f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

'Lads' mags' given cover-up deadline by Co-operative

What do we all think of this? Not sure what to make of it myself, but it seems a bit random given the imagery used on advertising billboards for instance!

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

If they go ahead, I think the same should be done on the covers on all these magazines aimed at girls and young women. They regularly have images of women (celebs) in bikinis, not to mention references to sex, surgery, weight loss etc.

If lads mags are seen to be damaging to children, what about these?

mrmadcap

Never mind lads mags, its been reported that the Co-op have refused to serve British servicemen in uniform on the odd occasion at certain locations so I don't even go in the place to buy a bottle of milk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ghanistan.html

urban

iTrader: (1)

Did anyone see that daft woman on BBC breakfast rambling on about how it was degrading blah blah.

Feminist campaigner she called herself - absolutely clueless with regard to real world.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

God I hate feminists with a passion.

Notice that you dont see them moaning about magazines such as 'mens health', which happen to have a picture of a ripped, topless guy on the front cover each month.

Do men complain about this? No. Why dont they complain?....because its petty and pointless.

David Lock

I bet they only got a few dozen real complaints, if that. All exaggerated by stroppy women in striped suits and crew cuts.

On the other side of the coin I felt sorry for that woman campaigning for a bird on a currency note (Jane Austen) as she got some very nasty stuff on Twitter.

dl

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Once at one location due to two members of staff being foolish is not the same as it being company policy and of course as reported by The Daily Mail so maybe completely made up or at best 'dramatically enhanced'.

The fact that this reported episode has led to you no longer frequenting their establishments with your custom is probably the only postive result for them out of a public relations faux pas

If SN refuses to alow a member of the armed forces to join just once do you promise to f**k off and not come back here again either?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yep that was pretty nasty. Thought he was safe doing it from behind the keyboard .... I wonder if he thinks it was such a good idea now

mrmadcap

Oh so the all powerful and influential F1 wants to start banning people from SN, and he even wants to do it in the French language for some reason

EddScott

I always remember being embarrassed when buying Max Power back in the day.

Yes, I know hang head in shame but we all bought at least one copy and it was close to 20 years ago. The front cover looked like a **** mag with a car lurking in the background somewhere. It was the last time I bought it.

I don't do lads mags. I might read FHM but that is usually while waiting for a hair cut. Couldn't see myself buying one in the shop.

The feminist bollox about it being harmful etc I'll leave but I do notice when going into Smiths there is alot of flesh on show. Doesn't really bother me per se but I can see why others might get offended.

Nothing wrong with using the opaque baggies. The black bags with warnings on them is a little OTT.

Jamz3k

Do people actually still buy "lads mags". I never bought them, always preferred Total Vauxhall or Fast Ford etc. Didn't even really like Max Power but had a few issues when it had cars I liked in it.

Mouser

There's a first!

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

TESCO or Post Office Foreign Exchange refused to accept my MOD 90 Military ID card as proof of ID. I could have bought a £20 driving license instead and bluffed it. Instead I went elsewhere..........*******!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

True

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

The duffle coat wearing, left wing, crew cut, bearded clam munching, open toed sandal wearing, hairy armpitted, bum fluff owning, neck tat females don't get the Diet Pepsi advert banned do they!

boxst

It depends what the definition of a 'lads mag' is. I used to buy T3, but they had to start putting more interesting front covers otherwise they would get put in the wrong section:

Leslie

She even looked the part. You could tell what she believed a mile off!

Les

urban

iTrader: (1)

Indeed

windyboy

Is that what they were talking about ? I had the tv on in the bedroom this morning but the sound was turned down as Herself was still asleep, I though they looked abit of a strange couple then their names came up with "Feminist" below them, I couldn't be bothered turning the sound up to hear what they were talking about then the weather milf with the big ***** and tight dress came on so normal service was resumed

If they want to cover up lad's mag's they will then have to cover up any mag that has any flesh on show... that will be a sad day indeed

urban

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, the boobed one was a former glamour model, the one with the glasses banged on about exploiting women etc.
I imagine she's a lights off type of girl tha,t only does missionary and keeps the pyjama top on

warrenm2

Magazine burqas! No its too much to see a semi clad human body, I might explode!

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Exactly! I think this gets to the heart of the real issue which is militant feminists cloaking themselves in the "Won't someone please think of the children" to achieve their aims, which correspond to the view that, basically, women should not take their clothes off for money or preferably at all if the intent is to titillate men!

As big an issue is the way that women are portrayed in magazines aimed at girls as much as men! But they don't seem as bothered with that!

