Some of the women's magazines are just as bad. Though I think most magazines will soon only be available online or for sale to devices like tablets and e-readers.

You could probably make a case for that about actual porn mags. But if they're honestly saying that having a photo of a woman on the cover is enough to instigate a case of sexual harassment, then WH Smiths might as well shut down now.

TBH whilst I have no problems with lads' mags, the covers on them have already reached pornographic levels eg woman completely naked with small bars across the nipples and the genitals. Either tone down the covers or start treating them as porn mags and top shelf only.

EDIT: Have a look at: http://www.nuts.co.uk/180734/nuts-magazine-covers

Lmao, they'd be better focusing on the celeb mags if they're so worried about perversion and subversiveness. There's half-naked folks in those too, and they'd like it very much if you'd pore over the pictures and went along with the narrative.

Where's the descrimintaion? It's not like women are banned from buying them. Nor is there a lack of mags with men on the front.

Call me a cynic, but I'm not entirely sure a group called Feminista is actually interested in 'equal rights' as a normal person might understand the phrase.

most "feminista" don't give a crap. there's much bigger problems that what guys read. None of it is as big a problem as the free porn available online.

Indeed. I think this may be a case of a group going after a businesses they think they may be able to influence, regardless of the importance of the issue, partly at least to get some publicity. Which of course they have succeeded in doing. There's nothing the tabloids like more than tutting at radicals. You're certainly right in that someone making millions a year from online porn sitting in the US or Russia isn't going to give a flying monkeys what they say. And some of that is an awful lot more damaging.

I'm always sceptical when lawyers are involved in a pressure group though. I just can't shake the, again, cynical impression it's more about the billable hours than the cause. There were a bunch of lawyers who recently set themselves up as a 'black footballer's legal association' - despite the fact no black footballers had actually asked them to be their representative - and make a fair degree of shouting in the media about various things that they felt 'must be changed or the law will have to be involved'. The result? Absolutely bugger all, because in reality they didn't have any actual mandate and no black footballer wanted to pay for their services so once the press got bored of them they faded away, never to be seen again.

whenever a lawyer is telling you something is a matter of principle, ask them if they're doing it for free.

Have you been looking through your partners browser history?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Hahahahahahaha

Mark

No Playboy, no Cosmo... Sorted.

What's sad is that you think he would need it.

If you remove Playboy, men still have hundred of magazines adressed to them (music, cinema, media etc). If you remove people mags, not much left for women who've been told all their lives that they need to be into fashion and make up and not much else

Umm.. why do you think they are primarily addresses at men? Aren't women into music and cinema and all the things 'general interest' magazines cover as well?