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

philologos · 17-03-2010 05:26PM

Discussion forums are for sharing opinions, not for spamming facts. If you disagree with the opinion, do so, but going on about it not being a fact is another thing entirely.

As for just "my personal preference", I don't get what you mean by this, most likely because I don't subscribe to relativism. It's an opinion about what the real issue is.

I'm actually not advocating banning anything, rather I'm just saying that those who are complaining about these magazines being sexual objectification, unrealistic and so on should question why they have so prominent a role anyway.

I've said rather clearly that I generally just ignore them and carry on with my life. Would I prefer if we got rid of the shallowness of it all? Yes absolutely. Is it likely to happen? No.

Ickle Magoo · 17-03-2010 05:40PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Discussion forums are for sharing opinions, not for spamming facts. If you disagree with the opinion, do so, but going on about it not being a fact is another thing entirely.

Your posts are littered with projected facts; "people should.." "who they are is what counts most"... etc, etc. Not that you think people should, or you would like people to be whatever...

Jakkass wrote: »

As for just "my personal preference", I don't get what you mean by this, most likely because I don't subscribe to relativism. It's an opinion about what the real issue is.

This started as an interesting discussion on lads mags becoming more pornographic while viewable by impressionable minds and has somehow morphed into a moral tirade against porn, nudity and sexualisation in any context...

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm actually not advocating banning anything, rather I'm just saying that those who are complaining about these magazines being sexual objectification, unrealistic and so on should question why they have so prominent a role anyway.

I don't think the issue is the sexual objectification, unrealisticness or whatever, it's the lack of viewing control - hence the thread title.

philologos · 17-03-2010 05:47PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Your posts are littered with projected facts; "people should.." "who they are is what counts most"... etc, etc. Not that you think people should, or you would like people to be whatever...

These are opinions.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This started as an interesting discussion on lads mags becoming more pornographic while viewable by impressionable minds and has somehow morphed into a moral tirade against porn, nudity and sexualisation in any context...

When have I said in any context?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think the issue is the sexual objectification, unrealisticness or whatever, it's the lack of viewing control - hence the thread title.

Read the content of the OP, rather than claiming that I am off topic, again.

sam34 · 17-03-2010 06:03PM

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.

in your opinion

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

lots of people have different attitudes to sex that you

lots of people are happy to see people, and to be seen, as sexual objects

not everyone attaches high moral significance to sex

in my role at work, as a doctor, i am perfectly happy for people to regard me solely as a doctor. in fact, that is all i want them to regard me as.

i am not their friend, or buddy, or mate from down the pub. it is a professional relationship.

i identify myself to them as "Dr Surname" and if they start asking me personal questions about myself I deflect them and bring the discussion back to their medical issue at hand.

i do not want any patient of mine to regard me "for the fullness of what i am", i want them to regard me as a professional who has the expertise and knowledge and legal entitlement to treat their condition. end of story.

Jakkass wrote: »

Then you aren't a sexual object, you are a full person and are respected as being such.

i am a sexual object, and at times i want to be regarded as such.

you gave a definition of sexual object as someone to get jollies to.... i am perfectly happy for my partner to do that.

i know he masturbates while thinking of me, both when he is alone and when we are in bed together...... not only does that not bother me, it actually turns me on and excites me.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

what you define as a "full relationship" may not be what i define as one, and may not be what i want (in fact, i very much hope it isnt).

Jakkass wrote: »

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

i never said there wasnt.

what i did say is that even in a loving committed relationship, one or both partners can regard the other as a sexual object at times.

not necessarily 100% of the time, but at times.

just as they might also regard them as friends, companions, confidantes etc

none of those, imo, precludes respecting them

just as one can be many things to many people, so can one be many t hings to one person, all at the same time, and all at different times

there is flexibility and fluidity here, it is not all rigidly defined.

philologos · 17-03-2010 06:17PM

sam34 wrote: »

in your opinion

Criticise the opinion if you disagree.

sam34 wrote: »

lots of people have different attitudes to sex that you

That's fine. I'm not obliged to agree with them, or regard these attitudes as being equally valid.

sam34 wrote: »

you gave a definition of sexual object as someone to get jollies to.... i am perfectly happy for my partner to do that.

No I didn't. If you read my posts carefully, I regard a sexual object as someone someone uses just to get their jollies to without consideration of a deeper relationship. The emboldened phrase is key.

