You mean tits AND vaginas?
I thought that's what tumblr was for... or did Yahoo get rid of them already?Kurai Angelo said:
"Lads Mags" to be covered in modesty bags in national UK store - discussion about censorship
- Thread starter Griffolion
- Start date
I was watching a show called The Wright Stuff this morning and this was one of the topics of discussion. What they said was that women's mags which covers feature stories about achieving orgasm and persecuting "fat celebrities" could be more harmful to young people, especially girls, rather than the images which are shown on lads mags. Interesting point which surprisingly was agreed with by the studio audience and viewers phoning/tweeting/e-mailing in
It's in the US too. I've seen certain magazines in grocery stores have a thin piece of plastic on top of them for that reason. Something like a Cosmopolitan having a woman in a bikini on the cover, talking about the supposed 5 easy steps to getting the best summer body, tends to get covered without question. Seems kinda silly to me, but I hesitate to call it censorship since they're not preventing anyone from buying the magazines or forcing the publishers to change their articles.
So will you be wearing a bin bag to the beach? Wouldn't want anybody to see covered boobs on a lads mag then they certainly don't want them in real life!Colour Scientist said:
As for taking boobs out of your face, sorry but that just doesn't fly ... females of all ages are walking around showing way too much skin, I've seen girls of about 8 wearing Daisy dukes to women working in offices wearing dresses like
But a hand bra/bikini pic on the front of a lads mag is a step to far.
I think it's all ridiculous, making sex a naughty thing to be ashamed of and something that should be hidden away. So what if a 13 year old sees a nipple, I'm sure it wont scar the kid ... come on, he has nipples as well but instead of being on a boy they're on a blob of fat.
Plus, what age are we meant to be having the birds and bees talk? 18 (the age you have to be to watch porn)? Well they have already been having sex for 2 years!
Like I said, it's just laws for the sake of laws ... just another small push towards total lack of freedoms.
I know many consider this film to be douche but how true is it ringing for us in the UK?
Takes 26 seconds to get into it....
Christ's sake Esotera, you're ninja-ing me again!Esotera said:
I actually think that those kinds of putrid gossip mags are far more misogynistic[footnote]Actually using this word correctly, not in the wider 'antifeminist' sense[/footnote] than lads mags.
and is more calculatedly degrading to women than the predictable and archaic 'Corr look at the boobs' of Nuts or whatever.
And what's really depressing is that through the pretension of being 'printed for women' they manage to induce the complicit acceptance and even funding of their behaviour.
But yeah, I've not really got any objection to them being covered. Just because I hate gossip mags too doesn't mean I oppose this measure.
You know what the best thing about that bottom picture is? The cos player dressed up as mileena ... "Down with smut on the net!" oh, hi smut!shootthebandit said:
Would be like having a WBC picture next to a gay pride parade or a KKK advert on a page dedicated to Martin Luther King.
God, hasn't Cameron got a face you just want to hit ... it's just begging for a knuckle sandwich!
Yes, putting a clear plastic bag over a pornographic magazine is clearly a new way to enforce docility and submission amongst British citizens everywhere. 1984, here we come!shootthebandit said:
People need to calm down. I don't care about the magazines themselves, but I do find it really obnoxious when people react as though their personal freedoms are being trampled on because there is a four-second delay between buying a magazine and getting to open it.
It's the fact that for X amount of years porn mags and lads mags weren't causing any harm, people knew they existed but they were left alone ... now they are degrading women and harming our children and all other kinds of messed up shit. Why now? Why "clamp down" on something that has just been accepted for ages but still allow shit gossip mags (which feature almost exactly the same images) to be left alone.peruvianskys said:
Yeah, I agree with this. It's been that way for a few years here (although we have a darkened window over the shelf in front of them), strangely after they removed porn blocks on TV. I don't have an issue with some cover on the adult magazines, if I ever have the need to see them (that wont happen) they're still as easy to buy as they used to be. I really have to get back to the point made before me that this is hardly censor, it's merely making it a teeeeeny bit less accessible to kids or those who choose to take offense at such things. This way they can pretend to tackle the issue while doing nothing.Colour Scientist said:
have to agree with OneCatch. the insane levels if inanity shown in those stupid so called entertainment magazines and womens interest mags drive me nuts.