Oh, and then there is the content of magazines that are marketed at prepubescent and pubescent girls and boys, which is a much bigger issue from the "won't something think of the children" argument.

However, having said the above, I do agree that there should be limits on what can be shown on the front of a magazine in a public place (although I hardly think swimsuits/underwear is going too far in western society). Like anything else, just because you enjoy someone does not mean it should be imposed on everyone else. Equally just because you don't enjoy something does not give you the right to try and deprive everyone else of it!

It's something we should be mindful of, but not for the reasons the feminists advocate and I don't think any of the magazines that I've seen have gone too far yet in terms of basic decency.

Basically I think the status quo of no ****, clunge, ****, ***, offensive language or explicit sexual references on display works just fine!

Ns04

ritchie21

I don't really understand why my fellow womens get their knickers in a twist about it!! If you ban these then you gotta ban the mags with gorgeous half naked men on the front! Equality doesn't only work one way!!

tony de wonderful

Anyone can google much 'worse' images on their laptop in seconds. I don't think women in swimsuits and lingerie on mags makes much difference.

Turbohot

I don't disagree with what you say at all.

IMO covering mags is a cr@p idea, as it increases human curiosity more than ever, to look for what's behind it. I agree with Warren that those black covers look like burkas in disguise; custom made for those magazines. I also agree with what NS04 says that the cover pics could be commanded to be little less explicit, and that should suffice if anyone is complaining.

About equality, it's a myth. There are more lads mags where wimmins have been objectified than women's mags where men have been objectified; where a man is showing his allsorts with least inhibitions. The mags full of nearly nakkid guys are gay mags, not female mags with straight guys showing their danglies off with their tongue out. I hope Co-op is covering the lot, if they are imposing the mag-burka rule.

I understand that there are stupid magazines like Hello and OK where half-nakkid females are blatantly promoting Anorexia and plastic *****. These magazines should be completely banned for providing absolutely nothing to the human brain. Kids pick their mums' magazines first than raiding their dads' shed. That's because mums think whatever they read is ok, so they need not hide those mags in their kitchen drawers. No, it's not ok. They shouldn't be reading such cack.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

It does if your a feminist!

"We want to be as equal as men........unless we're talking about car insurance that is, in which case, we're happy to be unequal"

jods

Until months ago when sex based variances on car insurance was outlawed. Now young girls (Statistically shown to be less likely to have the car on its roof) Pay as much as the village idiot, full of testosterone and short on brain cells.

This is ALL down to sh1tbags complaining about "Discrimination" or "Profiling".

A "One size fits all" approach is something that seems more appropriate to only North Korea nowadays.

A decision has to be made. We either decide that everyone earns exactly the same annual salary regardless of job and everything you buy is priced by government and is uniform across the country OR we let market forces decide.

I'm with market forces.

I don't look at my best in grey jute sackcloth or with a Kim Jung Ill / Un haircut.

-----------------------------

Sorry to you guys that are having a tough financial time out there but do you really think its a good idea to kill off entrepreneurship that might employ you?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Actually, what you have mentioned about a lack of women's mags with men for us to look at had never crossed my mind until now. I'm not sure if there are any, not in the same league as lad's mags. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention, but the only mags with semi clad blokes on I've noticed have been the weight lifting types. Perhaps there just isn't the demand, maybe wimmins are less shallow

Moving on though, if this really was about protecting the children, I absolutely would say the first mags to go or be covered over would be the Closer/More etc types. They could be way more damaging to young minds with their content as what is fed to the consumer inside is far worse in some respects than just semi clad women on show. There is a lot of focus on having to conform to a certain size and look, to the extent of having surgery, not to mention the sex tips (often advertised on the front covers) and these magazines aren't out of the way on the top shelf, they are at eye level and the target market is teens and young adults.

DYK

Lets just have kids walking about with blindfolds on,just women/people with nothing to do in their life,so lets go about banning stuff,probably just using kids as an excuse to give the argument some foundation.Shall we ban kids from the beach or swimming pools,where women are walking about in skimpy costumes.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

I don't think you see many 'women's mags' about because most women would be embarrassed to buy them, whereas most blokes wouldent think twice about going into a busy shop and buying a copy of nuts / zoo etc.

I whole-heartedly agree with your second point though. It's not surprising that so many young girls are anorexic / image-obsessed etc with the amount of crap that's plastered on the front of these mags! You only have to watch tv for 10 mins aswell to see why. Almost every single advert is aimed at women for make-up, fashion, hair products etc etc etc etc.