Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hazel

Lads Mags

Recommended Posts

This story has been trundling for a while. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/13/lads-mags-problem-romola-garai

 

I remember the Co-op ultimatum to the lads mags to cover up or face been withdrawn from the shelves but I can't actually recall what happened. I absolutely agree that these mags continue and contribute to sexism and misogyny and I see in the young boys at school an attitude towards females that is increasingly poor. However, these lads mags are not solely to blame, if at all, because I don't see any young boys reading them and frankly from their sales figures, no one is reading them. Internet porn can raise its hand here.

 

And honestly, I find the magazines and gossip columns aimed at women far more sexist and misogynistic than Nuts or Zoo could ever manage. At least we women ignore those mags. But stuff written for women is horrific; baby weight shifted in 2 days! XXX has cellulite! Look how awful celebs look without make-up! She had an affair! Why is she standing by her man!? My lost baby! My abuse! Her tits fell out of her dress! Look at the drunken tart!

 

Christ on a bike. Isn't equality brilliant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I don't read any magazines I can see that they would be really irritating for their content going by your post Hazel. It seems the emphasis is still on a woman's body and not much input with regard to intellectual achievement. Maybe if the magazine is really popular with younger women they are helping perpetuate the idea that this is what they want to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God forbid we should wear what we want, ask to be noted for our achievements, or be pregnant. These types of headlines are far more damaging to women than a ridiculous, puerile magazine.

Does it add to these being more damaging for females would be that the target market for such a page would be female readers rahter than males so that by these headlines, is trying to pressurise females into particular perceived ideals?

Edited by iff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with much of what is said above and the real problem that needs to be dealt with is the nature and accessibilty of internet porn (what is happening on this issue by the way? I thought David Cameron was threatening the internet providers but it all seems to have gone quiet). However when you go into Tescos to buy a loaf of bread, you are not confronted by internet porn. Nuts and Zoo really are "in your face" in a way that the womens mags (however objectionable their message) are not. To get rid of Nuts and Zoo from supermarkets would be a huge step forward. (As would The Sun/Star dropping page 3). Persuading womens magazines to adopt a different editorial line is a different battle. As for the Daily Mail, some causes really are in the hopeless category...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Daily Mail.  One could be forgiven for thinking it's the only paper that prints crap, scare-mongering, reds-under-the-bed, sexist, anti-immigration, misogynist articles.  I suppose the problem is that it employs writers who use longer words and sentences.  It is crap, but have you seen the Sun, Mirror, Express?  Can't comment on the Star, I'm afraid.  In defence of the Mail, Martin Samuel is one of the best sports writers around, and I have to confess that I only read newspapers by starting at the back and making my way forward until I reach the racing pages - then I stop.  If I look at anything else, I only read the headlines, roll my eyes and move on.  As others have said, internet porn is the issue to be tackled.  Don't hold your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with much of what is said above and the real problem that needs to be dealt with is the nature and accessibilty of internet porn (what is happening on this issue by the way? I thought David Cameron was threatening the internet providers but it all seems to have gone quiet).

this might have damaged it that in 2012, fom inside parliament there were 300,000 attempts to access pornographic websites -> http://www.euronews.com/2013/09/04/over-300000-attempts-to-access-porn-at-uks-parliament-house-of-commons/

 

 

However when you go into Tescos to buy a loaf of bread, you are not confronted by internet porn. Nuts and Zoo really are "in your face" in a way that the womens mags (however objectionable their message) are not.

what is worse is that in dublin, there is a shop that just has these magazines facing out onto the street in full view for any passebys or the shop and the shop in question isn't on some back alley street that a person like me shouldn't be walking down, it is on a street that anyone walking from o'connell street (main shopping street on the north side) to gradton street (main shopping street on the south side) would walk by. it is appalling.

 

To get rid of Nuts and Zoo from supermarkets would be a huge step forward. (As would The Sun/Star dropping page 3).

the suns irish edition has down this citing “to cater for our own readers’ needs and reflect the cultural differences in Ireland”.

