Crosswords2 mins ago
Should Lads' Mags Have To Cover Up?
And is it fair that Zoo, Nuts, FHM etc are being told to cover up, when Attitude (which features equally 'salacious' pictures of men on it's front covers) isn't?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
since none of these publications are in any way illegal, it ill becomes the co-op to set themselves up as arbiters of what may or may not constitute good taste.
democracy exists so that the views of the electorate can be fairly represented. if there is to be a move to ban these publications, how about the pressure groups use the legitimate political processes open to them, instead of threatening, etc?
democracy exists so that the views of the electorate can be fairly represented. if there is to be a move to ban these publications, how about the pressure groups use the legitimate political processes open to them, instead of threatening, etc?
Fifity years ago we lads and lasses used to laugh at our grandparents hang-ups over legs, breats (sorry white meat) legs again (sorry dark meat) and socks for pianos.
and running as fast as one's limbs would carry one.
I feel now like a Regency rake in mid victorian England listenning to stories about Queen Vic's 'wicked uncles' of thirty y before
and running as fast as one's limbs would carry one.
I feel now like a Regency rake in mid victorian England listenning to stories about Queen Vic's 'wicked uncles' of thirty y before
I don't see it as 'threatening' anyone, mushroom. It's up to the Co-op or any retailer to decide whether they want to stock a product. As I see it they are saying they'll continue to stock it provided they make this change.
I'd have thought they had bigger issues but they do have to appease lots of political pressure groups
I'd have thought they had bigger issues but they do have to appease lots of political pressure groups
Well since it is driven by a bunch of 'ladies in comfortable shoes' it is highly unlikely they will aim it at the men.
Provided the covers are legal, the model not naked and not in a sexual pose I dont see a problem. It is also advisable to keep them on the top shelf along with other 'art pamphlets' as you probably dont want your toddler looking thought it and asking awkward questions!
I wonder if they will also aim it at the slimming mags like my wife has, many of them have scantily clad ladies on them and not 'big boned' ones either.
Provided the covers are legal, the model not naked and not in a sexual pose I dont see a problem. It is also advisable to keep them on the top shelf along with other 'art pamphlets' as you probably dont want your toddler looking thought it and asking awkward questions!
I wonder if they will also aim it at the slimming mags like my wife has, many of them have scantily clad ladies on them and not 'big boned' ones either.
//I'd have thought they had bigger issues but they do have to appease lots of political pressure groups//
do they have to appease? if they don't, is it then fair comment for pressure groups to vandalise, etc? (ok not happened in this case, but other issues that have grown to be contentious have involved alleged illegal activity by pressure groups)
do they have to appease? if they don't, is it then fair comment for pressure groups to vandalise, etc? (ok not happened in this case, but other issues that have grown to be contentious have involved alleged illegal activity by pressure groups)
factor-fiction
Actually, I'm not sure that it's political pressure groups who have demanded this...looking at the report, it seems that the Co-op have done this unilaterally.
I can understand where they're coming from - parents can use filters on their PCs at home to block pornography, but arguably, titles such as those being asked to cover up are soft porn too (especially the Daily Star).
Also, is it really censorship to continue selling the magazines, albeit with modesty covers? The material will still be available, but kids will no longer be able to gaze upon rack after rack...of errr...racks.
Actually, I'm not sure that it's political pressure groups who have demanded this...looking at the report, it seems that the Co-op have done this unilaterally.
I can understand where they're coming from - parents can use filters on their PCs at home to block pornography, but arguably, titles such as those being asked to cover up are soft porn too (especially the Daily Star).
Also, is it really censorship to continue selling the magazines, albeit with modesty covers? The material will still be available, but kids will no longer be able to gaze upon rack after rack...of errr...racks.
-- answer removed --
this has been covered on here fairly recently, and perhaps as i said before define lags mags, some might consider it the likes of those you listed, however some of these mags are far more pornographic, some with quite explicit pictures, so if some shops don't want them on display as some don't then fine, put them on the top shelf as one of our local stores has done.
Maybe I could have phrased it better. There are pressure groups that push for the co-op to take a particular stance on ethical, animal cruelty social, political,gender, race, etc. Very occasionally there are threats (Huntingdon Sciences) but generally it's just lobbying, and the Co-op seems reluctant to offend such pressure groups as they do not want to be seen as being non-PC in any way.
Related: http://
Only 22% of ABers would like to see "Lads Mags" removed from the shelves of supermarkets.
Only 22% of ABers would like to see "Lads Mags" removed from the shelves of supermarkets.
The background to the issue is that front covers of magazines like Zoo, Nuts, etc provides a kind of "sexual wallpaper" when on prominent and/or easily accessible display, especially where it can be easily seen by children, thus indirectly affecting their development and attitudes towards sexuality and women.
Not sure I agree with that chain of reasoning - I have not seen a great deal of evidence about it - but it is the same logic and reasoning behind it that governs protests over "sexualised clothes ranges" for young girls, for example.
The Co-Op claim that what has prompted this response is demand from their own customers and colleagues, and are already using opaque shields as a form of cover. They are, as a commercial entity, perfectly entitled to choose what they wish to sell - they must be aware of the possible loss of income that their stance might entail - just as consumers are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere if they disapprove of the Co-Ops actions.
Personally I quite admire the stance of a company putting a moral issue ahead of profit. Like PP I do have some concerns over whether this heralds a kind of resurgent public prudishness, but if the Co-Op want to take this stance I am pretty relaxed about it.....
Not sure I agree with that chain of reasoning - I have not seen a great deal of evidence about it - but it is the same logic and reasoning behind it that governs protests over "sexualised clothes ranges" for young girls, for example.
The Co-Op claim that what has prompted this response is demand from their own customers and colleagues, and are already using opaque shields as a form of cover. They are, as a commercial entity, perfectly entitled to choose what they wish to sell - they must be aware of the possible loss of income that their stance might entail - just as consumers are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere if they disapprove of the Co-Ops actions.
Personally I quite admire the stance of a company putting a moral issue ahead of profit. Like PP I do have some concerns over whether this heralds a kind of resurgent public prudishness, but if the Co-Op want to take this stance I am pretty relaxed about it.....
From the article: "Gender equality groups UK Feminista and Object joined forces with lawyers to launch the Lose the Lads' Mags campaign earlier this year."
I think it's quite possible that these groups contacted the Co-op on this issue. But maybe the Co-op were proactive, saw an opportunity to win some brownie-points from activists, and took the initiative, and got some wider publicity for themselves in the process.
I think it's a matter for the Co-op really.
I think it's quite possible that these groups contacted the Co-op on this issue. But maybe the Co-op were proactive, saw an opportunity to win some brownie-points from activists, and took the initiative, and got some wider publicity for themselves in the process.
I think it's a matter for the Co-op really.
Point of clarification, AB Editor - that poll is on whether lads' mags should be removed, whereas this is about whether they should 'cover up'.
I see a potential problem for the Co-op. If these magazines are indeed covered with opaque materials, it will make them look like real porn magazines, and will potentially put customers off buying them, for fear that they will look sleazy.
I see a potential problem for the Co-op. If these magazines are indeed covered with opaque materials, it will make them look like real porn magazines, and will potentially put customers off buying them, for fear that they will look sleazy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.