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

[elvor0]

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

As much as I dislike Cameron, this isn't censorship. This is just making it so people who don't want it don't have boobs thrust in their faces all the time at the magazine isle don't have to put up with it. I feel it's a bit unnecessary, given they tend to have the nipples and vagina covered(if on the front cover), as it's not a porn mag, but this isn't censorship. Because it's still available, you can still have it and it's still perfectly legal to obtain and view. You just have to take a black bag off of it now.

This is just the magazine equivalent of the watershed. That! And it's got nothing to do with the government at all. It's the Co-op supermarket asking for black bags. It's right there in the intro of the article.

 

[Mr F.]

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.

I hate misogynistic bullshit too. Stuff like Closer parading around 'shocking' images of female celebrities without make up and just looking like normal women, designed specifically to make catty and jealous people feel better about themselves by bringing people down. Appaling behaviour.

High fashion mags that are a celebration of borderline anorexia.

You know where you'll never see pictures of real women humiliated and mocked for public titilation? Mens mags.
You know where you'll never see pictures of women of a genuinely unhealthy weight and having that shit seen a positive? Mens mags.

You're full of shit on how they're laid out in shops too, save us the sob stories about Beano and think of the children. I can tell you for a fact they're stacked very deliberately so all you can see is the name at the top of the mag and maybe the top of a womans head. You'll get more 'bombardment' from the Sunday Sport, laid right there on the floor, or from Cosmo, that IS laid right there at the front and includes things that any 8 year old can read, like

'BAD GIRL SEX' '75 SEX MOVES' 'HAVE 6 ORGASMS TONIGHT'.

What do you think is a bigger problem? The words 'Nuts' barely visible on a shelf 3 feet above their head, the Sunday Sport headlining "She gave 30 men sex in one afternoon", Or Cosmo advertising 8 new ways to suck a dick?

Yeah... No.

Sorry. Swing and a miss bro. Swing and a miss. See, I am a brit, a brit who grew up overseas in a conservative muslim country with very tightly controlled internet. Back when I was younger and more idiotic, I would try and get porn. Constantly (Around the 13/14/15 age.) but it was understandably very, very hard, what with the whole conservative muslim country thing.

So I remember, distinctly, catching as many glances as I could at bewbs. It was not hard. Now, the UK aint nearly as bad as Cyprus (I went there on a school trip in like, year 5, I still remember the porn EVERYWHERE.) but it is bad. The Sun, well, that irritates me. But lets ignore that for a minute.

In most places, lads mags are on show. Very, very easily on show. In the "Mens" section. They are not high up and out of sight, they are not covered up so you can only see someones head and the name. I am not saying "Oh won't you think of the children", I am pointing out how prolific they are.

So no.

I can tell you for a fact they're stacked very deliberately so all you can see is the name at the top of the mag and maybe the top of a womans head.

If this is the case than the coops moves don't matter!

Its a pity this is not the case. Like, not at all the case. Small news agents don't stack them like that (You can tell me for a fact that this is the case? You have been to every newsagents in the country?), the local Sainsburys doesn't stack them like that, the local Morrisons doesn't stack them like that. The Tescos I used to go to back in Impington doesn't stack them like that. So maybe the place where YOU work does. Maybe the shop that YOU go to does.

Both of the things are issues. Now, there has been a move away from size 0 models, a move that came from Isreal (Strangely enough. I find it hard to stomach that good things come from Isreal, but whatever.), there have been some undertones that perhaps we should change things. I would like to point out that at no point did I discuss the corruption value or whatever, or state that lads mags are damaging (Please, Go read through my post). I am not saying that, I am not discussing that. That is a totally different discussion.

What I am saying is people like myself, people like my mother, people like most of the women I know (That I have mentioned this to. I will freely admit that most of the women I know are feminists.), don't like tits everywhere. I am not saying it corrupts children (Meerly that the tits are in childrens eyeline, please remember that is what I stated, plus that we control what they can consume which is a bit pointless if they can still see the tits in the first place.) or any of that nebulous bullshit.