 

from an irish times opinion piece (the film writer opines on culture on a saturday)

It is certainly true to say there are “cultural differences” between Ireland and the United Kingdom. But it’s not as if we live next to the Lizard People of Krongo-Krongo. Come to think of it, the cultural differences within the UK – those between the Hebrides and Mayfair, say – are at least as jarring as those between many Irish and British communities. Page Three will be on display in Newry, but not in Dundalk. Are those places really so different?

link - http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/media/sun-decision-to-drop-page-three-in-ireland-reflects-well-on-cultural-differences-1.1496635?page=2

 

Ah, the Daily Mail.  One could be forgiven for thinking it's the only paper that prints crap, scare-mongering, reds-under-the-bed, sexist, anti-immigration, misogynist articles.  I suppose the problem is that it employs writers who use longer words and sentences.  It is crap, but have you seen the Sun, Mirror, Express?  Can't comment on the Star, I'm afraid.

i think the uk star is owned by the same group that own the daily express.

Edited by iff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in the states "Lads Mags" would be perhaps something like Maxim? Lots of busty babes, scat humor and sophomoric articles and advice. Even as a feminist I think such magazines have their place. You want to teach your male teens the real deal with women so they know better. But such magazines are harmless junk reading anyways. If your child only reads junk magazines and nothing else...yeah that could be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AvidReader

hmm I think that although I agree that the image of women that is perpetuated by the fashion industry is horrific and they do need to take responsibility for the impossibly thin and flawless photoshopped images they portray. However ... there is also another side to this ... if women did not buy the make up, clothes, slimming products etc etc to try to obtain the same looks then there would be no incentive to try to sell it that way. The fact is those adverts work and because they work they continue. There needs to be sea-change from both sides. Women need to be responsible for their own self-image (this includes any one who has any responsibility for shaping the self-image of young people) while the magazines / industry / papers / photographers / models etc need to responsible for their part. 

 

As for 'lads mags' and internet porn - I would like to see more done to control 'perverse' images for example underage (either in reality or just in appearance) bestiality rape etc but you can't legislate away people's right to be stupid if they want to be. Again the problem is not the availability of the mags and porn sites on the net - if the men / boys buying the mags and visiting the sites had a better idea of the risks involved and had better self-esteem there wouldn't be an issue. I think there is insufficient conversation around the reality of this stuff at a formative age. 

 

some links:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-dubinsky/porn-addiction_b_1686481.html

 

http://www.manofvigor.com/body/dangers-porn-addiction/

 

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2011/02/the-risks-and-harm-of-pornography-on-couple-relationships-part-1-its-misleading-nature/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's healthy for heterosexual males to have access to the naked female.

Women are by far the greatest consumer of magazines. Honestly a rough estimate - women magazines occupy 4 times as much space than men in most supermarkets I have been in.

How to have the perfect orgasm. !0 ways to know he's cheating.Can you look like 30 at 50...blah blah

We have different ways to discover our sexuality.

Always been confused about pornography.Can see the good and bad side of arguments.

Women more equal more wonderful/frightening they become :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AvidReader

I am yet to see any serious research that shows any benefits to porn. The only proponents are people who are justifying their use of it. Even if at the hugest stretch you could make a case for men having access to the naked female form (although I'm seriously trying to get my brain around why) any minuscule benefits (if any) are far outweighed by the negatives.

 

(Edit - I shouldn't type more than 3 word answers on my phone)

Edited by AvidReader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AvidReader

"intelligent" females huh? Let's see it objectifies women, desensitizes pleasure centers eventually resulting in early ejaculation and/or erectile dysfunction, creates a long list of completely unrealistic expectations of both men and women, inexorably leads one into looking at more and more perverse material due to excitement levels dropping off, etc etc etc what intelligent man or woman who was aware of all the facts would argue for this?