I'd agree with you in that people naturally will enjoy having relations with their spouse, but this is out of more than just mere pleasure. It's out of the love they have for each other. I assume that this is the case in your relationship.

sam34 wrote: »

what you define as a "full relationship" may not be what i define as one, and may not be what i want (in fact, i very much hope it isnt).

A full relationship being a loving relationship between two people, for their personalities, and who they are as well as how attractive they are. I think most people in a relationship would be in agreement with this view of it.

Believe it or not, I'm not that much different from anyone else.

sam34 wrote: »

what i did say is that even in a loving committed relationship, one or both partners can regard the other as a sexual object at times.

I'm not so sure that this is ever the case in a relationship. Sexual attraction is merely one part of the package. It isn't the only thing that one seeks in a relationship.

I think there might be a misunderstanding in how you've interpreted my posts.

sam34 wrote: »

just as they might also regard them as friends, companions, confidantes etc

none of those, imo, precludes respecting them

This is what I would call a full relationship. It doesn't involve objectification. The sexual part is merely an expression of the relationship.

sam34 wrote: »

just as one can be many things to many people, so can one be many t hings to one person, all at the same time, and all at different times

This isn't sexual objectification to me, as there is meaning attached in this case. It's different to pornography, which is just using people as pretty things to get off to.

What you are describing is what I would call a full relationship.

sam34 wrote: »

there is flexibility and fluidity here, it is not all rigidly defined.

I think we're a lot closer in our thought than previous, because you are interpreting my term objectification in a different way than I am.

sam34 · 17-03-2010 06:28PM

Jakkass wrote: »

That's fine. I'm not obliged to agree with them, or regard these attitudes as being equally valid

if you do not believe others opinions/attitudes as being equally valid to yours, despite them being different, then i do not believe you are worth engaging in discussion with.

i wont be engaging with you again.

Odysseus · 17-03-2010 07:35PM

Sam and other posters are right there are many understandings of sexuality. From my own working viewpoint we are all sexual objects, sexual desire can be be understood as consisting of aim and object. The aim is always the same, the object however can change, which is why we have issues like fetishes and such. However, I must admit I trained as a psychoanalyst which is why I hold that position, there are of course many other ways of understanding sexuality.

On the lads mag thing, I have no problem where they are placed, even though I would buy a sports or shooting mag instead. I personally think its better that they are in view, as oppossed to me stealing quick looks as a 7 year old at some my dad had under his bed

Ickle Magoo · 17-03-2010 07:49PM

Jakkass wrote: »

These are opinions.

They are just more valid than mine, huh?

Jakkass wrote: »

When have I said in any context?

Eh...

it should be just an accepted cultural norm to regard sexuality as something private.

people are removing sexuality outside of its intended context, in a loving relationship and exposing it to the world

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the content of the OP, rather than claiming that I am off topic, again.

The OP talks about women being bombarded with such images, the rest of the OP when read in context and in combination with the thread title led me to believe we were talking about images in/on magazines for sale in public places...

Ickle Magoo · 17-03-2010 07:50PM

Odysseus wrote: »

On the lads mag thing, I have no problem where they are placed, even though I would buy a sports or shooting mag instead. I personally think its better that they are in view, as oppossed to me stealing quick looks as a 7 year old at some my dad had under his bed

I never found my dad's stash of porn mags...tho he did have an extensive video collection, lol.

philologos · 17-03-2010 08:11PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

They are just more valid than mine, huh?

The reason people disagree with each other is because they find one position / positions more reasonable than the other/s. I.E they regard a certain position / positions on certain subjects to be valid, and others to be invalid. They of course can be open to hearing what other people have to say, and indeed should be, but they are under zero obligation to regard someone elses opinion as being equally valid to their own.

Just because one happens to hold a position, doesn't mean that that position is automatically valid, or agreeable to all parties.

Nevyn · 18-03-2010 12:00AM

I was offline for 24 hours and came back to find that jakkas has managed to hijack the thread, wonderful.

sam34 by engaging with him you just give him an excuse to push his born again christian agenda.

K-9 · 18-03-2010 12:20AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

I was offline for 24 hours and came back to find that jakkas has managed to hijack the thread, wonderful.

sam34 by engaging with him you just give him an excuse to push his born again christian agenda.

That's a bit unfair. Just because he has a certain strict viewpoint, doesn't mean what he says, should be dismissed.

Maybe the dismissiveness has got us to this thread? Something to ponder about?

