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

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Retrograde said:
Where have I made up a position for you? What precisely have I made up? You're the one equating my arguing against overt attempts at real censorship with textbook absurdities.
That itself is false. You took the context of what I said, threw it out, and replaced it with this version which is more convenient and a total fabrication.

I guess you're just going to lie about me, and so I'm just going to stop engaging you. How stupid of me to expect honesty on this site.
 

Equality

New member
Nov 8, 2007
28
0
0
The fact that this campaign is aimed only at 'lads mags' is standard feminist hypocrisy. As has already been mentioned - what about the other magazines that have the same visuals and cover lines but do not get covered? In my supermarket the men's magazines are behind boards ... the women's mags are on clear display with the usual sex, orgy, diet, photoshopped celebrities, graphic true life stories of depravity etc. etc. And which mags are young women and girls reading? Stuff like Cosmo or those awful chat or gossip things. Which do you think has more of an impact on them? When one of my sisters was young she read stuff like Just Seventeen and More - More in particular was notorious for its Position of the Fortnight section plus it's graphic problem page - this stuff is pretty tame compared to what's on offer for women today. Are they really trying to pretend that the covers of mags they don't read affect women/girls more than the covers and content of mags they do read? Pathetic.

If the campaign was against things like photoshopping, and the constant pressure of pushing fashion, body image and materialism (you aren't anyone unless you wear painful shoes costing 500 quid etc.) then I could take it seriously and support it. Because its targeted only at something sold to men and not applied equally to all magazines and related media - I will continue to mock its pointless sexism.
 

pandorum

New member
Mar 22, 2011
249
0
0
AC10 said:
Why does the UK hate porn so much? I would honestly leave the country.
If America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any other English speaking country would have me I would I despise Censorship.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
AC10 said:
Why does the UK hate porn so much? I would honestly leave the country.
Because the filter is set to be released into the wild almost immediately before the date on which they would be expected to hold the next election, and they're bleeding support from the social conservatives in their own party over gay marriage.

Still, it didn't pass last time - only 6 months or so ago - and for all the talk of acting like it's going ahead I haven't actually heard anything about anyone voting on it yet.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Mr F. said:
See, thats what it all comes down to.

"Is this censorship?"
"No."
"Move along please."

I am... vaguely concerned that this has sparked nearly 4 pages of discussion. Sure, its not "Mass Effect 3 had an awesome ending" bad, but still... disconcerting that people care this much about something so small.

Says the person who has posted on this very thread about 4 or 5 times now.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't even seem to understand this is a choice made by one company and are coming at this from a "big gummit telling me I can't look at titties!" perspective. Or they for some reason think this is a slippery slope. Oi.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Retrograde said:
You expressly said that since we're talking hypotheticals regarding this being a 'may be' regarding censorship(which it isn't, but feminists being in favour of censoring stuff is hardly news) we might as well argue that they 'may be' talking about putting people in cages or legislating against low cut tops, or arguing in favour of Burqas. Did you not?
No, I did not. You inferred that from a comparison you found unfavourable. But then, that's the crux of the matter.

"What did I get wrong? You said (something I claim as a fallacy without even bothering to get it right) did you not?"

I think you're doing this intentionally, at this point. That was too on the nose to be an accident. Continue to misrepresent me, but you're going on ignore so I won't be reading it anymore.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
rjdjones said:
The fact that this campaign is aimed only at 'lads mags' is standard feminist hypocrisy. As has already been mentioned - what about the other magazines that have the same visuals and cover lines but do not get covered?
Which magazines, precisely, have the equivalent of exposed tits on the cover again?

I'm sure they exist since you're insisting on this great hypocrisy, but I'd like to know their names so I can confirm.
 

Angelblaze

New member
Jun 17, 2010
855
0
0
Lionsfan said:
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
Nope. I can confirm that in my local market they are NOT covered up 0 may be different elsewhere but not in that place.
 

devotedsniper

New member
Dec 28, 2010
752
0
0
I don't really see an issue with modesty bags but then again I don't buy them.