its like the whole world went on jeremy kyle and decided to talk about it. to the press.for phat cash wads.
i dont care if truly pornographic content is covered up. but most lads mags arent actualy that bad (on the porn levels i mean. im prety sure they are on par with the horrendous womens mags that speak about nothing more than diets, babies and what stupid inbred people are doing to other stuipd inbred people, so they can show up on jeremy kyle lol)
if they realy want to crack down...
cover/remove the womens interest mags. they reinforce the breeder mentality by showing how *CUTE!* babies have to be.
cover/remove all the mothers interest mags. you do realise they are fap matierial for pedos, right? babies in nappies? super fap material guys. same with all the goram nappy adverts, breast milk ads and baby oil/mosituriser and nappyrash creams.
or, be fairer. add a ladette's mag, covered with posing males from firefighters calenders and hunk of the week competitions. add the lasses like lasses mag full of artfully posed lesbians and the laddies mag full of more hunkey firefighters, cops and jocks for the gay men.
and then put them ALL in plain white bags XD
infact put EVERYTHING in plain white packaging. type OBEY and CONFORM and also the much used MARRY AND REPRODUCE tagline on them. isnt that what they realy want?
*grins and wiggles special sunglasses*
its like the whole world went on jeremy kyle and decided to talk about it. to the press.for phat cash wads.
i dont care if truly pornographic content is covered up. but most lads mags arent actualy that bad (on the porn levels i mean. im prety sure they are on par with the horrendous womens mags that speak about nothing more than diets, babies and what stupid inbred people are doing to other stuipd inbred people, so they can show up on jeremy kyle lol)
if they realy want to crack down...
cover/remove the womens interest mags. they reinforce the breeder mentality by showing how *CUTE!* babies have to be.
cover/remove all the mothers interest mags. you do realise they are fap matierial for pedos, right? babies in nappies? super fap material guys. same with all the goram nappy adverts, breast milk ads and baby oil/mosituriser and nappyrash creams.
or, be fairer. add a ladette's mag, covered with posing males from firefighters calenders and hunk of the week competitions. add the lasses like lasses mag full of artfully posed lesbians and the laddies mag full of more hunkey firefighters, cops and jocks for the gay men.
and then put them ALL in plain white bags XD
infact put EVERYTHING in plain white packaging. type OBEY and CONFORM and also the much used MARRY AND REPRODUCE tagline on them. isnt that what they realy want?
*grins and wiggles special sunglasses*
I think this is already a thing in the US, and has been for quite a while now. I don't see it as "censorship" so much as making retailers jump through another hoop. But I don't recall ever hearing about it affecting the sale of such magazines (at least affecting it as much as Internet porn has), so I'm not particularly bothered by it. Who knows? Maybe the bags will add a sense of intrigue and mystery and give the sales a boost.
Cameron is a massive ****, why does he think he can get away with this? Political censorship is always done under the guise of "stopping porn."
Stunned nobody has done this already.
Seriously, this is just smoke blowing, and deciding that parenting is now the responsibility of the state rather than, say, the parents. I get that the family is a dying notion in this country, but still.
Seriously, this is just smoke blowing, and deciding that parenting is now the responsibility of the state rather than, say, the parents. I get that the family is a dying notion in this country, but still.
It starts off with little things like this and blocking pornography because people like you see it as acceptable. It then moves onto "extremist content" which they will use buzzwords like terrorism but all it will do is block sites which the government sees as a threat. They dont immediately start off by censoring everything its a slow process. Hitler actually used a lot of propaganda to appeal to core family valuesperuvianskys said:
Also by this reasoning people with tattoos of nakes ladies (which is very common) should be forced to cover them in public