Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

123468

Comments

  • #152
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    leonardbenn if you've nothing to add to the discussion then dont post. Thanks

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #153
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    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.
    Full frontal nudity is still considered softcore porn, it becomes hardcore when theres oral, penetration or ejaculation shown.

    Any picture of a woman can easily provoke a sexual reaction in men. Classic example that spread around the internet last year - http://imgur.com/5Zfl0.jpg. Thats just a woman pole vaulter waiting to jump but that would provoke a sexual reaction in any warm blooded man and by your definition is porn.


  • #154
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The picture is not posed in a manner to illicit that response, it is not pron.
    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

    It depicts sports behaviour.


  • #155
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    +1 its down to the intention behind the image. Now sometimes that can be a grey area, but generally not. Like art, I know it when I see it.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #156
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The picture is not posed in a manner to illicit that response, it is not pron.

    It depicts sports behaviour.

    When you compare your post about nuts to the picture I posted, my one looks far more erotic in my eyes. Pictures of girls laughing and smiling topless isn't erotic.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    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.

    That is what I don't get, the likes of the assess my ass and upload pics of their breasts. How desperate is that? :eek:

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #158
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,884 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    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.

    So if pics of female ass is porn. What about the pics in the drool thread of male ass? Is that not porn also?

    Or is it a case its only male nudity so it does not count

    ******



  • #159
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    citytillidie wrote: »
    So if pics of female ass is porn. What about the pics in the drool thread of male ass? Is that not porn also?

    Or is it a case its only male nudity so it does not count

    I think that overly sexualised images of either on magazine covers should not be placed beside children's comics, it's not a radical notion.

    What makes you think I am in favour of that thread?
    If you think that there are pics which break the site rules as they say no porn then report them.


  • #160
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,560 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    While I definitely agree that the likes of Nuts etc. should be kept on the top shelves I think the same is true of many of the girlie mags with photos of celebrities that have "piled on the pounds!1112eleventy!!!!" or 'having a bad hair day' or, even worse, the ones that put photos of anorexic stars on the cover. A 3 year old doesn't get the context of the star being on the magasine cover for being grotesque looking, she just sees a famous lady on the cover whos really skinny...

    Magazines aimed at adults shouldn't be at children's height ranges unless there's absolutely nothing in them that could cause offense to anyone (e.g. Radio Times, Horse & Hound, Architecture Today etc.) Anything with 'Diet Tips' (/don't get me - or G'em -started on these ones!); 'Biggest SEX Survey EVAR!' or 'My Rape Ordeal at the hands of Beast Uncle' should be kept out of reach of minors.


  • #161
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


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

    What about cosmetic surgery in pornography? - I mean, it's airbrushed, so what? Plenty of things in our society are fake. I don't see how this makes it worse than it being real.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What about cosmetic surgery in pornography? - I mean, it's airbrushed, so what? Plenty of things in our society are fake. I don't see how this makes it worse than it being real.

    I'm guessing you don't have much experience with porn. Out of the billions of pornographic images available, how many participants do you think have had cosmetic surgery?

    I don't think it is better or worse, my issue is where it is located. You are the one trying to suss out why there is a difference of opinion between porn being watched on the internet and the images on the cover of a lads mag in a newsagents...I think it's fairly self explanatory.


  • #163
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I don't think it is better or worse, my issue is where it is located. You are the one trying to suss out why there is a difference of opinion between porn being watched on the internet and the images on the cover of a lads mag in a newsagents...I think it's fairly self explanatory.

    It's probably much easier to find material that is much heavier than anything you will see in your average newsagents on the internet.


  • #164
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's probably much easier to find material that is much heavier than anything you will see in your average newsagents on the internet.

    Absolutely...I'm not sure why being able to find bestiality on the web makes lads mags on lower shelves more acceptable tho...


  • #165
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Absolutely...I'm not sure why being able to find bestiality on the web makes lads mags on lower shelves more acceptable tho...

    I'm not saying it does. Rather I am suggesting that we should deal with the root of the problem, which is sexual objectification, rather if we instil an idea that the opposite sex although attractive in many cases, are also people to be respected fully rather than something to get your jollies to?

    I mean, the main issue seems to be that people are removing sexuality outside of its intended context, in a loving relationship and exposing it to the world. Perhaps reclaiming this idea would do us a lot of good.