If you are truely open minded, you tae the best bits of what you read. I don't think we have, otherwise, this thread would not exist.

Ickle Magoo · 18-03-2010 12:30AM

K-9 wrote: »

That's a bit unfair. Just because he has a certain strict viewpoint, doesn't mean what he says, should be dismissed.

Maybe the dismissiveness has got us to this thread? Something to ponder about?

If you are truely open minded, you tae the best bits of what you read. I don't think we have, otherwise, this thread would not exist.

In fairness, Jackass's initial contribution to the thread was a general dig at the posters of tLL that had posted in a thread about porn followed by a cherry-picked singular line of the OP used to push a well known & oft publicised view on general morality...he's said he doesn't mind lad's mags, the issue is actually with public morality; which is wandering from the topic at hand by a country mile!

mollzer · 18-03-2010 12:41AM

In reply to the OP I have 2 sons, 7 and 9 and I would rather that these mags were high enough up in a newstand out of their sight!
Theres enough pictures and stuff on the telly etc etc for them to be oogling at, and time enough for them to do so when they reach puberty

On the other hand I'd love to hear what this argument would be like if there were womens mags full of naked hunks with their six packs on the front on the shelves! 'objectifying men'

Nevyn · 18-03-2010 12:44AM

It's a pattern of posting which I've seen over the last 2 years.

I resent the implcation that christian morals are the only type of morals and that the morals of a christain are better then anyone else due to them being christian.

There is such a thing as being too open minded, it can cause your brain to fall out.

Kids movies are not put with the 18s/soft core stuff in rental outlets, kids books are not put with the erotic fiction in book stores, it's just common sense, lads mags if a shop is carrying them should be put in a seperate section to kids mags and comics ideal above the direct level of kids.

BumbleB · 18-03-2010 01:50AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

sam34 by engaging with him you just give him an excuse to push his born again christian agenda.

11,000 posts on theology .Jakass you really need to get out more.

K-9 · 18-03-2010 01:55AM

OK, forget about the Christian Morals for a second.

Most of us agree having the latest Nuts or Loaded beside the latest Disney mag is wrong?

philologos · 18-03-2010 02:05AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In fairness, Jackass's initial contribution to the thread was a general dig at the posters of tLL that had posted in a thread about porn followed by a cherry-picked singular line of the OP used to push a well known & oft publicised view on general morality...he's said he doesn't mind lad's mags, the issue is actually with public morality; which is wandering from the topic at hand by a country mile!

Actually, it wasn't intended to be a dig in the slightest. Rather I thought that it was strange to see people on the same page on lads mags after the previous thread on porn. I was interested to see why or how this was.

Not agreeing with the liberal consensus seems troublesome in these parts. So I'll probably have to leave it here.

Wibbs · 18-03-2010 10:14AM

OK folks lets get back on topic and try to avoid circular argument as it may exclude other voices. And BumbleB less of the personal digs please.

panda100 · 18-03-2010 12:32PM

mollzer wrote: »

On the other hand I'd love to hear what this argument would be like if there were womens mags full of naked hunks with their six packs on the front on the shelves! 'objectifying men'

There is a few magazines for women that cater for womens erotic tastes. You won't really find them in any of the mainstream book shops or newsagents,but Books upstairs stock a good range which are sold out very quickly.

Scarlet (http://www.scarletmagazine.co.uk/ ) is always on the top shelf in Easons in Limerick and Dublin due to its explicit sexual content. The erotic literature in it and, very few, nude pictures always are inside a sealed section in the middle of the magazine.
There was a big uproar in the UK several years ago when Scarlet was taken of the shelves in many shops after there was complaints of the explicit nature of the headlines on its front cover, yet lads mags were allowed to remain.
I've only brought it once but it was very good having open discussion about female masturbation and English Muslims attitudes to sex.

Its complete double standards that a womens sex mag has to have sealed sections and be confined to the top shelf,yet lads mags are not. I am not against censorship and am not anti-porn but I think it unfair that such contradictory standards are allowed. I think Lad's mags should have to follow the exact same protocol as womens sex magazines.

Ickle Magoo · 18-03-2010 12:33PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't intended to be a dig in the slightest. Rather I thought that it was strange to see people on the same page on lads mags after the previous thread on porn. I was interested to see why or how this was.

Not agreeing with the liberal consensus seems troublesome in these parts. So I'll probably have to leave it here.

