"Lads Mags" to be covered in modesty bags in national UK store - discussion about censorship

Griffolion

Elite Member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
41
The Co-operative has given so-called lads' mags six weeks to cover up their front pages with sealed "modesty bags" or be taken off sale in its stores.

The 4,000-outlet retailer said it was responding to concerns by its members, customers and colleagues about images of scantily-clad women on covers.

Titles such as Front, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo have been given a deadline of 9 September by the Co-op.

An industry body said the titles showed the "diverse interests of young men".

The Co-op, which is owned and run by its more than seven million members, introduced opaque screens for lads' magazines on some shelves earlier this month.

Steve Murrells, retail chief executive for the Co-operative Group, said: "As a community-based retailer, we have listened to the concerns of our customers and members, many of whom say they object to their children being able to see overt sexual images in our stores.

"Whilst we have tried to mitigate the likelihood of young children seeing the images with a number of measures in store, the most effective way of doing this is for these magazines to be put in individual, sealed modesty bags."

Cathryn Higgs, a policy manager at the Co-op, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the group was currently "in dialogue" with the magazine publishers.

"I've got every hope they will take what we believe is the responsible approach and put them in a bag," she said.

She added that the Co-op believed it was the first retailer in the UK to take this step but other supermarkets were probably having "similar conversations with their customers".

The Daily Sport newspaper has already agreed to comply with the Co-operative's new policy.

'Like wallpaper'

Women and Equalities Minister Jo Swinson said the Co-op's move was "very welcome".

"Many parents aren't comfortable with the way sexualised imagery has become like wallpaper - everywhere from the bus stop to the corner shop," she said.

"Adults should be left to make their own decisions about what legal sexual images they look at, but the place for these is not next to the sweets at children's eye-level. I hope other retailers will follow the Co-operative's lead."

But campaign group Lose the Lads' Mags said the Co-op was not going far enough.

Spokeswoman Sophie Bennett said: "The so-called 'modesty bags' they are demanding from publishers are designed to allow the Co-operative to continue profiting from sexist, harmful lads' mags - but just a bit more discreetly."

Fellow campaigner Kat Banyard added: "Lads' mags are deeply harmful.


Glamour model Natalie Rochford, and Kat Banyard, who represents the Lose the Lads' Mags Campaign
"By portraying women as dehumanised sex objects, they send out the message that it's normal and acceptable to treat women this way, and we know from extensive evidence that lads' mags like Nuts and Zoo fuel sexist attitudes; attitudes that underpin violence against women."

The campaign group said it had also been targeting Tesco, with one female shareholder raising the subject during the retailer's recent annual general meeting.

The Professional Publishers Association, which represents some magazine publishers, said: "Men's lifestyle magazines are mainstream titles enjoyed by a readership of millions and feature content to reflect the diverse interests of the nation's young men.

"Publishers support the guidelines on the appropriate display of men's lifestyle magazines, which have been drawn up with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and endorsed by the Home Office."

A former editor of Front magazine, Piers Hernu, said the Co-op's decision was "very dangerous" and amounted to "censorship".

The firm had "caved in" to a "vociferous campaign from some fanatical feminists", showing itself to be "weak-willed and spineless", he argued on BBC Radio 5 live.

Gender equality groups UK Feminista and Object joined forces with lawyers to launch the Lose the Lads' Mags campaign earlier this year.

They warned that retailers could face legal action if they continued to display the magazines or require staff to handle them.

This, they said, could amount to sexual harassment or discrimination in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

The British Retail Consortium has said its members do not sell anything illegal and have long followed industry rules.

Source: [a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027"]BBC Online News[/a]

My own opinion on this: Cover these up in modesty bags all you want, but why does the buck arbitrarily stop with the lads mags? By this logic, anything that idealises or objectifies either sex should be put in a bag like this. Vogue, Cosmo, FHM, Maxim, Mens Health, basically all of the gossip mags that either tell you to be a better housewife by baking more, or lose 339483854 lbs in half an hour.

Wider discussion: So the UK has been on a bit of a censorship (is there a better term than that?) streak, recently. Between Cameron's porn filter that's turned out to block [a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall"]a little more than porn[/a], and now this. UK Escapists, how do you feel about the way this is going? Everywhere else, what is censorhip like in your country, what would you like to see done to improve things for everyone?
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
As long as newspapers like the sun and daily sport also get modesty bagged I'm pretty much fine with it. And anyway no one buys lads mags except for barbers and 13 year olds who haven't worked out that the internet has naked women on it too. So I wouldn't call it a great loss.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
I think magazines like Playboy and Hustler are covered up here in the US.

But I think I would have to agree with Artificially Prolonged here; I've only bought one nudie magazine in my life, and I bought it just to buy it. It's not really anything special
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Aug 15, 2008
7,508
3
43
This already happens for magazines like these in UK service stations on Motorways.

So in a Supermarket where a family shops it makes sense.
 

FinalDream

[Insert Witty Remark Here]
Apr 6, 2010
1,402
0
0
I think the bigger story here is - in the age of the internet - people still buy these magazines!
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
I don't really see it as censorship.
They're still going to be completely available but children and other impressionable groups won't be able to see the covers.

They're not taking away the boobs, they're just making them less in your face.
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
TimeLord said:
This already happens for magazines like these in UK service stations on Motorways.

