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

[Thaluikhain]

The guvmint's trying to censor me, it's 1984 all over again!

Except it isn't the government, it's The Co-operative, and I think it's well within a retailer's rights to decide what they want on their shelves.

"The Co-Operative" sounds more sinister than "The Government", though.

I like how censorship isn't about the government interfering with free speech, it's about private people not wanting to put up with certain things in their own space, such as not stocking items in their stores which they have a duty to or something.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I dislike scantily clad women on everything that I buy as well, but I, on the other hand, think every magazine should be able to put whatever it wants on its cover, and am equally incensed at women's mags and their inane bullshit. So here's a compromise, let's just put a tarpaulin over the entire magazine section of every store. Now everyone's happy.

They can do what they want with the cover, and the stres can choose not to stock them. It already seems fair to me.

Exactly. But the stores choose to stock them and display the covers. Apparently it offends some people so much they think it shouldn't be the store's or the magazine's choice.

 

[Something Amyss]

Exactly. But the stores choose to stock them and display the covers. Apparently it offends some people so much they think it shouldn't be the store's or the magazine's choice.

Are we no longer discussing the article? Because the events in question ARE the choice of the store:

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.

(Emphasis actually not mine for once)

Nobody's being forced to cover their magazines if they don't want to, so I don't really see the problem.

 

[Talvrae]

Wow... The british strike again after the porn website blocks this... Can they stop acting like theyr are the mother of everyone of the contry?

 

[Legion]

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.

This.

If they started saying legal adults shouldn't be allowed to buy them because "we need to think of the children" then that'd be censorship, but to be honest simply covering them up in a supermarket isn't really that unfair. Although I suspect the magazines won't be happy because more discreet covers will get less people noticing it.

The only thing I disagree with is that people need to get over this idea that sexual content is such a bad thing. We seem to be coming full circle to the idea that sex should be shameful. I am not referring to this article in particular, but the general attitude that seems to be becoming more common in British culture.

While I do not disagree with them covering it up in shops where children may see it (not that I personally think it is harmful), the attitude behind this kind of thing is one I cannot agree with. The idea that it "corrupts" children is just plain idiotic. Seeing a handful of magazines featuring scantily clad women is not going to suddenly cause them to behave inappropriately in a sexual manner. Not if parents and teachers do a proper job educating them about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

Although people need to bear in mind that it's not the government doing anything. It's a shop refusing to sell them if they don't. It's not like they cannot sell them elsewhere if they want to, or they could do multiple versions and sell them everywhere.

 

[tomtom94]

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.

This.

If they started saying legal adults shouldn't be allowed to buy them because "we need to think of the children" then that'd be censorship, but to be honest simply covering them up in a supermarket isn't really that unfair. Although I suspect the magazines won't be happy because more discreet covers will get less people noticing it.

The only thing I disagree with is that people need to get over this idea that sexual content is such a bad thing. We seem to be coming full circle to the idea that sex should be shameful. I am not referring to this article in particular, but the general attitude that seems to be becoming more common in British culture.

While I do not disagree with them covering it up in shops where children may see it (not that I personally think it is harmful), the attitude behind it is one I cannot agree with. The idea that it "corrupts" children is just plain idiotic. Seeing a handful of magazines featuring scantily clad women is not going to suddenly cause them to behave inappropriately in a sexual manner. Not if parents and teachers do a proper job educating them about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

I was going to post, but you've just said everything I wanted to say and much better, so kudos. I would just add that people should not confuse the scantily clad women on the cover of lads' mags with tasteful nudity (there is a massive difference, the covers of some lads' mags these days are basically just softcore pornography), because I'm sure someone will cite the art gallery argument at this point.

I could add about how I think it's not a good thing for children to see women being so casually objectified but I'm sure that would cause an argument.

 

[SonicWaffle]

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.

Lad's Mags are far more open about it. They don't bother going the FHM/Maxim route of pretending to shoot artsy-looking cover photos, they pretty much just shout "HERE BE SOME TITTIES!" from their front page.

There's also a difference in the way the content is approached. Something like Vogue or FHM, which objectifying a woman, will generally make reference to her being beautiful or whatever. A lad's mag cuts right to the point by forgoing the posturing and diving straight for "don't you want to spunk on her tits?" or similar. The difference between the two is that one is far more direct and doesn't massively attempt to distance itself from actual pornography.

