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

BumbleB · 13-03-2010 12:05AM

The jokes in them are great !.:), They are just pure fantasy, if you are threatened by girls like this then you need lessons in confidence.

Glamour girls are very short girls who can't get into their dream job of catwalk modelling and dont really have a lot upstairs so they use their looks to carve out a career just long enough to snag a successful soccer player , who also hasn't a lot of upstairs etc.

I met a few out on the tear ,in London and believe you me you would not be jealous.They are good looking but too short to take serious really.

Walls · 13-03-2010 12:50AM

BumbleB wrote: »

The jokes in them are great !.:), They are just pure fantasy, if you are threatened by girls like this then you need lessons in confidence.

No I don't. They are rubbish and intended to be insulting and degrading. I seem to remember somewhere, I think it was the Porn Video Diaries, that only in Hetrosexual Male Porn does the other person get degraded. Same with these mags, the idea is that the reader doesn't get threatened.

Monkey61 · 13-03-2010 04:09PM

I'd echo the thought that anyone who feels insecure about their body due to images that they see in magazines clearly has confidence issues to begin with. As a woman, I would find it horribly insulting to my intelligence if anyone suggested that exposure to women with bodies more perfect than mine would make me feel insecure, or encourage me to develop an eating disorder etc.

I have no issues with the naked body - natural or surgically enhanced/fake tanned. Neither would I care in the future if my child (of any age) caught a glimpse of a naked body on a magazine cover. It is far more damaging (I think) to make nudity something secret and shameful that must be hidden away.

How hard is it really to explain to a 3 year old that adults like to look at the bodies of other adults and that is why they are on the front of magazines? Simple.

How do I feel about the culture of the commodification of women's bodies? As long as the women on the covers of Nuts etc are getting paid well (and I presume that they are earning a hell of a lot more than me) - then fair play to them. I find women's magazines such as Cosmo far, far more degrading to women than Zoo etc could ever be.

Walls · 13-03-2010 06:00PM

I don't have a problem with the female form, or the male one for that matter. I do have a problem with pornographic material of the type described, displayed in public. That doesn't make me a prude with confidence issues.

Nevyn · 13-03-2010 06:05PM

Some people seem to think that it's not porn if there is not female nipples or any genitals on show.

pikachucheeks · 13-03-2010 06:06PM

Thomas828 wrote: »

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.

I think Lad's mags have a similar reputation to Chick lit ; People read them, but are embarrassed to own up to it.
Both seem to have the same negative connotations about them (stereotypical in their portrayals of the two sexes, the wants, needs and interests of the sexes etc).

I feel sorry for men when it comes to magazines though, because by and large, women have a much better selection available to them. There's a huge variety of magazines for women and very few to cater for the male audience.
Magazines that are made for men often tend to be quite niche in their features- football, cars, boobs and gadgets.

Nevyn · 13-03-2010 06:22PM

Thats the thing it depends on what you consider to be aimed at men.
There are plenty of niche hobby magazines for a range of things which are 'men's' intrests and then women's mags seem to be trying to be it all.

Ciaran500 · 13-03-2010 06:26PM

Thaedydal wrote: »

Some people seem to think that it's not porn if there is not female nipples or any genitals on show.

When does it become porn then?

Giselle · 13-03-2010 08:32PM

BumbleB wrote: »

Glamour girls are very short girls who can't get into their dream job of catwalk modelling and dont really have a lot upstairs so they use their looks to carve out a career just long enough to snag a successful soccer player , who also hasn't a lot of upstairs etc.

I met a few out on the tear ,in London and believe you me you would not be jealous.They are good looking but too short to take serious really.

Too short to take seriously?

Huge insulting generalisation, topped off by an insanely ridiculous remark.

I'm sure they speak well of you though.

BumbleB · 13-03-2010 08:53PM

Giselle wrote: »

Too short to take seriously?

Huge insulting generalisation, topped off by an insanely ridiculous remark.

I'm sure they speak well of you though.

Well I got added on facebook .

2 questions ,

Are you a glamour model ?.

Are you short ,5' 0 ?.

If not, whats the issue ?. And its also ok for you to make a (sarcastic) generalisation on Nuts readers just purely by reading their comments ?.Its a point of view, it is turning into a debate ,I don't usually furnish a P.O.V unless I have it reasonably backed up in the real world.I also dont post if I come across a P.O.V that I dont agree with unless I have something to add to it.

Coriolanus · 13-03-2010 09:21PM

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I feel sorry for men when it comes to magazines though, because by and large, women have a much better selection available to them. There's a huge variety of magazines for women and very few to cater for the male audience.
Magazines that are made for men often tend to be quite niche in their features- football, cars, boobs and gadgets.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thats the thing it depends on what you consider to be aimed at men.
There are plenty of niche hobby magazines for a range of things which are 'men's' intrests and then women's mags seem to be trying to be it all.