As for the internet filter again, Don't have too much of an issue but instead of an opt out system it should be opt in, why make it extremely awkward for someone trying to opt out (like the majority of users will) when a concerned parent can ring up and just ask for it to be applied? But saying this from what I've read it's no were near ready to be implemented, it's far to broad (e.g. blocking forums). As usual we have a perfectly good idea for a system but it gets ruined by idiot politicians that know nothing about technology and the web itself.

But again we already have this tech, why effectively punish the whole the country for a parents incompetence to apply filters and blocking software on a machine.
 

mooncalf

<Insert Avatar Here>
Jul 3, 2008
1,164
0
0
The cover is an advertisement, possibly equivalent in it's obscenity to a packet of M&Ms and I think it completely appropriate that junk be shelved with junk. If kids should never be exposed to advertising or junk, keep them at home inside a black bin liner and forbid them from answering the telephone. Beware - keeping them in the dark wont be enough to make an adult out of them.
 

Equality

New member
Nov 8, 2007
28
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
rjdjones said:
The fact that this campaign is aimed only at 'lads mags' is standard feminist hypocrisy. As has already been mentioned - what about the other magazines that have the same visuals and cover lines but do not get covered?
Which magazines, precisely, have the equivalent of exposed tits on the cover again?

I'm sure they exist since you're insisting on this great hypocrisy, but I'd like to know their names so I can confirm.
Really? You need someone else to google for you?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=768&bih=928&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ocb8Ub6tMMjsOuP5gYAJ&q=women%27s+magazines+naked+covers&oq=women%27s+magazines+naked+covers&gs_l=img.12...85253.90099.0.91276.13.13.0.0.0.0.124.910.12j1.13.0....0...1c.1.23.img..11.2.210.UtUi1XRs454

While a couple of GQs and Esquires pop up you should notice that the others are, shock, women's magazines with almost naked women on - and no woman's mag is hidden behind a board.

Tech mags can have women in bikinis, photography ones too, fantasy art ... Is female skin only a problem on a mans mag but completely different on any other type? Are kids supposed to understand the difference in context? Or is the message they're supposed to get from this campaign - if its for men it's "bad". Looks like it to me.

This month's Cosmo has these tag lines - we've discovered the double orgasm, what men really think about in bed, my husband cheated on me with 1000 women
Glamour - rape on one side of the cover, a-z of sex - the knowledge but hotter ... on the other

The shelves are swamped with mags for women that cover a huge range of topics unsuitable for children. Take a look next time you go shopping and ask yourself why it is fine for the women's ones to be clearly visible and the men's have to be hidden.

If men's magazines have to be covered up then so should the women's mags. To complain about and censor one form while deliberately ignoring another just because its demographic is women not men is ... Hypocrisy.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
Retrograde said:
Mr F. said:
You know, I need to get better on uploading images to the webs and all because there is a snap of a LUFEMS poster that I think you would appreciate.

"I am not a feminist, I am just for the equality of both sexes."
"Congratulations! You're a feminist."

At what point did I say that its ok that you get bombarded with all of that? (Although I have not seen any of those add campaigns in either the place I live, which will remain unnamed, or in Manchester. Some adds which are pretty... raunchy, but none of those. Considering the top one doesn't have a slogan or a link to anything makes me think it is not, infact, an advert.)

See, the mistake you are making here is that you think I am totally and utterly cool with all the sexy shit that gets thrown at me on a regular basis. There are some adds which are pretty... Over the top, which does irritate me. Hell, its one of the things I have always disliked about France, if it exists they will advertise it using sex.

The thing is, there isn't an equivalent here. There isn't a "Chicks" mag that is all "Look, we covered the penis with a well-placed word/hand". So... Double standards. Lets try and look for them.

