Subject: Top Shelf Material
Posted by: supersal1
Date: Nov 03 09
Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas wants to introduce legislation to banish 'lads mags' which show explicit material to the top shelf in the newsagents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5119602.stm
Any thoughts on this?
Posted by: supersal1
Date: Nov 03 09
Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas wants to introduce legislation to banish 'lads mags' which show explicit material to the top shelf in the newsagents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5119602.stmAny thoughts on this?
23 replies. On page 1 of 2 pages. 1 2
supersal1
|
I understand that the bill would also ensure that the magazines weren't sold to youngsters either. Personally, I'm not sure about legislation, it seems like overkill. Personally, I'd appreciate it if they weren't kept next to the comics though. There's a 'newspaper' in the UK which regularly depicts fairly explicit photographs on the front page - the sort of thing where only a quarter of an inch of gusset stops it being pornography! I once complained to my newsagent that I didn't appreciate this being kept with the other newspapers just under the comics shelf. He really couldn't see my point. Trouble is though, why stop at lads mags? Some women's magazines have fairly explicit front covers as well. I've no objection to nudity but I'm mildly troubled by the message a lot of these pictures send out. Reply #1. Nov 03 09, 5:32 AM |
Professer
|
Totally agree there Sal, by no mean a prude, i believe that these so called lads mags and the female equivilant that shows Jordans clevage so off putting first thing in the morning as i go buy my paper. As for the news paper you elude to they should be made to put it in brown paper bags or not stock it. Reply #2. Nov 03 09, 5:42 AM |
TCEB
|
"banish 'lads mags' which show explicit material to the top shelf in the newsagents." Wouldn't that come under the heading of "height discrimination"? Reply #3. Nov 03 09, 5:47 AM |
| supersal1
|
Probably, and they're also a tad unfair to the partially sighted who can't see them! Reply #4. Nov 03 09, 5:58 AM |
romeomikegolf 
|
So what about the girls mags that show guys with the sort of bodies that most of us can only dream about having? What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Reply #5. Nov 03 09, 10:28 AM |
| supersal1
|
Bob, the covers of those magazines tend to show perfectly toned six packs - nothing you couldn't see at the beach, if you're lucky! I think the magazines referred to in the proposal are the sort that provoke small children to ask "why are those two ladies cuddling each other with no clothes on mummy". Or in the case of the offending newspaper "when my knickers go up there I pull them out again". I do hope that last sentence isn't too much for the boards but as you know me Bob, you know I'm being very restrained.:) Reply #6. Nov 03 09, 10:44 AM |
lesley153
|
Bob, apart from the fact that pictures of unclothed boys may actually be aimed at boys too, I agree - it works both ways. I seem to remember Clare Short wanting the same thing a few years ago, and being laughed off the floor by bleating (mostly) men, using words like harridan, harpy, loony left, jealous, horse, dog, and knickers in a twist, without actually having any cogent arguments to offer in favour of existing arrangements. Now Claire Curtis-Thomas has put herself in the firing line, and is hearing the same personal insults; and the same tired old arguments - the women are complicit so it's all right, which isn't the point, really, is it? My own criterion for acceptability is whether or not I would feel comfortable explaining to my imaginary five-year-old, in public, why "those ladies" are touching certain parts of their anatomy while looking out from the cover, not at each other: and why they are displaying certain parts of their anatomy which would normally be well hidden in the hallowed aisles of TescoBury. I have, when I had a five-year-old of my own, asked people in newsagents, or the supermarket equivalent, how they would explain these images to their own children. I have yet to hear an answer - even a bad one! Reply #7. Nov 03 09, 11:00 AM |
| lesley153
|
Goodness, Sally, I must be slow if you were posting while I was typing! But I think you've said the same as me, only more succinctly. I'm being restrained too. :) Reply #8. Nov 03 09, 11:02 AM |
Schoonie101
|
RMG, it's funny how that double standard exists. Well, I guess as men, we have so many of those standards that lean in our favor, I guess we can let the women have one. But I think Lesley is right - those Men's Health, Fitness, etc. magazines aren't exactly being geared towards women. Funny observation. I have to say that considering the economy and the abundance of that type content on-line for free (well, the computer probably gets the virus instead of you), I'm surprised those magazines are probably in business. I remember when those types of magazines (Maxim, etc.) first started becoming popular, you used to see them at the barbershop, etc. but the last few years, wow, they're so off the radar, I'd actually forgotten about their existence until just now. Call me cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if the publishers are behind this move to give their product some relevance, some image of taboo so people are interested again. I bet they're hurting financially and there's no such thing as bad publicity. Reply #9. Nov 03 09, 12:28 PM |