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?

It's pretty bad. This in itself isn't censorship - it's not removing the material from sale, just making it less obvious, which I'm not sure how I feel about. I'm not one of those people who entirely agrees that anything which makes a woman appear sexual is bad, but neither do I particularly like the way lad's mags approach women as sexual beings. I'm kinda conflicted on this one.

The internet censorship is superficially similar - the product is not removed, it just has to be specifically sought after - but is far more troubling, as it allows the government du jour to place anything they don't like onto a list and label it undesirable. ISPs will also need to keep record of who has requested access to what, which is going to make it a lot easier for the police to request the data and be aware of what people are looking at. Not to mention the fact that most experts agree that it will be useless in preventing *actual* child abusers or creators of other illegal imagery from viewing what they want. I'm worried about the direction this government is attempting to take the country in; they've proposed government-backed press regulation, they have a hit-list of internet reading material they've labelled "deviant" and want to know who is looking at, and that's before you get into all the other ways the nation is being crippled.

I'm not happy. Not happy at all.

 

[Kmadden2004]

in a victory for the daily mail, cameron announced a series of measures cracking down on internet sleaze

related articles: look at kim kardashians jugs, look at this girls bikini body, look at this girls really hot mortal kombat outfit

hey kettle youre black

I imagine the daily mail sees a profit here. If people can't look at porn sites anymore they might go to their sleazy, creepy, misogynist, 'look, X has her tits out' articles. If there was ever a den of hypocritical rats, it's the daily mail.

I would laugh myself into an aneurism if the Daily Mail ended up getting blocked by this filter they're proposing...

 

[SonicWaffle]

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".

The motives aren't hidden at all, in most cases. These are politicians; the motive is almost always "what bone can I throw you that'll get you to vote for me again?"

As for the latter part of the OP, it's far more disturbing than just knee-jerk conservatism. In fact, knee-jerk moral conservatism is the impetus for the decision. Anyone who views something the conservative government (or more accurately, the frothing-at-the-mouth right-wing newspapers) are opposed to is linked in the public mind to child molesters by grouping it all together under the banner of deviancy, and thus it should all be placed behind a wall because "think of the children!". Anyone who signs up to look at one bit of banned content is of course going to be looking at all banned content - because that's logic - and is therefore a child molester who should be monitored. The fact that it's being supported by the right wing doesn't surprise me at all; it's that classic double-edged sword of the right, opposition to governmental imposition unless that imposition is to do something you approve of.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Interesting indeed ... yes, I do believe this has some relevance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaHDBL7dVgs

 

[SonicWaffle]

I imagine the daily mail sees a profit here. If people can't look at porn sites anymore they might go to their sleazy, creepy, misogynist, 'look, X has her tits out' articles. If there was ever a den of hypocritical rats, it's the daily mail.

I swear to god this is an honest question, I like to keep up to date with these things.

Are articles written in the 'Femail' segment, written largely by women, targetted at women, with a huge female demographic, in a very popular bit known throughout the UK as the 'Sidebar of Shame', being called 'creepy and misogynist' these days?

One doesn't necessarily have to be male to be misogynist. In the case of such things as the Sidebar of Shame, the argument is that these women are reinforcing anti-female ideas such as that a woman's worth is tied to her physical attractiveness, and that any woman who falls below this impossibly high standard is deserving of mockery and public shaming.

Ergo the point is that the concept is misogynist, rather than the writers.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wow... The british strike again after the porn website blocks this... Can they stop acting like theyr are the mother of everyone of the contry?

All that's happening is one company is saying "if you want to sell your stuff here, you have to cover it up."

This isn't a nanny state deal.

If they started saying legal adults shouldn't be allowed to buy them because "we need to think of the children" then that'd be censorship,

If you look at this thread, you'd think that's what's happening.

Although I suspect the magazines won't be happy because more discreet covers will get less people noticing it.

Probably like it less if they get dropped entirely, though.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I just look forward, after the Daily Mail claiming 'success' at 'their' campaign, because since the dawn of time they've been bitching about porn, so now something's happened they can claim it's all their own work...to millions of people trying to access the Daily Mail site and finding it's been blocked due to it's content.

