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

[grey_space]

You can't stop full blown stupid, no matter how hard you try.

I truly admire that statement. If everyone truly understood this the internet would have way less flamewars.

'Sorry I was getting really annoyed with what you said there until I realised that you were full blown stupid. I Beg your pardon. Please, continue talking shite. I'll just carry on over here.'



Edit: Spelling

 

[Esotera]

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.

Christ's sake Esotera, you're ninja-ing me again!
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.

Spoiler: Stuff like this topical example is just vile

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.

Yeah, unfortunately I doubt this type of content will go away precisely because it's a lot more ambiguous, and therefore harder to rally against. Maybe the government can implement a system in the porn filter that detects if you read more than a certain number of these stories a month, and send Stasi2.0 to your house.

Why does the UK hate porn so much? I would honestly leave the country.

I don't think the majority of people want it to be blocked, it's just incredibly difficult to argue against these sorts of moral crusades. The real reason behind the campaign is for the government to take control over the internet.

 

[mad825]

At this rate, I may need to consider whether having a wank in my own private home may be illegal.

 

[Doom972]

I agree with you, OP - if they're going to censor (which is bad enough by itself), they might as well not discriminate. Just to be clear. My dentist has women's magazines in her waiting room, and I've seen plenty of scantily clad girls both on their covers and inside.

The UK seems very preoccupied with issues of exposure to sexual material. Don't you guys have much bigger issues?

I think the bigger story here is - in the age of the internet - people still buy these magazines!

I was wondering about it myself. I used to know a guy that had a subscription to a russian gaming magazine, and there wasn't anything there that you couldn't read elsewhere. And it's not like he didn't have Internet access or something. I guess some people feel really comfortable flipping pages rather than scrolling.

 

[Subscriptism]

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.

This, also I have no problem with these being bagged. The covers are basically porn anyway, it's not hard for a kid to look up at the top shelf.

 

[sweetylnumb]

Spoiler: Article

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.

As a women im personally more offended by women magazines. Its basically a million ways to please men, lose weight and be less of a fuck up. Drives me nuts. At least the mens magazines arn't telling me to lose a couple of pounds or else, but oh don't SAYYYY your fat and ugly, that would upset the men!
fucking christ...
All and all though, this isn't a bad idea. Covering them up that is. If they are banned or "having" to handle them becomes a case of sexual harassment (lol wut) then its getting to censorship.

 

[Silvanus]

There'll only really be cause to worry when the Gov's measures start... uhrm... well, actually being effective. The internet opt-in filter thing simply won't work, and putting these shitty magazines in plastic covers won't have any demonstrable effect either.

It's just a sop to the tabloids, which don't understand the first thing about how the internet or society function. It's pretty pathetic, but it's not dangerous. I'd still argue against it, from the "it's pathetic" point of view, though.

 

[CriticalMiss]

And next week we will pass a law that everyone in the country must cover every square inch of skin at all times, to stop child porn of course. Page 3 will remain a British institution and we will still have 'reality' TV shows that judge people based on their appearance and tell them how being fat is so horrible and you should look like [insert photoshopped skinny bird here]. Naturally we will have to ban sex education lessons because the teachers are probably paedos in disguise and obviously parents couldn't possibly teach their kids about sex because how do they know what it is all about (they're probably paedos too). I bet most children are also paedos so children will be banned to save the children from children. And electricity, fuck that noise. Paedos use it all the time so anyone using electricity is probably a child molester and it should be banned. For the children.

It's just all so silly. Can't we just teach kids about sex, get over the fact that everyone is naked under their clothes and watch Doctor Who? And I guess putting bags over nudie mags isn't such a bad idea, but I don't suppose things like fitness magazines with half-nekkid men on the covers will get the same treatment right? Because tits = the devil, man tits = health.

 

[omega 616]

There'll only really be cause to worry when the Gov's measures start... uhrm... well, actually being effective. The internet opt-in filter thing simply won't work, and putting these shitty magazines in plastic covers won't have any demonstrable effect either.

It's just a sop to the tabloids, which don't understand the first thing about how the internet or society function. It's pretty pathetic, but it's not dangerous. I'd still argue against it, from the "it's pathetic" point of view, though.

You got it the wrong way round, it's opt out. The ISP's will block porn to every customer, you then ring up and say "I want to spank my monkey" and they flip the switch ... you know, so they can shame you into admitting you're forever alone.

They considered making you call up and saying "I would like to block porn" but they thought that made too much sense and wouldn't give customer service people enough of a laugh.

 

[Queen Michael]

I'm 100% OK with this. It just helps to make sure porn isn't seen by people who shouldn't see it anyway.

 

[Bluestorm83]

Well, the problem is, the bags aren't censorship. Censorship is to alter the content to remove or cover objectionable material. This material is still present... it's just not splayed out for everyone to see. Anyone who asks can see it in its original state. This is MUCH better than a lot of what happens in other places and media. So I'm okay with this.

 

[Saxnot]

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.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

When the fuck did my country become so full of prudes again?

 

[Saxnot]

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.

Christ's sake Esotera, you're ninja-ing me again!
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.

Spoiler: Stuff like this topical example is just vile

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.

I totally agree

Quite frankly, some random people looking at porn disturbs me far less than magazines like this. Porn is obviously not real, it's like a comic book or an action movie. But magazines like this propagate certain ideas and views on how you should live your life that to me seem reprehensible and more destructive to society than any amount of porn.

 

[NinjazInside]

How negative are all of you? I don't think this is a move by the government to control the internet, i'm pretty sure with these "censorships" as you are coining them as, are not, they are simply extra protection for children, porn will still be there. If you want to watch porn on the internet, then opt in, this is simply giving more power to parents who don't want their child to see pronographic images on the internet, which most of that is a terribly show of what sex really is, and thus children carry out what they see, it was either improve sexual education in Britain costing millions to billions or put an obligatory filter on the internet in Britain which is cheaper by far.

Of course my real wonder will be what will happen to University sites, do they get porn because only 18+ people are there? oh well, i can survive, we all should know by now that western society is getting progressively more sexualised. And we do need to do something, and as someone obviously pointed out one extreme that the British government would never go to, as it's an extreme, our Government hasn't got that kind of balls. Unfortunately whatever the government does to protect the people, others scream out they are crushing their liberty. What i say is give a little okay? This is not actually the big deal it is made out to be, the only reason it is, is because oh my god porn and sex in the news and looked at by the government!? Yes the government could be looking at more important things like tax evading but at least something is being done. And to be honest out of all the parties when it was elections, the Conservatives were the only ones that fit in with my views, without sacrificing the Military which is already so badly cut as is.

 

[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.

 

[Gerwich]

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.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think magazines like Playboy and Hustler are covered up here in the US.

Wal-Mart does, or used to, modesty bag certain mags similar to Cosmo, as well. I think supermarkets do it frequently in the US, too.

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

Kids these days! Spoiled, I tell you! When I was young, it was buy a second rate skin mag or wait four hours for a low-quality image to load on our 14Kbps connection through AOL!

I think the bigger story here is - in the age of the internet - people still buy these magazines!

Maybe not everyone has figured out how to bypass adult content filters. >.>

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.

More to the point, it's a chain deciding what they want to display. That's not censorship. The magazines are free to not bag their content if they want, but the company won't stock them. I see no reason the co-operative should be required to stock content they don't want to, even if I think it's probably pointless.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.