Lads' mags.... from top shelf to every shelf.

panda100 · 03-03-2010 05:00PM

Woah cannot get over the Sacha Baron Cohen cover up. What horrific double standards.

There was something slightly similar last year where Tesco decided to cover up the word 'lesbian' in the dvd of 'Lesbian Vampire Killers' as the word was deemed offensive. However. a huge close up of heaving breasts was allowed to reamin unaltered on the dvd sleeve.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/aug/17/lesbian-vampire-killers-censorship

BumbleB · 03-03-2010 10:28PM

panda100 wrote: »

There was something slightly similar last year where Tesco decided to cover up the word 'lesbian' in the dvd of 'Lesbian Vampire Killers' as the word was deemed offensive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/aug/17/lesbian-vampire-killers-censorship

On the subject of Tescos.
Out of everywhere I've ever been across the world .Tesco's maynooth has to be the worst for blatently displaying those magazines.

Anyhow , those magazines will go into liquidation soon ,their respective readership is dwindling rapidly.

Wibbs · 03-03-2010 11:41PM

BumbleB wrote: »

Anyhow , those magazines will go into liquidation soon ,their respective readership is dwindling rapidly.

They defo seem of their time alright.

I used to be of the "ah sure its feck all. What's the harm". I have to say if you detach your mind a bit and look objectively, the amount of particular images of women that are out there is huge. Its like a background hum. A tinnitus of the culture. You dont notice it after a while. If at all.

Its bound to have an impact on more than a few levels. Unrealistic bodily expectations, unrealistic sexual expectations and unrealistic life expectations. The vast amount aimed at women. Now you could argue that it hits men too, but IMHO it does so to a lesser extent.

Men may go "phooowaaar" at some size 4 totty with photoshopped boobage, but the same guy will be perfectly happy with his size 12 girlfriend. In many cases I think the "phooowaaar" is a peer agreement more than a heartfelt(or groinfelt) statement.

I agree 100% with vicecreamsundae(great feckin username BTW). Women are just as visual as men. Indeed studies have shown they're more visually stimulated erotically than men. Add in that women are often more cerebrally erotically stimulated and its a wonder ye can walk to the shops without crumpling in a heap.

I also agree with vicecreamsundae about the magazines aimed at women. This is where it gets interesting for me anyway. Though the boobage is less "enhanced" in womens fashion mags, the general body shape is pretty close to mens mags, if skinnier. I'd say the women's mags are turning women on but like you say in very different ways. Dodgy ways too. Far more dodgy than the maxims of this world.

K-9 · 03-03-2010 11:44PM

BumbleB wrote: »

On the subject of Tescos.
Out of everywhere I've ever been across the world .Tesco's maynooth has to be the worst for blatently displaying those magazines.

Anyhow , those magazines will go into liquidation soon ,their respective readership is dwindling rapidly.

My local one is the same. It wasn't too bad until they changed the layout last year.

Was in the local hospital shop today and they had a couple of the magazines, on the top shelf albeit. Thought it was a bit inappropriate.

citytillidie · 09-03-2010 12:00AM

It seems you have made the forums of one of those mags

http://www.nuts.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=34067

Giselle · 09-03-2010 12:06AM

citytillidie wrote: »

It seems you have made the forums of one of those mags

http://www.nuts.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=34067

Had a quick look, and I'm surprised by the well thought out, rational, and complimentary comments therein.

Obviously its a forum frequented by intelligent and thoughtful posters, interested in the opinions of others.

:pac:

citytillidie · 09-03-2010 12:15AM

Giselle wrote: »

Had a quick look, and I'm surprised by the well thought out, rational, and complimentary comments therein.

Obviously its a forum frequented by intelligent and thoughtful posters, interested in the opinions of others.

:pac:

Very true I guess we found out what the readership is like

Sparky_Larks · 09-03-2010 12:19AM

To those who have an issue with Lads mags not being on the top shelf.
Have you asked your shopkeeper to put them up there, If they don't then move shop, and tell your shopkeep you are moving.