I think that's the nail hit on the head. There's one or two at most proper Mens Interest magazines that cover a range of topics. And both of them place a heavy emphasis on the covers at least, to the female form.

Macha · 13-03-2010 09:50PM

Monkey61 wrote: »

I'd echo the thought that anyone who feels insecure about their body due to images that they see in magazines clearly has confidence issues to begin with. As a woman, I would find it horribly insulting to my intelligence if anyone suggested that exposure to women with bodies more perfect than mine would make me feel insecure, or encourage me to develop an eating disorder etc.

And some women would find the suggestion that those who are affected by these images must have "issues" horribly insulting. The incredible pervasiveness of these images and their negative underlying messages is an epidemic in our society and I don't think you have to have "issues" to have a problem with these images.

Monkey61 wrote: »

I have no issues with the naked body - natural or surgically enhanced/fake tanned. Neither would I care in the future if my child (of any age) caught a glimpse of a naked body on a magazine cover. It is far more damaging (I think) to make nudity something secret and shameful that must be hidden away.

This is not about nudity, it's about a certain type of nudity (to the exclusionof other types of nudity) and how prevalent it is in the mainstream media and highstreet. That's great that you don't have a problem with your child looking at them but what about someone who does? S/he doesn't have a choice in the matter as the simple act of going into a newsagent or turning on the TV means the child can be exposed to these images.

Monkey61 wrote: »

How hard is it really to explain to a 3 year old that adults like to look at the bodies of other adults and that is why they are on the front of magazines? Simple.

Because the trends that are going on here are not just nudity. It's a certain type of nudity (airbrushed to hell, fake, incredibly sexualised, low body fat, oversized breasts, tonnes of makeup), almost all women, and entirely geared towards the heterosexual male audience). Try explaining all that to a three year old, who also believes that the existence of Santa Claus is entirely plausible.

I would have no problem bringing my child to a nudist beach, which would involve far more nudity than these magazines.

BumbleB · 13-03-2010 09:56PM

The irish have to be the most s**ually uptight nation in the world.

Giselle · 13-03-2010 10:17PM

BumbleB wrote: »

Well I got added on facebook .

2 questions ,

Are you a glamour model ?.

Are you short ,5' 0 ?.

If not, whats the issue ?. And its also ok for you to make a (sarcastic) generalisation on Nuts readers just purely by reading their comments ?.Its a point of view, it is turning into a debate ,I don't usually furnish a P.O.V unless I have it reasonably backed up in the real world.I also dont post if I come across a P.O.V that I dont agree with unless I have something to add to it.

Two points.

My height or occupation are none of your business.

You made a sweeping generalisation about the intelligence of a group of people based on the ones you've met. It was an insulting one. You also tied a persons credibility up with their height, which is ridiculous.

You have your opinion, I have mine.

I'm happy you were validated by a facebook addition.

Well done.

Walls · 13-03-2010 10:29PM

So all of you lovely sexually expressive blokes shake your heads at us wimmin?

So you'd all be fine if it was gay soft porn then? Men on men? Men in the shower, men with the oil, men giving their views on the Pleasure Dome 2000 dildo? All happy with that, a pint of milk and a sliced pan?

Didn't think so.

panda100 · 13-03-2010 11:27PM

taconnol wrote: »

I would have no problem bringing my child to a nudist beach, which would involve far more nudity than these magazines.

I would be excatly the same.
I often go to nudist beaches while I'm on holiday. It reconnects me with what real bodies look like and makes me feel alot more comfortable with my body when I can let it all hang out so naturally. In Ireland you can't expose yourself in public and be seen as attractive until you've waxed or shaved,applied fake tan ,put on firming or anti-cellulite cream.......its all far too much effort and is completely removed from what so naturally sexually appealing about our bodies.

Its wonderful seeing thick bushes of pubic,leg and underarm hair along with veins,lumps and bumps that makes the human body so healthy and sexually attractive. That for me is sexual liberation,when people can be completly comfortable in their natural body and not spend thousands of euro and hours on their apperance to try and appear a fake sexual,that appeals to only a tiny minority of men.

I would want my children to really appreciate and accept the human body for what it is. Lads mag's to me are not sexually healthy for either women or men. Its not an anti-nudity thing but an anti-fakery thing.
Its funny that those who are pro-Lads mags keep refereeing to us who oppose them as 'prudes' who want to 'supress sexuality', when each of us keep quite consistently are stating the opposite.

BumbleB · 13-03-2010 11:43PM

Giselle wrote: »

Two points.

You also tied a persons credibility up with their height, which is ridiculous.

Credibilty and height what are you on about ?.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

I love the way you practically ignored the fact that you insulted the nuts readers while absolutely knowing nothing about them.