I am saying that I don't like seeing tits when I go to buy Private Eye. I am saying I don't like the "Lads Mags" being in with all the motor shit. I am saying that this is not censorship because it is being carried out by the Coop. And I am asking what on earth your point was because it seemed to have nothing to do with my own.

So whilst we are agreed that lots of shit is mysoginistic shit, whilst I will make the statement that this whole corruption argument is even more mysogyny ("Nekkid womens will corrupt kiddies!" "So the female form is inherently corrupting?" "Uh... Think of the children!") instead of attacking the real issue that is pornography, not who can consume it. I will state, one final time, I just don't like boobs on show when I am buying things. That's it.

If the escapist started to advertise porn websites I would drop it instantly. Because I come to the escapist for things that have nothing to do with porn. I simply don't like tits everywhere when I buy Private Eye.

Have I made my point clearly enough?

 

[SonicWaffle]

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?

Firstly, no, you don't actually have that responsibility. You didn't do anything to create it.

To refer this back to the reason for the example for a moment, in the case of sexism I, and just about everyone else, is guilty of sustaining it. We think and react in the ways society has trained us to, and when one aspect of that training is broken - as our attitude towards women undeniably is - then it's a struggle to overcome all of that early life training. I know that I for one don't always succeed, but the fact that sexism isn't my fault personally doesn't absolve me from the responsibility to oppose it. I'm against drink driving too, even though I neither drink nor drive, because it has objectively bad consequences for the society I live in.

There are people that elect to shoulder the collective responsibility we have to keep each other alive, but if you aren't the operator of the crane or a fireman or a policeman or maybe a supervisor of the building site, then no, you don't have an individual responsibility to me any more than you have an individual responsibility to any of the other people that die accidentally. You wouldn't be blame if I died in that situation.

Forgive me for saying so, but that's a horrible attitude. If an accident or a death is easily preventable, and you choose not to make any effort to prevent it, you are still guilty. You didn't cause the accident itself, but you indirectly caused someone to die as a result of it by not bothering to try and avert it. How is there any way other than sociopathy for someone to walk away from a situation like that thinking "hell, nothing to do with me, it's their own fault for not being more careful"?

However, daft point to one side, intervening in cases of immediate pain, violence or death isn't even close to being the same damn thing as thinking that something created by women for the pleasure and consumption of women probably isn't outright misogynistic.

Since metaphors apparently go over your head, let's return to the basic point. Sexism is not always intentional, and it is certainly not always malicious. It's often accidental or unthinking. As is the case with the Sidebar of Shame; do any of those writers think "today I will reinforce some negative stereotypes about women and indirectly attack the self-esteem of those judged worthy of attention as well as those judged unworthy"? Probably not. But they're still doing it without even thinking about it.

I'll be honest, I think the view you just expressed is pretty arrogant. It doesn't matter that I don't like high fashion as a concept, it's not on me to throw labels around at the people that do. Seems to me that if women were getting pissed at the things being made for them they'd be more than capable of changing it, and if black folks felt Tyler Perry movies crossed whatever lines they hold they'd stop buying into it and set about changing that shit too.

Yes. And this is why we see those exact things happening. Why do you think a large part of the modern feminist movement is about educating other women that this kind of subliminal sexism is still incredibly prevalent, and that they are unthinkingly buying into it? Why do we have people - who you yourself said have a point - pointing out that Tyler Perry movies reflect negatively on black people and trying to get people to think about what they're watching?

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You say if women cared about sexism they'd try to change it, but then when they try to change it you complain that other women don't care enough to change it - is the only way you'll accept sexism needing to be fought when every single woman on the planet signs a petitition or something?

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"

Maybe my example doesn't apply to you. But don't try and tell me that when men express 'unpopular/misogynist ideas' it's because they're men and THEY are personally angry little sexist troll-boys. There isn't an equivalent for females cause nobody directly insults them, it's their ideas that are bad.