So in a Supermarket where a family shops it makes sense.
Why isn't your avatar Doctor Who related?
You're shattering my world view.
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Aug 15, 2008
7,508
3
43
Colour Scientist said:
TimeLord said:
This already happens for magazines like these in UK service stations on Motorways.

So in a Supermarket where a family shops it makes sense.
Why isn't your avatar Doctor Who related?
You're shattering my world view.
Ummmm
Ummmmm

The Doctor traveled to an alternate universe where there are Digimon?

Here, have a cute Doctor Who picture!


*flees*
 

Dr. Cakey

New member
Feb 1, 2011
517
0
0
So British people call them "lads' mags"?

God damn it, British people. Why are you so British?
 

Griffolion

Elite Member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
41
Dr. Cakey said:
So British people call them "lads' mags"?

God damn it, British people. Why are you so British?
The British people are so British about things because we are British.
Geez, stop being so American about the whole thing...

;)
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
When I was in Britian the only printed tits I saw were in the newspaperss, seriously it iwas adouble page spread in the Sun or something.

If they are going to cover up Playboy (and lets be honest with the advent of the internet and smartphones those mags have becomeobslenent) they should do the same with the 'rag' newspapers.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
David cameron should be forced to wear a modesty bag and have water poured over his head before being beaten to death by a 12" rubber dildo

Government censorship in any form is wrong. Hidden under the veil of "protecting children" its actuallt another way of keeping the public under control
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
Colour Scientist said:
TimeLord said:
This already happens for magazines like these in UK service stations on Motorways.

So in a Supermarket where a family shops it makes sense.
Why isn't your avatar Doctor Who related?
You're shattering my world view.
Because Agumon!
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
This is not censorship. Censorship would be removing the magazines entirely.

There is literally no issue with this other than ridiculous, spasmodic hyperconservative people jerking their knees so hard that they break the table while yelping buzzwords such as "government censorship", "hidden motives" or "public under control".
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
"At eye level next to the sweets"

But they're not. At least, not for a child, fuck, if a store's been doing it right, not even for a short adult.

All of these kinds of magazines, by law, have to be placed on the top shelf, thus preventing exposure to children without blocking display and/or sale to its intended audience.

If you want to go ahead with this, then fine. It won't really harm much, and unless cameron gets anywhere with his moronic plans, these magazines are pretty obsolete anyway, but it's still insanity if you ask me.

And one more thing, if anyone actually thinks women are as they are depicted in these magazines and in pornography as a whole, then there's really no helping them. I mean, they're fucking idiots if they think that. You can't stop full blown stupid, no matter how hard you try.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
I'd say that other publications available at supermarkets/newsagents like gossip mags/tabloids are way more damaging and to a greater number of people. It's not as graphic as stuff like Nuts, but is seen as more socially acceptable to read about celebrity diets/weight loss/photoshopped thin people and the effect is far more subtle and damaging to self-esteem. Example spoilered below:


Also I hope this applies to very scantily clad men as well, it's obviously not quite as pervasive but should be addressed at the same time to avoid any stupid double standards.
 

Kurai Angelo

New member
Oct 12, 2009
421
0
0
As long as the cost of encasing Front Magazine in plastic is not passed on to me, I really couldn't care less. I just want me some Alternative/Emo Chick boobs.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Still think we should be teaching kids about sex rather then hiding it from them like a bunch of pussies (pun intended).

That being said, I despite using sexualized pictures of any gender in marketing. Although I think they're attacking it the wrong way by forcing these "modesty bags" upon them.
 

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
Dr. Cakey said:
So British people call them "lads' mags"?

God damn it, British people. Why are you so British?
Someone call?
Oh right.... *facepalms*
OT:Don't really see anything wrong with this, it's not like people won't be able to buy them. While I WOULD prefer the idea of the co-op simply moving the lad-mags to a more secluded area of the shop (out of the way of any aisle the children will be hopefully) rather than taking time from the mag publishers, I guess it is rather more difficult. Co-ops generally aren't all that big in my experience.
I'm also with the crowd going "people still buy these things?". I mean, come on, there is the internet for looking at that kind of stuff.
 

GonvilleBromhead

New member
Dec 19, 2010
284
0
0
The thing I worry about is the impact things like this will have on the women who appear in these magazines, and the effect it will have on social mobility, and less about the possibility of censorship.
At the very dawn of time, their was only one talent that was relevant if one wanted to improve ones station in life, and that was brawn. The person who could carry the most berry's, hunt the most mammoths, strangle the most foes rose. Then manual dexterity joined it. The person who could make the best tools got the most in barter. Another talent rose to join those, and that was artistry - the painter, the sculptor, the actor, the composer. Followed by shrewdness - the businessman and trader. Then intelligence - the engineers, the inventors. Then it was realised that people enjoy watching the best play sport, and thus the best sportsman attracted high salaries. Movies came along, and being good looking could be a passport to success. Even jack's of all trades, or those with slim talents in a couple of fields, could find success (the reletively intelligent, artistic, and shrewd could find a fortune in advertising, for example.)

The idea that success can be derived from a growing diversity of talent pools has been one of the great way humanity has moved forward. Why try and remove one avenue for success?