My original comment about glamour girls was in fact, tongue in cheek in case you didn't pick up on that.They were very sweet girls.

Macha · 13-03-2010 11:52PM

BumbleB wrote: »

Very sweet girls.

We're not here to be sweet.

Giselle · 13-03-2010 11:57PM

BumbleB wrote: »

Credibilty and height what are you on about ?.

too short to take seriously really

Your words.

BumbleB · 14-03-2010 12:10AM

taconnol wrote: »

We're not here to be sweet.

wasn't talking about ya .;)

Macha · 14-03-2010 12:15AM

BumbleB wrote: »

wasn't talking about ya .;)

Your edit changed the impression of your comment. sorry bout that.

BumbleB · 14-03-2010 01:30AM

Walls wrote: »

So all of you lovely sexually expressive blokes shake your heads at us wimmin?

So you'd all be fine if it was gay soft porn then? Men on men? Men in the shower, men with the oil, men giving their views on the Pleasure Dome 2000 dildo? All happy with that, a pint of milk and a sliced pan?

Didn't think so.

Where exactly did I mention gay porn, oil, dildo's or the like?.

philologos · 14-03-2010 05:37AM

I'm still trying to piece together, how there is so much disagreement over lads mags, in comparison to actual porn.

Monkey61 · 14-03-2010 09:16AM

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I feel sorry for men when it comes to magazines though, because by and large, women have a much better selection available to them. There's a huge variety of magazines for women and very few to cater for the male audience.
Magazines that are made for men often tend to be quite niche in their features- football, cars, boobs and gadgets.

Really? Is that actually true though. What do women's magazines offer except fashion, beauty, weight loss and sex tips, reviews of chick lit and so on. I'm genuinely asking because for me Cosmo etc all blend into one boring unified "this is what stereotypical girly woman wants" whole.

Macha · 14-03-2010 11:56AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm still trying to piece together, how there is so much disagreement over lads mags, in comparison to actual porn.

I suppose because porn is quite a private matter whereas the lads mags are part of the mainstream media and therefore form part of the thousands of messages and images that we all see (and indeed can hardly avoid) every day.

Part of the issue, as I see it, is that you don't have a choice about viewing the covers of these magazines - they are in practically every newsagent in the land.

Ickle Magoo · 14-03-2010 04:54PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm still trying to piece together, how there is so much disagreement over lads mags, in comparison to actual porn.

A) Porn isn't all airbrushed figures waxed within an inch of their lives - a lot of porn is just normal people.

Porn isn't on show down the local newsagents

C) You can choose whether to view porn, not so much choice with lads mags unless you avoid the whole shop

Actually, other than both showing tits, there is very little comparisons between most porn and lads mags, which would probably explain the disagreement...

grenache · 16-03-2010 06:25AM

talk about a storm in a D cup

Nevyn · 16-03-2010 10:10AM

Ciaran500 wrote: »

When does it become porn then?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare, carve
Date: 1858

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

The showing of genitals is considered hardcore porn,
if it doesn't it's softcore pron, but it's still porn;
sexually suggestive images which are designed to provoke a sexual reaction.

Nevyn · 16-03-2010 10:21AM

NSFW http://www.nuts.co.uk/93286/new-issue-of-nuts/photo/2

That is photographed and placed to be sexually provokative and it's the cover of a nuts mag. Also the rest of the site has plenty of naked breasts with a section for girls to upload pics of thier breasts to be assessed, it's a pron site by another name and the magazine is as bad.

Loaded it is the 'sister' mag of nuts.

http://www.loaded.co.uk/ and oh look lots of provocatively posed females in very little or toppless and an assess my ass section.

http://static.loaded.co.uk/images/82_260210_fellas2.jpg

The cover page is just as bad as nuts.

leonardbenn · 16-03-2010 10:24AM

panda100 wrote: »

When I was growing up men's magazines of the soft porn nature were completly restricted to the top shelf. Now whatever shop you go into you can't help but be confronted with naked women's breasts,torso's and bums.

Personally when I walk to my local spar to pick up a paper and a pint of milk,Id prefer not to be confronted with Channelle, or whatever Big Bro wannabee is on the front cover this week, flaunting their over-inflated plastic tits.
The thing I find most offensive about Zoo,Nuts etc is not the nudity in itself but the obscene fakeness of that nudity and the effect it has on men and women.

The Home Office in the UK recently published a report calling for these magazines to be restricted to the top shelf to try and curb the sexualisation of Children. Whatver about the children, at what age is it ever right for women to be objectified in such a manner?
On top of this 'ordinary' women are made feel inadequate about their breatss when they are constantly bombarded with these completly cartoonish globes.

Linky: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/25/lads-magazines-restricted-home-office-study

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/sexualisation-young-people.html

Would Irish lads and lassies welcome a similar move to confine these mags to the top shelf?

its life jim but not as we know it

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

Comments