  • #166
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not saying it does. Rather I am suggesting that we should deal with the root of the problem, which is sexual objectification, rather if we instil an idea that the opposite sex although attractive in many cases, are also people to be respected fully rather than something to get your jollies to?

    I mean, the main issue seems to be that people are removing sexuality outside of its intended context, in a loving relationship and exposing it to the world. Perhaps reclaiming this idea would do us a lot of good.

    Well, it would if general sexual objectification or indeed indulging in sexual behaviours outside (what YOU consider to be) it's intended context was, infact, an issue at all. I don't consider either an issue, I just want product placement to be age appropriate.


  • #167
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Well, it would if general sexual objectification or indeed indulging in sexual behaviours outside (what YOU consider to be) it's intended context was, infact, an issue at all. I don't consider either an issue, I just want product placement to be age appropriate.

    All I am saying is, the very reason that this situation arises the first place, is more an issue of how liberally we view publicised sexuality, or rather how much we tolerate it.


  • #168
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    All I am saying is, the very reason that this situation arises the first place, is more an issue of how liberally we view publicised sexuality, or rather how much we tolerate it.

    Yeah, possibly. I think it's probably more to do with lack of common-sense/legislation with regards to shop owners and the new phenomena that is/was lads mags and where they stand in terms of adult publications than anything else.


  • #169
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Yeah, possibly. I think it's probably more to do with lack of common-sense/legislation with regards to shop owners and the new phenomena that is/was lads mags and where they stand in terms of adult publications than anything else.

    Ideally, we shouldn't have to have red tape everywhere to begin with, it should be just an accepted cultural norm to regard sexuality as something private.


  • #170
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Ideally, we shouldn't have to have red tape everywhere to begin with, it should be just an accepted cultural norm to regard sexuality as something private.

    Ideally for you, perhaps.


  • #171
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    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.
    Thank you.

    Society's going to the dogs. Nothing you can do to stop it. Just go with the flow and do your best to raise and protect your own children.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Ideally for you, perhaps.

    Ideally, it should be a private thing, not in the the old Catholic Church way, but yes, in a copy of Loaded not being at a 3 year olds eye level sort of way.

    Personally, I don't see the big problem here as boobs on display on lads mags, that will happen anyway. Its advertisers and the big retailers seem to think this is acceptable.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #173
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I mean, the main issue seems to be that people are removing sexuality outside of its intended context, in a loving relationship and exposing it to the world. Perhaps reclaiming this idea would do us a lot of good.

    who defined this "intended context"?


  • #174
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    K-9 wrote: »
    Personally, I don't see the big problem here as boobs on display on lads mags, that will happen anyway. Its advertisers and the big retailers seem to think this is acceptable.

    It's acceptable because people have allowed it to be acceptable. Really, it's not that difficult to just pass them along in a newsagents.
    K-9 wrote: »
    Ideally, it should be a private thing, not in the the old Catholic Church way

    Nail on head. People often make assumptions concerning my posts. A lot of the issue comes out of displaying (mostly female) flesh to the world being seen as more and more acceptable both in terms of the production end and the display end.
    BumbleB wrote: »
    Out of everywhere I've ever been across the world .Tesco's maynooth has to be the worst for blatently displaying those magazines.

    I think you might be over-exaggerating a bit? Bad in what sense?
    sam34 wrote: »
    who defined this "intended context"?

    Judeo-Christian culture.


  • #175
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Judeo-Christian culture.

    right

    but not everyone subscribes to that culture

    so "reclaiming" the ideas put forward by that culture is not a concern of these people, as they do not feel they have deviated from their cultural beliefs in the first place

    i mean, my attitude towards sex is vastly different to that defined by any number of religious groups, but that is not a cause of any dissonance for me


  • #176
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    sam34 wrote: »
    right

    but not everyone subscribes to that culture

    That's their prerogative. I'm suggesting perhaps it's abandonment has given rise to this.
    sam34 wrote: »
    so "reclaiming" the ideas put forward by that culture is not a concern of these people, as they do not feel they have deviated from their cultural beliefs in the first place

    Reclaiming the idea that women and men are to be respected as human beings rather than sex objects is what I'm basically referring to. It's because our mindset views a lot of human beings in the latter that situations like these even arise in the first place.
    (N.B please note the word our, this is equally applicable to anyone, there is a temptation to view people purely on a sexual level, but perhaps we ought to see the bigger picture)
    sam34 wrote: »
    i mean, my attitude towards sex is vastly different to that defined by any number of religious groups, but that is not a cause of any dissonance for me

    Judeo-Christian culture doesn't particularly refer to religion, rather to the way things were regarded in societies influenced by Judaism, Christianity or both. One can disbelieve in God and still regard sexuality as something to be kept in private, and support regarding human beings as something more than sex objects.


