about more because there is a higher risk of exposure to those who don't want it? I'm all for getting rid of them to be honest, but not because I find them sexist. Women voluntarily sign to be in those magazines, and it's not like men aren't over-sexualised in women's magazines either. Hell, some of the photos in there are not consented by the male in them.
I just want to lose them because seeing tits when you're completely not expecting tits is awkward.
And seeing a plastic bar in front of magazines [I]implies[/I] tits and the implication of tits is still awkward.
It's not the right way to go about it; the problem is much more fundamental than this, and can only be fixed at that level. This will do very little. It's still a big problem though.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41951675]There's also lots of gay magazines like QX and Boyz that regularly post extremely provocative picture of men, no one ever brings these up in the censorship discussion. Why are depictions of sexualised women bad but sexualised men okay?[/QUOTE]
Because anti-female stuff is a bigger problem than anti-male. The latter [I]is still a problem[/I]. It's just a question of focus. One is a bigger problem than the other; more focus should be placed on the bigger problem, but the other should not be ignored.
I'm just laughing at how silly the term "lad's mags" is. Almost sillier than "drink driving".
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41951464]i guess i agree with this. some of the shit in these mags really isn't fit for publication.
edit: to the disagrees, check out [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study"]this.[/URL] it furthers rape culture and promotes really fucking unhealthy attitudes towards humans.[/QUOTE]
[I]'Smash her on a park bench'[/I] just sounds like lad banter.
There's plenty of girls out there who would love being smashed on a park bench.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;41951704]It's not the right way to go about it; the problem is much more fundamental than this, and can only be fixed at that level. This will do very little. It's still a big problem though.
Because anti-female stuff is a bigger problem than anti-male. The latter [i]is still a problem[/i]. It's a question of focus. One is a bigger problem than the other; more focus should be placed on the bigger problem, but the other should not be ignored.[/QUOTE]
Neither one is a problem, it's just soft-core porn. I wasn't saying that QX was "anti-male" it's not, it's pro-male to the point of fetishism and it's read by men who like that sort of thing just as Nuts is read by men who like sexualised women and Heat is read by women who like sexulasied men and there's probably a lesbian equivalent as well. If it didn't have some pornographic content in it no one would buy it and I'm sure the same could be side for Nuts or Zoo.
The fundamental question is what harm does very soft core pornography cause? and is is it sufficient harm to justify the censorship of it?
[QUOTE=archangel125;41951466]In all seriousness, though, so long as the stores don't display the magazines out in the open and only get them for customers upon request, it's no big deal.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. Personally I don't see the problem with having them out on display.
The only real problem is if a child sees it. However most 'lad's mags' don't show anything on the cover.
But surely this would make these kinds of magazines just as bad as The Sun and it's Page 3.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;41951697]Because Nuts and Zoo are more popular and therefore worth talking about more because there is a higher risk of exposure to those who don't want it? I'm all for getting rid of them to be honest, but not because I find them sexist. Women voluntarily sign to be in those magazines, and it's not like men aren't over-sexualised in women's magazines either. Hell, some of the photos in there are not consented by the male in them.
I just want to lose them because seeing tits when you're completely not expecting tits is awkward.
And seeing a plastic bar in front of magazines [I]implies[/I] tits and the implication of tits is still awkward.[/QUOTE]
Just because you find something awkward doesn't mean something should be banned. I know a lot of people who find interracial kisses and gay marriage awkward; I don't think that means we should ban the depiction of them. It would set an absurd precedent if things could be censored because some people felt awkward, it would allow you to censor almost anything.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;41951730][I]'Smash her on a park bench'[/I] just sounds like lad banter.
There's plenty of girls out there who would love being smashed on a park bench.[/QUOTE]
um
case in point i think
[editline]24th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ultradar;41951769]
But surely this would make these kinds of magazines just as bad as The Sun and it's Page 3.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner[/url]
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41951778]um
case in point i think[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of misogynist stuff I thought died with the Victorians. Women can like sex, pretending they're all pure angels is just sexist.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41951788]This is the kind of misogynist stuff I thought died with the Victorians. Women can like sex, pretending they're all pure angels is just sexist.[/QUOTE]
I think you're misinterpreting what he's trying to say.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41951464] it furthers rape culture and promotes really fucking unhealthy attitudes towards humans.[/QUOTE]
:rolleye:
what the hell is this nonsense. So porn is evil now?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41951788]This is the kind of misogynist stuff I thought died with the Victorians. Women can like sex, pretending they're all pure angels is just sexist.[/QUOTE]
is this you trying to turn it around so that i am actually the one being the sexist?
i dunno your point wasn't very clear.
but yes i understand the fundamental fact that [I]sex is fun.[/I]
however, rape culture, the normalisation of taking control from women and the belief that "every woman is up for it, you just need to convince her" is the problem. lads mags further this. sure, you are all clever enough to separate fantasy from reality, but not everyone is.
if this is your main form of media and knowledge on the opposite sex, and all you're being told is that women love sex you just need to make them want it, you think that isn't gonna cause some damage?
for example, a friend of mine tried to get a girl drunk so she would have sex with him at a party. he planned this ahead, kept getting her drunk. eventually it didn't work (because she realised what was going on) but he believed that removing her ability to consent freely was perfectly fine, and he didn't see the problem when we confronted him about it.
[editline]24th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aman;41951850]:rolleye:
what the hell is this nonsense. So porn is evil now?[/QUOTE]
if you can consume it harmlessly, no.
but if you take it as it is and consume irresponsibly, yes.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41951778]um
case in point i think
[editline]24th August 2013[/editline]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41951464] promotes really fucking unhealthy attitudes towards humans.[/QUOTE]
Well the definition of 'healthy attitudes' varies depending on location/ time and the beliefs about it.
Right now, in the west, we're in this odd post-religious-dictatorship limbo where nudity/porn/sex is taboo to a lot of people.
[I]'Oh no the boobies'[/I] is completely pathetic. All the lust and unhealthy attitude you speak of came about [b]because[/b] of sexual repression.
Sexual repression = repressing what humans naturally did a lot more freely and openly than we currently do. AKA what religion did.
Did cavemen stand, mouths agape at boobies and penis being waved around or complain to mommy? No. It wasn't an issue because no-one had invented the issue back then.
In Ancient Greece everyone strode around naked and nobody gave a fuck (apart from a literal one). It was just the done thing at the time.
Even now there's cultures where no one cares about nudity. It's just another silly pointless thing we like to take offense to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