On the main issue however, I have no problem with them covering sexualised magazine covers, so long as it's fairly implemented a bikini model should have the same stipulations as a well oiled male six pack. So long as they are still available, and it doesn't go to the point of cigarette sales here, where you just have to ask a member of staff and they'll flip thru a pile of plain white magazine covers hunting for the one you want.

I've always found it's a bit strange that some stores won't stock Razzle, but Nuts is fine, because they will include an interview with Danny Dyer and a bit about a car to break up the barrage of tits.

Honestly, if you're not actively an adult magazine, and you can't market yourself without tits or sweaty close ups of rugged male models in speedos, then you're failing as a magazine.

 

[Mr F.]

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

Well, Yes!

And on every level, No.

Look, its very, very simple logic. Easiest example: Cigarettes. The government controls who can and who cannot buy cigarettes. Because cigarettes are bad for you so only responsible adults can kill themselves slowly. This is controlling freedom, limiting the freedom of the populace and government oppression! Yet it is a sensible policy.

With regards to lads mags, the government controls who can buy adult material, much like they control who can go into an 18+ film, who can buy porn and all the rest. Is this censorship? Not really. Is there much point in limiting who can buy them if they are in full view, tits and all, for everyone? Not really.

Finally, and this is a big one, I am a 21 year old male. I am the target demographic. I don't like them. I don't like them in shops in plain sight, I don't like being assaulted by a tidalwave of mysoginistic bullshit whenever I go shopping. I like to be able to buy Private Eye, or when my dad was alive buy him a random car magazine (Or private eye, to be honest), without having tits everywhere.

If people want porn, they can buy it online. If people want a lads mag, it being covered up so everyone that does NOT want a lads mag doesn't have to see tits whenever they go shopping, whenever they buy a magazine and all the rest, won't stop them.

Look, if the escapist had porn ads, many people would get angry. That's the issue. Lads Mags are among all the other mags, the Dr Who mags, the train collecting mags, the mags for kids. The same area that sells Beano sells porn. Covering it up so your 12 year old doesn't see boobs when trying to buy a comic is not a bad thing.

Lets hold off on calling censorship for when censorship is actually happening. If you want an issue, go try and find a newspaper in this country that doesn't support neo-liberalism and actually gives an impartial account of any protest with a violent element (Here is a hint: The violence is not caused solely by anarchists. The protests are not "Infiltrated" by violent people. People are just getting fucking angry.). If you want an issue about control, why not go look at the fact that Parliament is in the process of giving the police dispersal orders (The ability to order people to break up a lawful protest if they THINK it might cause violence or anything else.), if you want to talk about government oppression and whatnot, why not go look at the real stats behind teenage pregnancy (Heres a hint: Less than 5% of children in this country are born of teenage parents.), or the real cost of unemploymeny benefits (Less than 4% of the wellfare budget.)

tldr;
- This is not censorship.
- The government is taking actions which are far worse than a move to cover up tits in places where people don't want tits.
- If you are finding an issue here, you really need to look at your reasoning.
- The move is by the Coop, not the Government. So... Yeah. Just an important thing to note.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I thought someone would say something like that. I'll take that as a no then. Respectfully as I can be while maintaining my honesty, your post sounds like preaching and is not to be taken at all seriously, at least imo.

"I don't like your argument, therefore it isn't worth taking seriously"? You yourself even acknowledge in the next part of your post that the logic is sound.

What you just argued would take very little effort to turn women into blacks, and sidebar of shame into Tyler Perry Movies, what with their negative stereotype engendering and all this... Yeah it's something sociologically minded people can say and even have a point I suppose but as long as the people you're talking about(and their intended audience) don't give a shit, who are we to say otherwise?

So there's no point in trying to help people out of a bad situation which negatively impacts them, so long as they are not fully aware they are in said bad situation? If you were standing around on the street and I happened to notice a grand piano falling from a rooftop above you, I have no responsibility to call out to you because as far as you know, nothing is wrong?

I do also think that while you ended your post with 'the concept is misogynist, not the writers', something tells me you'd be right next to most of this website in calling the writers out, personally, were they men.

Y'know, somehow that doesn't surprise me. It seems to be the go-to argument when people present this kind of idea; "OK, I know what you said, but that's not relevant. In my hypothetical scenario, you said something different, and that's good enough proof for me"