This is such a confused sentence I can't even find a point. What exactly do you mean here? That nobody insults women who hold radical, offensive anti-male views? Because they do. The term is a misandrist, and when they rear their heads they are mocked just as loudly as the Men's Rights variety of angry, disempowered male. The only difference is that the Men's Rights movement have achieved a greater prominence in news media by being more vocal, and that angry bile-spewing anti-feminist trolls are much, much more common on your average internet forum than their vagina'd equivalent.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

Which is the difference between "small c" and "big C" conservatism. Small c conservatism is the anti-government intervention (see: Rush Limbaugh) and big C Conservatism is the strange mutated political party.

However, we're not talking about the internet filter, here... we're talking about modesty bags for sex magazines. There's no content banning, we're not talking about deviancy, we're not talking government monitoring (what, are they going to put cameras in the bags?).

This is about modesty bags.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with them.

 

[C14N]

Well on the one hand I was kind of hoping we would slowly get some sense and start moving closer to countries that don't care about exposed nipples (go to anywhere that sells magazines in France or Germany and you'll see totally uncensored titties on the covers) but on the other, this really doesn't harm anyone. If you really want to pay money to see boobies and nothing more than that, you can still do it. It just seems a bit weird that this is coming from the same country that has "Page 3" girls on the majority of its popular tabloid newspapers and has had them for a very long time now.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Which is the difference between "small c" and "big C" conservatism. Small c conservatism is the anti-government intervention (see: Rush Limbaugh) and big C Conservatism is the strange mutated political party.

With such high levels of crossover, the two tend to blur together except for when those who advocate one or the other standpoint who resent having beliefs attributed to them because of the other group. Particularly where social conservatism is involved.

However, we're not talking about the internet filter, here... we're talking about modesty bags for sex magazines. There's no content banning, we're not talking about deviancy, we're not talking government monitoring (what, are they going to put cameras in the bags?).

This is about modesty bags.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with them.

I'm pretty sure the OP was discussing both the modesty bags and the online filter, hence this conversation.

 

[lacktheknack]

However, we're not talking about the internet filter, here... we're talking about modesty bags for sex magazines. There's no content banning, we're not talking about deviancy, we're not talking government monitoring (what, are they going to put cameras in the bags?).

This is about modesty bags.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with them.

I'm pretty sure the OP was discussing both the modesty bags and the online filter, hence this conversation.

They really should have been different discussions, seeing how it's like trying to discuss, say, environmentalism and Egyptian protests at the same time. There's a bit of crossover, but they're mostly two completely seperate topics.

 

[SonicWaffle]

However, we're not talking about the internet filter, here... we're talking about modesty bags for sex magazines. There's no content banning, we're not talking about deviancy, we're not talking government monitoring (what, are they going to put cameras in the bags?).

This is about modesty bags.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with them.

I'm pretty sure the OP was discussing both the modesty bags and the online filter, hence this conversation.

They really should have been different discussions, seeing how it's like trying to discuss, say, environmentalism and Egyptian protests at the same time. There's a bit of crossover, but they're mostly two completely seperate topics.

I'm not so sure, given that some of the reasoning behind it - "what if children see?!" - is the same in both cases. There is at least a link between the sexualised aspects of both cases, whereby the impetus is to hide away that which is too sexual from accident public viewing. Granted they diverge after that, but it's a root cause for both.

Also, out of interest, what crossover are you thinking of between environmentalism and the Egyptian protests? I thought those were largely about a coup-but-not-a-coup removing from power a government which was seen to be abusing its power?

 

[lacktheknack]

This is such a confused sentence I can't even find a point. What exactly do you mean here? That nobody insults women who hold radical, offensive anti-male views? Because they do. The term is a misandrist...

I've had people on these boards laugh at me for using the word misandrist, and when I told the guy that for doing that he was only worth the next two sentences worth of my time and I wasn't gonna say another word to him, I recieved a warning from this very site. So yeah, don't be silly and try and convince anyone here that anti-female sentiment by men isn't treated as a cardinal sin, while anti-female sentiment by women isn't treated an an anomaly, and anti-male sentiment is really given a fuck about by anybody. LEAST of all feminists.