Sure, sure. You were given several explanations. Then you drop out the thread and a page later repeat the feigned confusion. Seriously Jackass?! :rolleyes:

ETA: As an aside, I think the whole porn/sexualisation from a woman's perspective is an interesting debate, why not set up a thread asking the question so it can be debated without derailing this one?

citytillidie · 18-03-2010 08:10PM

panda100 wrote: »

There is a few magazines for women that cater for womens erotic tastes. You won't really find them in any of the mainstream book shops or newsagents,but Books upstairs stock a good range which are sold out very quickly.

Scarlet (http://www.scarletmagazine.co.uk/ ) is always on the top shelf in Easons in Limerick and Dublin due to its explicit sexual content. The erotic literature in it and, very few, nude pictures always are inside a sealed section in the middle of the magazine.
There was a big uproar in the UK several years ago when Scarlet was taken of the shelves in many shops after there was complaints of the explicit nature of the headlines on its front cover, yet lads mags were allowed to remain.
I've only brought it once but it was very good having open discussion about female masturbation and English Muslims attitudes to sex.

Its complete double standards that a womens sex mag has to have sealed sections and be confined to the top shelf,yet lads mags are not. I am not against censorship and am not anti-porn but I think it unfair that such contradictory standards are allowed. I think Lad's mags should have to follow the exact same protocol as womens sex magazines.

Thats the thing the lads mags DO NOT contain full frontal nudity. If they did they would be on the top shelf along with the other porn mags.

You get the topless pictures as you do in the "daily rags".

Why not just make it legal for woman to be topless in public like men and that will take the sexuality out of it.

Ickle Magoo · 18-03-2010 08:27PM

citytillidie wrote: »

Why not just make it legal for woman to be topless in public like men and that will take the sexuality out of it.

I don't think making female toplessness legal (is it illegal?) will magically remove the sexuality from it, it's still all about context. A women with a bared breast feeding a child doesn't usually elicit the same response as a page three girl posing provocatively.

Nevyn · 18-03-2010 09:26PM

A woman who is topless in public can be done for indecent exposure a man can not.
(breastfeeding is not the same as being topless).

Ickle Magoo · 19-03-2010 12:27AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

A woman who is topless in public can be done for indecent exposure a man can not.
(breastfeeding is not the same as being topless).

Really? Even on the beach?! I didn't know that. :eek:

Yes, obviously bf is not the same as being topless, of course, I wasn't trying to suggest it was. I was trying to accentuate the differences in context that breasts can be viewed in & why legalising showing breasts is not going to "take the sexuality out of it", it's the context that gives the sexuality, not the object - perhaps using topless grannies would have been a better example?! :pac:

citytillidie · 19-03-2010 12:50AM

Sorry i was in work.

Yea as Thaedydal said woman can be done for been topless in public.

I think maybe taking away that law will lead to less sexulisation of them. As in you can see them any time like a male body and its no big deal.

Ickle Magoo · 19-03-2010 12:53AM

citytillidie wrote: »

I think maybe taking away that law will lead to less sexulisation of them. As in you can see them any time like a male body and its no big deal.

It doesn't really work like that tho, does it? Visit any country with a more relaxed attitude to nudity and they still have a vast array of pornography.

Wibbs · 19-03-2010 09:54AM

citytillidie wrote: »

Sorry i was in work.

How dare you!! :mad::D

I think maybe taking away that law will lead to less sexulisation of them. As in you can see them any time like a male body and its no big deal.

The difference being that breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic in women. So some sexualisation will happen. Then again so is facial hair in men and you dont have women's magazines entitled Stubble monthly with close up pics of George Clooney's chin.

Humans and their cultures have an amazing array of what constitutes sexualisation and titillation and "nakedness". In a strict Muslim country a stray lock of hair peeking from below a veil could do it. In some south Amerindian tribes where a woman would be completely naked (to our eyes) except for a thin cord belt, the removal of that belt sexualises her. Same for the men.

I would reckon though that increased public nudity on beaches and the like would reduce a lot of this. I wouldnt agree with the naturist notion that it would remove it though. One tyranny of judgement and sexualisation would be replaced by another.

BumbleB · 19-03-2010 03:41PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

as a page three girl posing provocatively.

I wouldn't use that word .I would use the word Empowered instead .

Ickle Magoo · 19-03-2010 07:25PM

You would say a page three girl poses empowered? Okay...well, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

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

Comments