  • #177
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's their prerogative. I'm suggesting perhaps it's abandonment has given rise to this

    you are suggesting we as a society reclaim those thinkings.

    i am pointing out that they are meaningless to very many people.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Reclaiming the idea that women and men are to be respected as human beings rather than sex objects is what I'm basically referring to. It's because our mindset views a lot of human beings in the latter that situations like these even arise in the first place

    viewing someone as a sex object and respecting them are not mutually exclusive.

    i am many things to many people

    i am a daughter, sister, aunt, niece, friend, doctor, colleague, neighbour, partner, lover, etc. you can be any number of things to any number of people. if we consider a sex object as someone or something someone uses to obtain sexual gratification, then i am sure my partner regards me as that too. does it bother me? hell, no , in actual fact, it turns me on. do i think he doesnt respect me? absolutely not.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Judeo-Christian culture doesn't particularly refer to religion, rather to the way things were regarded in societies influenced by Judaism, Christianity or both. One can disbelieve in God and still regard sexuality as something to be kept in private, and support regarding human beings as something more than sex objects.

    it is still healvily influences by religious thinking. and as i pointed out, to a lot of people that is meaningless.

    again, one can see someone as a sex object and still respect them


  • #178
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    sam34 wrote: »
    you are suggesting we as a society reclaim those thinkings.

    i am pointing out that they are meaningless to very many people.

    I'm suggesting that society regain respect for people for who they are rather than what they appear like.
    sam34 wrote: »
    viewing someone as a sex object and respecting them are not mutually exclusive.

    Of course they are. Viewing someone primarily as a sexual object is entirely different to viewing someone as a human being who one cares about that happens to be attractive.

    In one case it's only about looks, in the other case it has genuine meaning. The first being objectification, the second being attraction for the full being of the person. We keep trying to ignore this distinction, and that's more an issue rather than anything else.
    sam34 wrote: »
    i am many things to many people

    You've evidently missed the point.
    sam34 wrote: »
    i am a daughter, sister, aunt, niece, friend, doctor, colleague, neighbour, partner, lover, etc. you can be any number of things to any number of people. if we consider a sex object as someone or something someone uses to obtain sexual gratification, then i am sure my partner regards me as that too. does it bother me? hell, no , in actual fact, it turns me on. do i think he doesnt respect me? absolutely not.

    I'd hope your partner didn't regard you in that way, but rather as a human being who happens to be attracted to you rather than someone one uses for sex.
    sam34 wrote: »
    again, one can see someone as a sex object and still respect them

    I disagree. I think you're defining objectification in a different way than I am though.

    In pornography there isn't the meaning attached to sexuality as in a committed relationship, the same is true of "lads mags". All it accounts to is pretty things to get jollies to. Do you think that's respect for who those women are? Then we really need to consider if our definition of respect is accurate.


  • #179
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm suggesting that society regain respect for people for who they are rather than what they appear like.

    what you said was:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I mean, the main issue seems to be that people are removing sexuality outside of its intended context, in a loving relationship and exposing it to the world. Perhaps reclaiming this idea would do us a lot of good.

    when i asked you to clarify what/whose "intended context" you were referring to, you said:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Judeo-Christian culture.

    therefore, you are suggesting that we reclaim judeo-christian thinkings, which i have repeatedly pointed out are meaningless to many people.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course they are. Viewing someone primarily as a sexual object is entirely different to viewing someone as a human being who one cares about that happens to be attractive

    that still doesnt mean that viewing someone as a sexual object means you cannot also respect them as a human being.

    i mean, if we talk about celebrities, then i view george clooney as a sexual object. does he turn me on? yes. do i think of him when i'm aroused? sometimes. do i respect him? absolutely. looks aside, i think he is an incredibly talented actor, who has maintained a dignified profile in hollywood, and who does a lot of good work for charity.