 

The only argument I would make for porn is that there is apparently no connection between porn and rape (well duh because rape is an act of violence not sex) and I would argue for people's right to be idiots if they so wish. I am anti excessive controls over people's behaviour. If consenting adults wish to participate in the porn industry, and other consenting adult persons wish to view it, despite the harm it causes them - mazel tov to them. Ditto for excessive drinking, smoking, imbibing any other mind altering substance etc. Actually I would legalise the lot. Legalise it, tax it, regulate the production so that people don't drop dead from drugs cut with poisonous substances, stop wasting megabucks and police resources on locking up prostitutes and drug dealers - just take it out of the equation. I bet it would have a humungous effect on stopping organised crime because the basis of many of those organisations is drugs and prostitution (and guns but those I would quite happily get rid of! My support of the right to be stupid does not extend to the right to mow down your neighbours.)

 

Use the billions of dollars saved by stopping the war on drugs + the billions in tax revenue to provide proper education programs and rehabilitation. 

 

Please note my emphasis on 'consenting adults'. At the moment there is little or no recourse for any one who isn't a consenting adult. Prostitutes who are beaten, financially cheated, abused or attacked have no recourse to the law. You can't sue a drug dealer who sold you bad stuff that endangered your life over and above the way you were already endangering it. If we want to protect people we should not attempt to protect them from themselves by making more and more things illegal - we should protect them by creating a 'safe' environment for them to make bad choices in. If that makes sense. 

Edited by AvidReader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feminists support porn.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html

Humanists support porn.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-04-its-only-human-why-humanists-should-support-pornogra

Scientists support porn.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/

Agree on the point you make of unregulated non state controlled prostitution. Crack whores of America or happy solvent women of Amsterdam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AvidReader

Scientists support porn.

Never disagreed there was no causative link between rape and porn. I'd want to know precisely how the studies defined "negative attitudes" towards women when there is research to support that porn allows / encourages / enables men to be less emotional engaged which has a host of negative consequences for relationships. I would think that one of the fundamental reasons men can abuse women is a lack of ability to empathize combined with an idea that women are 'lesser' than they are - a good part of which is emotional blunting / non-engagement so I personally feel that anything that contributes to men feeling less emotionally engaged, is not a good thing.

As for sex crimes declining - not surprised - you can't rape if you cant get it up! Although, again, despite these articles talking about rape as a sex crime - it isn't. Men who rape do not do so from some unmanageable sex urge - rape is fundamentally a violent crime of anger against women that manifests in the domination and humiliation forced sex gives. And as a result rape does not always involve an actual sex act, and the perpetrator does not have to penetrate the woman himself. This is of course ignoring the less well publicised acts of rape by women against men which are equally non-sexual acts of anger.
 

Humanists support porn.

Doesn't really discuss the issue as its final point is more about women accepting their sexuality than actually explaining why porn might be good. Utterly fails to u.derstand why the type of relationship in 50 Shades is bad.

Feminists support porn.

After cutting through all the feminist BS its support of porn boils down to 3 points:

* It gives a panoramic view of the world's sexual possibilities. This is true even of basic sexual information such as masturbation. It is not uncommon for women to reach adulthood without knowing how to give themselves pleasure.

This perpetuates the fallacy that women only learn to be orgasmic through masturbation and use of toys and fails to address the real reasons why women are non-orgasmic.

I hardly think that the type of unrealistic sex in terms of penis size, lack of foreplay, instant readiness etc constitutes any kind of good sex education.

* It allows women to "safely" experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment.

Yeah hmm by vicariously indulging in portrayals of high risk sex? No condoms, no medical checks, multiple partners, vaginal penetration after anal penetration, no rules / safety in portrayals of BDSM??? Good plan! Very healthy.

* It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or vicariously. It provides us wit h a sense how it would "feel" to do something.

Yeah try "DON'T"!!

Like I said if people presented a FULLY INFORMED argument - but they don't.

Edited by AvidReader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm in the wrong thread here, this is way beyond the birds and the bees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...