My wild guess: You used the term "misandrist" in a silly context, and were a jerk to the other guy.

I guess that, because I've used the term with a completely straight face and was met with straight-faced responses, and no warnings were to be had by any. The topic was "guys getting screwed over when it comes to marriage", a topic where most people here do agree that men get the short end of the stick.

If you use the term "misandrist" to describe someone talking about, say, "male privilege", then of course they're going to laugh at you. Because that's not misandry at all. You'd laugh if some woman accused a man of "misogyny" because he claimed that men tend to be larger than women, wouldn't you?

 

[lacktheknack]

However, we're not talking about the internet filter, here... we're talking about modesty bags for sex magazines. There's no content banning, we're not talking about deviancy, we're not talking government monitoring (what, are they going to put cameras in the bags?).

This is about modesty bags.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with them.

I'm pretty sure the OP was discussing both the modesty bags and the online filter, hence this conversation.

They really should have been different discussions, seeing how it's like trying to discuss, say, environmentalism and Egyptian protests at the same time. There's a bit of crossover, but they're mostly two completely seperate topics.

I'm not so sure, given that some of the reasoning behind it - "what if children see?!" - is the same in both cases. There is at least a link between the sexualised aspects of both cases, whereby the impetus is to hide away that which is too sexual from accident public viewing. Granted they diverge after that, but it's a root cause for both.

Also, out of interest, what crossover are you thinking of between environmentalism and the Egyptian protests? I thought those were largely about a coup-but-not-a-coup removing from power a government which was seen to be abusing its power?

Somewhere, in that writhing crowd of furious people, are some people who despise the guy's environmental policy.

...I never said it was a significant bit of crossover.

And also, the "What if the children see?" root isn't too relevant, because, as you said, one's in public and easily seen by accident, and the other has to be sought after, which is a detail that really differentiates the two in this case.

The approach is different too. The magazines now have a piece of plastic on them and have always required purchase, while the filter requires you to actively say "yes, I want to have access to this content" where you previously didn't need to, which means the changes aren't really comparable either.

 

[lacktheknack]

My wild guess: You used the term "misandrist" in a silly context, and were a jerk to the other guy.

I guess that, because I've used the term with a completely straight face and was met with straight-faced responses, and no warnings were to be had by any. The topic was "guys getting screwed over when it comes to marriage", a topic where most people here do agree that men get the short end of the stick.

If you use the term "misandrist" to describe someone talking about, say, "male privilege", then of course they're going to laugh at you. Because that's not misandry at all. You'd laugh if some woman accused a man of "misogyny" because he claimed that men tend to be larger than women, wouldn't you?

You're wrong. I remember that thread. I started it.

In a larger post I used the word misandry appropriately, not even to the guy that quoted me, and I was met with.

Misandry. Lol.
And then a question I've since forgotten.

No swears happened, no direct insults. Warning issued.

Well, then he was being silly. But he's not representative of the forum.

And "You're not worth another word" is an insult, so yes, you'd get a warning.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Since keeping metaphors apparently goes over your head, even when you contrive very simplistic metaphors to describe very complex behaviours, like a child, at least try and keep it consistent. Are we talking about callously ignoring someones impending death, i.e. they're hanging onto a ledge at your feet and you refuse to pick them up because it's not your problem, or are we talking about something with split second reaction times, like a falling object, and the kind of thing that you really have very little control over?

It being a spur of the moment example, nautrally it would be simplified, but the intention was more to the former. Ignoring specifics, if you see an accident about to happen and choose not to react when you could have made a difference by reacting, then you must accept some of the blame for the results.

If you're going to broad brush incredibly nuanced subjects like social responsibility with the express purpose of discrediting the other guy, do it consistantly.

Or, y'know, to make a point rather than to attack anyone.

Your reaction to this discussion seems to have been very hostile. So far I've been preaching, unworthy of serious consideration, arrogant, two-faced (since apparently my perspective was based only on the gender of the Daily Mail writers, and in a gender-flipped situation my reaction would have been the opposite), my example has been "stupid" and "daft", I've been called childish and even told I'm part of some "your sort of people", quite a dark accusation considering I don't know what sort of people they are.