| Schoonie101
|
I can't type in the mornings whatsoever. :) "Surprised those magazines are STILL in business" I have no clue where probably came from or how that sneaked in there. Chalk that up to morning dehydration. This is why I also play the GC and Daily Games MUCH later in the day - my brain runs a little smoother, not like an outboard motor with the hiccups. :) Reply #10. Nov 03 09, 12:33 PM |
jonnowales
|
In fairness to WHSmith, they seem to keep all of these types of magazines up on the top shelf already. I don't think it requires legislation - that would indeed be overkill. Reply #11. Nov 03 09, 12:43 PM |
Jabberwok
|
The MP in question isn't trying to ban them, just have the magazines put at an appropriate eye level. I don't see the problem with her suggestion. "So what about the girls mags that show guys with the sort of bodies that most of us can only dream about having? What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander." One of the delights of being a middle-aged lady just north of Brighton is the opportunity to drift happily along on a hot Summer's day, admiring all the delicious topless young men with their perfect abs, regardless of whom they are actually trying to attract. :D I have yet to see a topless girl strolling along. So I don't feel that it's quite the same thing. Body imagery and its negative impact on the self-esteem of the young is a whole new thread, involving the fashion industry rather than the glamour market. Reply #12. Nov 03 09, 12:45 PM |
| Schoonie101
|
Seriously, jabberwok. So many younger people don't realize that the pictures they see in the magazines of their favorite celebrities are HEAVILY airbrushed and they try to live up to an ideal that doesn't actually even exist. Reply #13. Nov 03 09, 1:10 PM |
| lesley153
|
Good for WHSmith, Jonno. I think the newsagent industry is currently self-regulating - which seems to mean unregulated. I bet nobody goes into WHSmith and complains that the eight-year-olds can't reach FHM! There are moves to have airbrushed pictures clearly marked as airbrushed, which is a start, but how much more effective would it be to make the "before" picture available too? Reply #14. Nov 03 09, 1:20 PM |
| Jabberwok
|
Schoonie, I have an 18 year old daughter. I always felt she was more at risk from the images of stick women without curves, thighs or imperfections than the babes in mags. When she was small. At her 7th birthday party, two girls turned down cake and ice-cream because they were worried about getting fat. Even if they were just repeating what they'd heard from an adult, it still sent a chill through me. Reply #15. Nov 03 09, 1:21 PM |
| Schoonie101
|
And really, I have to say, I don't find the stick figure women to be attractive at all, I really don't. Women are supposed to have curves. That's pretty sad rejecting ice cream and cake at 7 years old for that reason. Kids need to be kids. Lesley, I don't think it would be effective at all - people aren't buying the magazines for the reality! :) Reply #16. Nov 03 09, 1:36 PM |
| supersal1
|
The whole body image thing is another can of worms entirely and I feel that women's magazines are probably the worst culprits there. I have absolutely no objection at all to the magazines themselves. What concerns me is the general availability of such images, and that young boys are drip fed the idea that all girls are offering themselves on a plate, so to speak. Reply #17. Nov 03 09, 1:43 PM |
| lesley153
|
Schoonie, most of us know that men prefer women who look like women, but a woman who thinks "stick" is the shape to go for will probably be doing it for herself, not men. And you're right about images of reality. Nobody's interested. Sally, while boys are getting the idea that all girls are offering themselves on a plate, girls must be getting brainwashed to believe that that's what they have to do. Perhaps it's time to ban all the "How to Get/Keep a man" articles? Reply #18. Nov 03 09, 1:57 PM |
REDVIKING57
|
And replace them with "How to get a life" articles? ! Reply #19. Nov 03 09, 5:40 PM |
nasty_liar
|
Ah, I remember the first time I was nosey enough to pick up my grandads copy of 'The Sun' and turn the first page... then very quickly close it as I turned a shade of crimson! Of course I opened it again, carefully checking that nobody was watching, and had a good look. I seriously doubt the contents scarred me for life. I certainly didn't ask my mother about it, although if I had been brazen enough to broach the topic I'm sure she would have relished the opportunity to educate me about some aspect of it (we saw a used condom in the park once when I was young, not sure how young, and instead of ignoring it she pointed it out on purpose and told me NEVER to pick them up, hehe). I quite like the fact that the mags are within easy reach. Having said that I have to say that I haven't purchased one for some years. I have to say that I have never given two hoots whether they have been airbrushed or not, I seriously doubt that I would care if it said that on the cover except to think that once again the state would be attempting to spoonfeed me rather than let me come to my own conclusions. 'Womens' magazines like the ones my wife often reads are brilliant too! I always have a real chuckle reading the drivel contained within! No, no, no, they must remain as they are! Reply #20. Nov 04 09, 1:56 PM |
23 replies. On page 1 of 2 pages. 1 2
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: