Should Lads' Mags Have To Cover Up?

[sp1814]

And is it fair that Zoo, Nuts, FHM etc are being told to cover up, when Attitude (which features equally 'salacious' pictures of men on it's front covers) isn't?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027

[mccfluff]

i don't see what the problem is, its not pornography its scantily clad women and men. What is the difference from something like a woman's mag who may have a photo of a celeb in their bikini and be pointing out cellulite or something? it's the same flesh on display, just not airbrushed or "posed"

[ummmm]

Newsthump have reported 'Co-op to sell lads mags inside plain w*** sock'

[237SJ]

I suppose I can see their point. Supermarkets don`t have a top shelf like newsagents do. Their top shelf is at eye level (or less) so the magazines are very visable to kids. Co-op is owned by it`s members and they say they have listened to their members and customers so if that`s what they want, so be it.

[237SJ]

I can`t see the analogy between someone on the beach/a celeb in a bikini and the pictures in lad`s mags. The former is just that, the latter is a sexualised semi clad person. There`s a difference.

[emmie]

perhaps it led on from a post on here the other day, which has such a similar tone, i wondered if it was the same person. That was about going on holiday and finding lots of overweight British in attendance, with their noisy offspring, who could imagine such a thing eh>

[gen2]

How about a compromise?
Maybe the Co-op could just cover up half of the cover.
They could then promote them as 'Buy one - Get one free'.

[mccfluff]

my point is - its just flesh, its you the person who views it as sexualised or not

[ummmm]

237...it's the same amount of flesh on display.

[emmie]

or go back to the days of the dirty mac brigade, get your porn in a brown paper wrapper, bag... sure waitrose would be thrilled.

[sp1814]

I saw a piece about this a short while ago, which had an accompanying picture of the front cover of The Sunday Sport.

I think there's a huge difference between a picture of some random celeb emerging from the sea in a bikini...and the picture I saw, which as of a model in a short skirt bent over with the shot taken from behind.

It was a bit...gynaecological.

I can see the point of shots like that being discreetly covered, especially, as has been previously mentioned, supermarkets don't have top shelves, so that they are right in the sight lines of kids...

[ummmm]

Kids are not interested. By the time they are interested they'll be looking at much worse on the computer.

[ludwig]

I think it's up to the co-op to display the products they stock in a manner they see fit, or if they don't like the product at all, don't stock it.
That's what the publishers should say to them - if you want to display it in a bag, you put it in a bag.

Of course they probably won't say that because they'll potentially lose a customer.

[AB Editor]

"my point is - its just flesh, its you the person who views it as sexualised or not"

That's not right - it's context which leads your perception.

[mccfluff]

i don't agree ed

[Octavius]

"the picture I saw, which as of a model in a short skirt bent over with the shot taken from behind. ....It was a bit...gynaecological."

I saw this too, in my local village newsagents on a trip to the penny sweet section for daughter treats. The eldest (aged 6) pointed to it and said "she is showing her bum", I laughed it off but can't say I was impressed as it was facing up on the lowest shelf in the shop. 4 year old was distracted by cherry lips or cola bottles

In regards the OP, I'm not fussed either way really, can't see the point of magazines and can't see the offence (of these ones in particular) although I can see the confusion - I just figure the latter is more.... graphic.

lad mag - a magazine aimed at or appealing to men, focusing on fashion, gadgets, and often featuring scantily dressed women.

porn mag - writings, pictures designed to stimulate sexual excitement

[Old_Geezer]

As I recall the mags in that category don't tend to show nudity but are more coy with skimpy clothing and suchlike, yes ? I which case I suspect it is a bit prudish to demand a change. If a retailer is unhappy then they ought not buy to sell.

[ludwig]

// my point is - its just flesh, its you the person who views it as sexualised or not //

It's quite clearly deliberately sexualised. That's the whole point of it.

[emmie]

octavious, all those feature in some of our stores, not necessarily on the top shelf, that was my argument, if some don't find any of them offensive then fine,.

[themorrigan]

The feminists are worried least of all by the nudity, they are concerned about the 'message' this is giving young males and to a certain extent young females. This is in my opinion ludicrous, as magazines aimed at females are just as guilty of sexism and frequently run articles on 'how to get your man' and '10 sex tips to keep your man' 'look good for your man' . Very rarely do you read about how to get a good education make a life for yourself and boost your self esteem through autonomy. The only difference between nuts and cosmo is that cosmo does not have men showing their bits on every other page. As for nudity, there are so many women showing all they've got these days its hardly offensive, and certainly not titillating, to most people.