As for the effect these images have on girls. Personally I think the airbrushed photshoped images shown in Fashion mags, where necks are elongated. Checkbones added etc are much more damaging as theses are passed off os normal.

Pyr0 · 09-03-2010 08:57AM

It's not something I've ever really taken notice of myself, porn mags, Nuts and all the other "ladz magz" never really did anything for me anyway. Back in the day when one of the lads would get hold of a mag we'd all stare in amazement at yer wan with the massive boobiez and other such things and think "that's what a sexy woman is". These days though I much prefer the natural healthy look to a woman, the fake plastic image just doesn't do anything for me. I wouldn't even turn my head twice at a blatantly fake person.

I agree that it's appropriate to have such magazines on the top shelf away from children, not purely because it'd influence them to do things earlier than they should but mainly due to the fact that it'd create an unrealistic image of the female/male body and what 'beauty' should be. Sadly though, you can't keep children away from other types of advertising and projection of such ideas.

Walls · 09-03-2010 10:05PM

Those magazines are low brow filth, and intended to portray a somewhat unrealistic view of women, especially with the size of their breasts. Definitely top shelf material, to say the least.

And the retort of 'prude' is stupid and wrong, especially these days.

philologos · 09-03-2010 10:34PM

panda100 wrote: »

Whatver about the children, at what age is it ever right for women to be objectified in such a manner?

When the porn topic came up a while ago not many women on this forum seemed to be concerned about this at all.

How is this any different? If anything its softer.:P

I agree with you though OP, we need to rethink how we view sexuality to maintain our respect for one another.

Ickle Magoo · 09-03-2010 10:46PM

Jakkass wrote: »

When the porn topic came up a while ago not many women on this forum seemed to be concerned about this at all.

How is this any different? If anything its softer.:P

I agree with you though OP, we need to rethink how we view sexuality to maintain our respect for one another.

I don't have any issue with porn or sexualised images of adults, especially in my own home where I can restrict the kids viewing of certain sites, monitor internet ussage, etc, my issue here is the lack of control re who can view the images when places on a low shelf in a shop open to the public. Surely you can see the difference between the two?

philologos · 09-03-2010 10:53PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't have any issue with porn or sexualised images of adults, especially in my own home where I can restrict the kids viewing of certain sites, monitor internet ussage, etc, my issue here is the lack of control re who can view the images when places on a low shelf in a shop open to the public. Surely you can see the difference between the two?

panda100 is bringing up sexual objectification of women in her post, as an second objection to such magazines being around. Your concerns might differ, but I'm not dealing with the children issue currently.

Ickle Magoo · 09-03-2010 10:57PM

Jakkass wrote: »

panda100 is bringing up sexual objectification of women in her post, as an second objection to such magazines being around. Your concerns might differ, but I'm not dealing with the children issue currently.

Well, stop bringing up another thread claiming;

When the porn topic came up a while ago not many women on this forum seemed to be concerned about this at all.

if you are referring to one person's post, I posted on the other thread. :rolleyes:

Busi_Girl08 · 09-03-2010 10:58PM

I just wish some shops would stop stacking the movie magazines next to them.

It's slightly embarassing when you are reaching for Empire, and it looks like you are leering towards Nuts

philologos · 09-03-2010 11:03PM

Ickle Magoo, it's perfectly valid to bring up the other thread, as it is telling as to the diachotomy in opinion people seem to be having.

What is different between the objectification in pornography, than the objectification in lads mags? If anything lads mags are innocent in comparison. That's what I find confusing about panda100's post.

Giselle · 09-03-2010 11:05PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo, it's perfectly valid to bring up the other thread, as it is telling as to the diachotomy in opinion people seem to be having.

What is different between the objectification in pornography, than the objectification in lads mags? If anything lads mags are innocent in comparison. That's what I find confusing about panda100's post.

I don't know the other thread, but THIS thread is about where the ''lad's mags'' are put out for sale.

Not particularly their content.

philologos · 09-03-2010 11:07PM

Read the OP, panda100 asks:

Whatver about the children, at what age is it ever right for women to be objectified in such a manner?

It's perfectly on topic.

Ickle Magoo · 09-03-2010 11:12PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the OP, panda100 asks:

It's perfectly on topic.

It's not perfectly on-topic for you to take panda's question and then try to make some kind of twisted projected moral statement about tLLers in general and past discussion on adults watching porn. THIS thread WAS about lads mags getting lower on the shelves. :mad:

philologos · 09-03-2010 11:16PM

It's a twisted moral statement to ask about the difference between the treatment of porn in one thread, and to ask about the treatment of Nuts and other such lads mags in another?

All I'm doing is questioning an apparent contradiction. There's nothing twisted about it, and if you do find it "twisted" you should report the post.

Walls · 09-03-2010 11:25PM

Porn is in the normal course of events, usually viewed privately. Nuts and the like are pornographic in nature and publically displayed. To ask about porn is to discuss it in principle. Asking about Nuts etc being displayed in public is to inquire as to views in the particular.

Porn one thing, Nuts etc in public another, okay?

Ickle Magoo · 09-03-2010 11:27PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a twisted moral statement to ask about the difference between the treatment of porn in one thread, and to ask about the treatment of Nuts and other such lads mags in another?

All I'm doing is questioning an apparent contradiction. There's nothing twisted about it, and if you do find it "twisted" you should report the post.

Your statement is a twisting of the facts/position/context that others have posted in, not twisted as in wicked, Jackass.

As you brought up a thread I posted in, I gave you my reason for having no issue with one and an issue with the mags on full display on lower shelves in this thread and you just dismissed it. Porn sexually objectifies men and women for viewing by adults, if newsagents were playing porn I would object to that too - what's the contradiction?

philologos · 09-03-2010 11:34PM

Walls wrote: »

Porn is in the normal course of events

Is it really? Doesn't porn dwell on fantasy situations? Do you not think it is perhaps a generalisation of porn to say that it is merely chronicling "normal events", I mean there is a huge amount of it presumably which differs.

Walls wrote: »

Nuts and the like are pornographic in nature and publically displayed.

Other posters have pointed out that they are a lot more light by pornography standards.

Walls wrote: »

To ask about porn is to discuss it in principle. Asking about Nuts etc being displayed in public is to inquire as to views in the particular.

Again, the question was raised about the objectification of women in the OP, as such it is valid to explore it seriously. The fact that this thread is even being brought up in the first place is clearly because there is some form of issue with the pervasiveness of a society where it is common for people to objectify others sexually.

Walls wrote: »

Porn one thing, Nuts etc in public another, okay?

Both go hand in hand in the objectification issue. However, it's hardly mutually exclusive since you yourself referred to Nuts as being 'pornographic in nature'.

Ickle Magoo: Report the post if you have an issue.

shellykbookey · 09-03-2010 11:38PM

Are the Brits gonna get rid of page 3 too, I always though it was creepy. cos any time I've seen it the girl has been 18 or 19, but its a british institution? Lads mags have girls in bikinis to make lads feel better, womens mags have women in bikinis to make women feel like crap so they buy whatever designer or product so they can look like the person in the bikini.

Not all lads mags are "lads mags" either, I've worked out over the last few years that if a lads mag usually has a girl from big brother/hollyoalks/Danniel Llyod on the cover its gonna have topless pics in it. If its got the likes of the Saturdays on it there's not gonna be topless shots in it and you dont need the brown bag of shame. Keep the lot on the top shelf for the kidds sake but you'd have to put men's health/ women's health/ top santie up there with the covers with two strategicaly placed stars

panda100 · 10-03-2010 12:44AM

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

I just wish some shops would stop stacking the movie magazines next to them.

It's slightly embarassing when you are reaching for Empire, and it looks like you are leering towards Nuts

Tell me about it. I had to complain to Easons in Limerick because they have my fave magazines, Private Eye and The Village, right in between all the lads mags.
I guess movies and politics are still seen as male only intrests.

As for the Nuts forum thinking it's hypocritical that we have a male drool thread and then oppose the soft porn that is allowed to adorn our newstands each day............
The male drool thread appreciates men or all shapes,sizes and personalitys. It is an all-embracing melting pot of completely different types of men from all nationalities,backgrounds,all with completly different looks. I can't find one that has surgically altered their apperance, or in particular their sexual organs, to appear more attractive to women.

This is completly healthy and normal compared to the Lads mag's which use the same mould of vacant, pouting,silicone enhanced women they try and condition men to lust over. Unlike the male drool thread on here,the image of 'beauty' pepetrated by lads mags is fake. Women have hair all over their bodies just like men, women's breasts come in all shapes and sizes, and women don't pout when their sexually aroused!
I'd have no problem with the nudity If it was real but it is creating false images for both men and women,leaving men feeling confused over what they should lust over and how they should treat women, and leaving women depressed about their bodies.

Fol20 · 10-03-2010 02:05AM

This coming from a fela, I actually never got into the hole nuts zoo magazines,as many have said, its all fake when the natural look is much nicer imo..Who wants to see big fake breasts compared to nice average natural looking ones.

It never bothered me where they were on a stand, i doubt if you put them on the top shelf,it will make much of a difference for children.they will see it no matter what anyway..

I have to say though that the cover of mags now days are much more revealing than they were 5 years ago.If something was to be changed i think it should be the cover more than anything

Coriolanus · 10-03-2010 02:16AM

Not being facetious here, but you'd have to include mandatory shelving statues in any legislation. The Spar I frequent has the magazines arrayed in front of a window, so the highest shelf is no more than five foot high. I've never seen -actual- porn mind, but I can't see how they could make the Nutz etc any less accessible without completely re-arranging the shop.

Anyway, generally speaking I think that the Irish and British (and the Anglophone world in general, to the extent that I'm familiar with it) have this freakish duality going on in our collective psyche. In our private lives we're prudish, God forbid a child should see a naked person in the flesh, but sexualised imagery abounds otherwise. Someone earlier mentioned the growing awareness of the disparity between the type of women and men portrayed in explicit imagery and of what men and women actually look like taking a long time to fully develop. I honestly think that process needs to be speeded up. Certainly, take this kind of thing and limit it in the public sphere, but I do think part of the process has to encompass familiarising children, or at least young adults, with what real, naked people look like.

Wibbs · 10-03-2010 09:52AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: Report the post if you have an issue.

OK folks, good debate, but lets not start nitpicking or tit for tat stuff. Thanks.

Walls · 10-03-2010 01:58PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it really? Doesn't porn dwell on fantasy situations? Do you not think it is perhaps a generalisation of porn to say that it is merely chronicling "normal events", I mean there is a huge amount of it presumably which differs.

The sentence read "Porn is in the normal course of events a private thing." I made no reference to it being normal or otherwise. Rule 34 applies, in my opinion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Both go hand in hand in the objectification issue. However, it's hardly mutually exclusive since you yourself referred to Nuts as being 'pornographic in nature'.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing. Nuts and its ilk is pornographic; its not literature, reference, education...It is about titillation and objectification, and encouraging that view in others. Fine if you are into that, many are, and interestingly I have not given my views on porn per say. However, I have stated that I have a problem with it in public. Can you be a bit clearly in your posts, please? You seem to be arguing in circles.

Thomas828 · 12-03-2010 11:29PM

Lad's mags aren't easy to ignore. They really are right in your face. My opinion of lad's mags is very low. Leafing through one of them makes me feel unclean. They're for men too inhibited to buy a proper porno mag.

Lads' mags.... from top shelf to every shelf.

Comments