I'm not sure what I did to deserve all this aggression pointed in my direction, but I could do without it, thanks.

I don't see any education going on as such, more like trying to tell people what they like is wrong and what they think is wrong because feminism.

So what you're saying is that the attempts by feminists to educate people as to why they disagree with certain things are inadequate by your high standards, and thus you lump them all together as "because feminism"? That's not exactly a great way to gain a balanced perspective. What part of "the attitude this publication takes towards women's bodies is damaging to their self-esteem" is it that allows you to just write it off? Or "the way women are treated as little more than some jiggling tits in a bikini is demeaning and reduces the woman in question to a sex object", how is that not an attempt to explain and educate rather than a handwave of "because feminism"?

The modern feminist movement is a power grab.

What odd phrasing. How exactly is "I'd like to be treated with the same dignity as my male counterparts" a power grab? Honestly, this is a recurring theme and seems to be depressingly important to the philosophy of the anti-feminist thinkers; we men have the power, and feminists want the power, so we must do everything we can to defend the power. It's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance where the mind is capable of recognising that they have the upper hand but unable to acknowledge that fact and so assuming that they are in fact the oppressed minority. It's reminiscent of those fundamentalist Christians in the US and their wailing about their slowly shrinking influence, the kind of thinking that gives rise to essays and complaints about how white Western Christians are the most persecuted people on Earth - "we can't have it all our own way any more! This is OPPRESSION!"

It can't be criticised

Except for the enormous numbers of people who criticise it without suffering repurcussions, such as yourself, right here on the forum that you seem to believe is rabidly pro-feminism. Here you are spouting anti-feminist views, and yet you haven't been banned yet. Funny that. Don't worry, I expect the Lipstick Mafia will be along soon enough to drag you out and bury you in a shallow grave.

and when men do say something they're obviously fringe nutters and sexists, because feminism 'isn't all about women' until you criticise it.

Given just how many of the commentators are nutters (I wish I could could them fringe, but given the sheer volume of misogynistic abuse we see, they're anything but) and sexists, it's not surprising that this seems to be the default assumption. Have you actually read the comments women get whenever they pop their head above the parapet and speak about this sort of thing? The creator of the Everyday Sexism project makes a point to post her emails and twitter responses whenever she finishes a public appearance, just to show people the number of death threats, rape threats, patronising comments and other gender-oriented abuse. Just for having the gall to talk about the problem.

I'm not assuming you're a fringe nutter, nor sexist; you obviously have a very big axe to grind with women, but that's your own deal. So far you've been rational, if a tad hostile, and I've responded to you as if we were having a discussion. Where exactly in this debate have you found yourself castigated for your fringe views? Can you point me to where I've said you were a disgusting human being "because feminism"?

Even when say, Harriet Harman, the original equalities minister, doubled the pro-female pay gap for the same roles and gives jobs to females wherever possible. That's not blatant sexism and misandry, that's 'balancing the wrong'. Power grab fuelled by redacted histories of grossly exaggerated injustices. Not saying there was NO injustice in the world, just that certain people would like you to believe that before feminism came along the world was a woman hating den of unceasing rape and oppression.

And some people would have you think that we still don't live in an equal society despite years of attempting to change it. I'm not saying I agree with Harman's implication, but attempting to redress a balance does not equate to misandry. Helping women does not mean one hates men, and vice versa.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that women never really had it as bad as all that, and any history which claims otherwise is a cynical manipulation of perspective, correct?

Besides, that isn't even what's happening, SOME women are bucking because that's what they want to do, but they're very greatly outnumbered by the people that are happily consuming away and ignoring they exist. Do you really think you're average woman really gives a fuck what a load of pretentious, arrogant feminists think? Least of all when said feminist isn't even a woman?

You seem to be equating pretentious and arrogant with feminist. There is no particular link there; feminists are people, just like other people, who may be pretentious and arrogant or down to earth and humble. Creating a caricature of your "enemy" and pretending that everyone of a certain belief fits that model is self-serving and wildly inaccurate.