Issue:
- People do not like having soft-core porn mags on display due to not liking softcore porn everywhere.

Solution:
- Modesty bag so the soft core porn is no longer in-your-face as you shop.

What you seem to think it is
Issue:
- Everything is tits and boobs and S&M and nekkid guys and stuff!

Solution:
- Status Quo.

See, I do not like the status quo. Apparently, you do not like the status quo. People like me are happy that the Co-op is taking its first tentative step in dealing with the status quo. Personally, I would say the same should be done to "Mens Health" and a few other things that use the male/female form as the sole purpose of advertising because it is all part of a much wider problem which is causing ever greater amounts of blokes into plastic surgery and eating disorders.

Or do you think I should sue someone for sexual harassment and breaching my human rights to not have images of men plastered in what is heavily suggested to be massive loads of creamy white shit shoved down my throat?
Yes. You should. If those adverts are in the highstreet, you should complain. Because complaints are how things eventually get changed. Just because you are unwilling to do anything, yet very willing to ***** about it, doesn't mean that the people who are getting things done deserve to be ridiculed or told to stop because of double standards

Do you know what the double standard is here? You.

You expect to do nothing and do not want anything to change, yet are willing to complain. Yet when others are trying to get things changed for mostly the same reasons you want things to change, you are getting all angry. You are calling it ridiculous.

Why?

Because you simply cannot get your head round why people do not want this shit. You see no issue with tits on the front of soft-core porn mags. You are claiming that its not an issue, that it is nowhere, then saying that it is everywhere and it is a massive issue, all the while accusing feminists of some double standard when there is none. You are, quite simply, confused. And very, very confusing to talk to.

We agree. We both want things to change.

You are just getting angry because its changing slowly. Because we are tearing down one issue at a time. Getting rid of the softcore porn adds in groceries is a good thing. The fact that we have not yet torn down every single over-sexualised and utterly damaging advert in the country simultaneously is not a reason to hate this.

Please, explain to me what your issue is. Without mentioning feminism or a double standard. Just say, in calm words, why it is wrong that soft-core porn is being covered up in a modesty bag or will no longer be sold by one particular brand of stores. Explain why that is an issue. Then explain your link between that and all these other adverts you are apparently bombarded with and why its wrong for one to change before the rest.
Firstly, I'm gonna use calm words cause I'm a calm ************, and not because the guy that said I was just bitching and I was the problem told me to. You imply you're ok with all of that when you write massive posts about how you don't like boobs and therefore everyone should tow with the feminists like everyone else always does otherwise they get their shit ruined by supremacists... But then you don't bring up anything of an example of anything from the other side. It's fine that you have a focus, but don't take the high ground like you don't evidently only give a toss about one side of this argument

Secondly.

"I am not a feminist, I am just for the equality of both sexes."
"Congratulations! You're a feminist."
I still haven't worked out the proper response to a genuine-believer male feminist. If this were true the world would be a straight up better place, but the co-op are actually the ones chilling here, relative to what the feminists are saying. I'll post the link again if you like, but elsewhere in the thread I linked to what may or may not have kicked this off(it certainly predates any other news about this), which was feminist lobbyists arguing that the guy oriented stuff and only the guy oriented stuff was what breached rights and was what needed to be banned. Not covered up, not put in a bad. Censored. That's all I'm getting into with this. The Great Dogma has been invoked, this is my stop.
So, your beef is a group of feminists want to strait up ban some stuff that you have already said you want to strait up ban? So, the beef here is that this is not going far enough?

Plus, considering I said nothing about a strait up ban, your issue had nothing to do with what I was saying and was totally and utterly tangental to any of my arguments, yet you seemed to have no issue with quoting me to fight a different fight, have a different discussion to one I was adding.