    in the case of my partner, i view him as a sexual object, i get sexual gratification from him, and he from me. we respect each other hugely. i think of him not only as a sexual object, but also as a partner,friend, confidante, lover, etc etc etc


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You've evidently missed the point.

    your point that if someone views you as a sexual object then they obviously view you as solely that and have no respect for you?

    no, i didnt miss it.

    i disagree with it.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd hope your partner didn't regard you in that way, but rather as a human being who happens to be attracted to you rather than someone one uses for sex.

    i'm more than happy for my partner to regard me as a sexual object.

    i am comfortable enough to know that this is not the only way in which he regards me.

    i am many things to him, and he to me.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    In pornography there isn't the meaning attached to sexuality as in a committed relationship, the same is true of "lads mags". All it accounts to is pretty things to get jollies to. Do you think that's respect for who those women are? Then we really need to consider if our definition of respect is accurate.

    well, d'oh, porn isnt the same as a committed relationship.

    i dont think anyone is trying to say they are the same.

    you seem to think that regarding someone as a sexual object is degrading them - it says a lot about your attitude towards sex.

    i mean, i've just been to the shop to get some food. i said hello to the girl on the checkout, paid my money, thanked her and left. primarily, in fact, solely, i regarded her as a means to getting the food i badly needed.... does that mean i didnt respect her? does it mean i purely looked on her as a "food provider", thus objectified her and lost all respect for her?

    like hell it does.


  • #180
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    sam34 wrote: »
    your point that if someone views you as a sexual object then they obviously view you as solely that and have no respect for you?

    Attractiveness is really only a secondary quality about a person. Primarily who they are is what counts most.

    What I'm saying is, basically, that people should be considered as whole rather than isolating ones appearance from their entire selves.

    Obviously, pornography, lads mags etc, encourage a viewpoint that people are just to be looked at rather than considering the whole picture. If this is encouraged in society, then of course it's going to be acceptable on the shelves too.
    sam34 wrote: »
    you seem to think that regarding someone as a sexual object is degrading them - it says a lot about your attitude towards sex.

    i mean, i've just been to the shop to get some food. i said hello to the girl on the checkout, paid my money, thanked her and left. primarily, in fact, solely, i regarded her as a means to getting the food i badly needed.... does that mean i didnt respect her? does it mean i purely looked on her as a "food provider", thus objectified her and lost all respect for her?

    I don't think it says much about my attitude to sexuality apart from the fact that I support relationships in which sexuality is an expression of how people care and love for one another rather than a meaningless act.

    People irrespective of their role are full people, they're not just cashiers, or anything else. They are people to be regarded for the fullness of who they are.
    sam34 wrote:
    i'm more than happy for my partner to regard me as a sexual object.

    i am comfortable enough to know that this is not the only way in which he regards me.

    i am many things to him, and he to me.

    Then you aren't a sexual object, you are a full person and are respected as being such. You're clearly misinterpreting my use of the term. Read this section again:
    Of course they are. Viewing someone primarily as a sexual object is entirely different to viewing someone as a human being who one cares about that happens to be attractive.

    I probably meant, that you are probably regarded as a person rather than someone just to get sexual pleasure to. You, I hope aren't just the means to getting pleasure, but rather are the means to a full relationship.

    There is a difference between someone having relations with their spouse and someone getting their jollies to pornography. Don't you think?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Attractiveness is really only a secondary quality about a person. Primarily who they are is what counts most.

    What I'm saying is, basically, that people should be considered as whole rather than isolating ones appearance from their entire selves.

    Should they? Surely that is just YOUR personal preference, it's not fact. We live in a world in which adults can and do indulge in one-night-stands, pornography, prostitution, cyber-sex, whatever - nothing to do with "who people are" - it's all about no holds, no ties, no relationship SEX - and the right to do so is the prerogative of the adults involved.

    Your moral ideal driven by your conservative religious views are right for you, fine, but that doesn't make them right for everyone - or right full stop, for that matter.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Obviously, pornography, lads mags etc, encourage a viewpoint that people are just to be looked at rather than considering the whole picture. If this is encouraged in society, then of course it's going to be acceptable on the shelves too.

    I don't think anyone bar you is advocating banning lads mags or see anything inherently wrong with sexualisation in general, it's just about appropriate context.


Advertisement