Certainly, an enormous amount of women around the world are attempting to overturn historical issues (which, I'm afraid to say, contrary to your point above did exist and were generally unfair) while an equally enormous number are disinterested, but can we attribute that to a disdain with the notion of feminism or the general apathy that infects much modern life in the West? The logical answer is obvious, particularly when women are surveyed; they tend to respond that sure, they're in favour of feminism, they just don't particularly bring it up very often. Partly from laziness, partly from fear of the aforementioned reprisals that prominent feminist commentators tend to receive.

I've had people on these boards laugh at me for using the word misandrist, and when I told the guy that for doing that he was only worth the next two sentences worth of my time and I wasn't gonna say another word to him, I recieved a warning from this very site. So yeah, don't be silly and try and convince anyone here that anti-female sentiment by men isn't treated as a cardinal sin, while anti-female sentiment by women isn't treated an an anomaly, and anti-male sentiment is really given a fuck about by anybody. LEAST of all feminists.

I'm very sorry you feel that way, but you seem to have a very strong victim mentality here. Even when confronted with examples that go against these beliefs, like the comments I made earlier in the thread, you insisted that actually nobody with feminist beliefs would ever think that.

Generally people on these forums, in matters of equality, either veer wildly to the anti-feminist extreme or hold the middle ground. When female-on-male sexism rears its head, people will complain that it's sexism. Same for male-on-female. However, going by all the views you've espoused here, I would bet my boots that the only bits you ever pick out to take issue with are those which occasionaly treat male-on-female as more serious threat to equality.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Somewhere, in that writhing crowd of furious people, are some people who despise the guy's environmental policy.

...I never said it was a significant bit of crossover.

Aha. I thought you may have gotten some wires crossed and been talking about the Turkish riots which, IIRC, kicked off because of a park

And also, the "What if the children see?" root isn't too relevant, because, as you said, one's in public and easily seen by accident, and the other has to be sought after, which is a detail that really differentiates the two in this case.

Meh, pretty blurred line there. While I haven't seen much actual porn by accident, there are a lot of advertisers and websites on the internet who will flood the place with imagery designed to remind people of porn. Plus, given Rule 34, practically anything you Google is going to turn up pornography somewhere in the list!

I think it is entirely possible to stumble across pornography on the internet, particularly for someone (like a child) who isn't as experienced with navigating it and who is burdened with an abundance of curiosity. That's why I don't object to an opt-out version of the porn filter whereby everyone has access by default but for those who genuinely are worried about their children stumbling across something can have certain sites blocked from their PC. Still, the actual difficulty of finding or viewing the material isn't really the issue, it's that the supposed ease of doing so is being used as a talking point to endorse filtering. Whether or not kids will see Nuts or stumble across hardcore porn, backers of anti-pornography legislation are always going to claim it's easy to do.

The approach is different too. The magazines now have a piece of plastic on them and have always required purchase, while the filter requires you to actively say "yes, I want to have access to this content" where you previously didn't need to, which means the changes aren't really comparable either.

I'm not saying they are particularly similar in practice, just that some of the root motivation is similar.

 

[rasputin0009]

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

This is a lot more worrisome than putting a plastic cover on nudie mags. Fuck censorship like that. If that happened here in Canada, I'd be out in the streets with a picket sign. No matter what anybody thinks of pornography, it's still a form of art and should be treated with the same rights

 

[peruvianskys]

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 values

Here's a tip: If you're comparing putting a plastic bag over a pornographic magazine to the rise of Hitler, your priorities are probably a bit out of whack. Teenagers easily obtaining masturbation material is not the last defense we have against tyranny.

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.

This kind of trash does degrade women and it does influence the way children interact with and view sex. People are "clamping down" on these things because we're slowly learning that an industry based on exploiting and objectifying women is disgusting and, while legal, should not be allowed to present itself to every passerby who might, shockingly, not be interested in seeing a woman degraded for money. And gossip mags are gross and shameful too, but at least they don't actively present female bodies as tools for male pleasure quite as directly.