Feminists want to strait up ban sexist shit. Congratulations. They were focusing on strait up shit that is affecting women. Important point here is that feminism is discourse. We are not a hive-mind. I do not get what you mean by "Genuine-believer male feminist", I am in many ways more radical on some subjects than one of my sisters (I am not a sexx positive feminist), and less radical than the same sister (I believe that sex/gender is a natural construct, the ideal is to abolish the differences not try and abolish gender as a whole, although that WOULD achieve my aims so I am totally behind moves that the Swedes are taking in that regard). There is no such thing as an achetypal feminist.

We are varied. You would not argue that "Historians" are trying to revise areas of history in a different light because not all historians are. The same applies with feminists. People like myself want to see the porn industry demolished, link by link, root and stem. Sex positive feminists would disagree massively.

And with regards to the article in question, well please link it. Because, simply, due to the nature of society and how we view the human body, handling topless women or incredibly scantily clad women is softcore pornography and violating rights and whatnot. Because womens nipples are sexual and shit. Thats a difficult question, but I really want to read the article.

Unless it is the article you linked earlier in which people were suing various employers for being forced to handle softcore porn, in which case I have already pointed out the flaws in your argument.

And as for censorship? Well, I hate to put this so bluntly, but not all censorship is bad. If you live in the United Kingdom, which you have led me to believe that you do, then you already have to deal with limited free speech. You could not take out add space on the side of a bus saying "Fuck off home, Niggers". Our freedom of speech is limited, what we can and cannot say is already censored. There is an argument to extend that to pornography in public spaces. You mentioned page 3 girls at some point, on that I am massively agreed. People should not be able to read that shit in public.

But aside from my own beliefs, which are rather radical, I am behind modesty bags. I am behind any move which limits how much of this shit I have to have in my face. Its a start. Maybe soon we will get around to dealing with the causes of men getting progressively more plastic surgery than women, the obsession not with being healthy but with being ripped and all the rest, rising cases of eating disorders. But whatever. This is a step in the right direction.

And I am interested to see what your issue with the modesty bagging is (Which is the subject of this thread) and the article that you linked earlier.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
rjdjones said:
Really? You need someone else to google for you?
Considering you didn't answer what I asked, I'd back off on the attitude.

And honestly, if you're going to compare those to exposed nipples, I think you've already lost any good faith argument.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Mr F. said:
So, your beef is a group of feminists want to strait up ban some stuff that you have already said you want to strait up ban? So, the beef here is that this is not going far enough?
Mind=blown!

We are not a hive-mind.
No, we're more a cybernetic lattice. It appears that you and your siblings didn't get your chips get, but we'll rectify that shortly.

One of usssssssssssss....
 

Equality

New member
Nov 8, 2007
28
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
rjdjones said:
Really? You need someone else to google for you?
Considering you didn't answer what I asked, I'd back off on the attitude.

And honestly, if you're going to compare those to exposed nipples, I think you've already lost any good faith argument.
Really? You want me to "prove" that women's magazines can have near naked women and references to sex on the cover by listing brand names and you say I have an attitude problem? Cosmopolitan is the most obvious but so many of them do it at one time or other like Glamour or Marie Claire. Is that enough for you?

And exposed nipples? Lads mags aren't allowed to have exposed nipples. Porn mags do. And this is about lads mags being censored - so there's another ridiculous 'point' you've made.

Go into a shop and take a look at the huge range of women's magazines on display and then see just how much female flesh is exposed on them, then have fun counting how many references to body image and sex you can find ... Then ask yourself what makes these so different from the lads mags that the ones for men need to be covered while the women's ones shouldn't be.

Struggling to find an answer? Or are you wondering why feminists rarely, if ever, consider the actions etc. of women while they are condemning men for the same kind of things?
 

Equality

New member
Nov 8, 2007
28
0
0
Thanks Spot 1990. And for comparison here's a cover from Cosmo

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/lea-michele-cosmo-cover.jpg

Lads mags get covered. Women's don't. Hey kids ... Can you spell hypocrisy? Maybe you could also explain what it means to Zachary.