http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027

Presumably all the 'women's' mags will be covered up too, then?

Got a 'for instance' for us?

'Lad' mags:




A more traditional top shelf cover, that we'd expect to be sleeved:



Fair call I say. Either that or the Penthouse type publications don't need to be sleeved, just be consistent.

That's a US edition of Penthouse, but I failed to find a UK example. I assume they're not much different? It actually looks like a fashion magazine.

The other two are genuinely classy.

There are plenty of women's mags on the shelves this time of year with women in bikinis on the cover. Plus the likes of 'Hello' which plaster images of 'slebs on holiday on theirs. What's pornographic/prurient is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. We already have laws as to what can or cannot be on the cover of a magazine that can be sold in any high street shop. As long as FHM & etc stick them, on what grounds other than the subjective are they to be segregated?

The greater problem I have with this notion is, in my opinion, women's magazines have done much more damage to 'womankind' over the years than lad's mags have. Anorexia, body dysmorphia, depression etc are all more prevalent in the female population due to particularly the magazines aimed at teenage girls and (again, IMO) those do much more damage to women overall than the mags aimed at teenage boys have.

Now I'm not saying I'm in favour of Loaded being able to put whatever the hell they like on the cover. There are limits and you can tell what they are from the photos because editors know exactly what they are and push right to the edge. But putting Loaded and GQ on the top shelf isn't going to actually change society's attitude to women in any concrete way - I'd argue that society now is actually less sexist than it was when Loaded hit the shelves, although it's entirely coincidental - and the stuff that is actually harming lots of women in the UK is still going to be on lower shelves, in the 'women's interest' section.

What Jon said, Prof.

I think the crap my family and work colleagues read have names like Now and Star... might have that wrong, they're all much of a muchness.

And where does it end? On that basis This Morning is absolute filth

For the record, these are the covers of the current issue of FHM and one of the 'women's interest' magazines, or at least the app version in the Apple Newstand section of iTunes. Maybe it's just me, but one of those seems to be showing a lot more flesh than the other...



And one of them is showing a much more unlikely (and I'd suggest more damaging) physical condition for your average teenage girl to attempt to attain.

Loaded & etc are an easy target; we all know they're low quality, lowest common denominator fare. And they're aimed at men, which by some people's definitions means they encourage sexual violence (If anyone finds any decent evidence to back that idea up, I'd be interested to read it). But that doesn't mean it's the best place this kind of protester energy should be directed at.

I'm sure Cat used to be curvy when she was on the telly

The contrast is almost funny. It's clearly not most men that want women to be skinny and toned...

Also no lads mags encourage rape. They are far more likely to put women on a pedestal than women's magazines.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

LOLWUT!?

Women's mags do?

The impression that I get is that they're not concerned that seeing Kelly Brook on a cover in fishnet is going to give women an unrealistic standard to measure themselves by.
Their concern, I think, is what impression it gives to the (mostly) teenage boys that are buying this stuff, and their perception of women.
The cover of Men's Health and any number of men's fitness magazines should also be covered, therefore, for making us chaps feel a bit lardy.
However, let's look at the context. Women's Health is about fitness, and achieving a general body condition, from the point of view of y'know, being a woman.
FHM is about women, beer and football - but only from the point of view of being a consumer.

I'm sure some of you have noticed the rise of the modern 'LAD' tag that's being bandied about on Facebook and Twitter.
There is a culture where certain behaviours are excused or maybe even celebrated because #LAD.
UniLad Magazine Forced To Pull 'Surprise' Rape Article After Twitter Backlash being a nice example of somebody not really thinking their stance fully. But, hey, because #LAD.
I see it all the time at work, the way young men of 16+ speak to and even manhandle women. This isn't nervous teenage banter, it's borderline assault in some cases.
There is a culture happening that personally, I'm not entirely at ease with. Perhaps it's parenting. Perhaps it's media informed. Perhaps it's a reflection of ourselves.

Disclosure: At least once a month for the last two years, I take photographs of women of all shapes and sizes taking their clothes off on stage. A prude, I am not.

Ok - so running on the telly at the moment is an advert where two women are going to see a male strip act. They BS a bit, but you get an eyes on stalk moment after a couple of shots of a six pack being exposed.

I expect you know the one.

Now, imagine the SAME advert - same dialogue, same shots, same actions, but with an audience of men and women on stage stripping off. I can't imagine that variant being allowed. We're suddenly in Renault advert territory - an advert was banned for having too much female sexuality on show.

It's a fair argument to make as to whether it's actually a double standard or not (i.e. it's OK for women to be influenced by pictures of women with few clothes on whereas it's not right for men to be influenced by pictures of women with few clothes on because THAT'S ABOUT SEX) but in the end we do have to look at the 'total harm done'. IMO the barrage of unfavourable imagery fired at young women on a regular basis through the 'female focused' media is much more harmful to young women than the effect FHM & Co having on young men has on young women. The majority of men on the UK are relatively well adjusted (IMO), there were sexist louts before Loaded came along and as I say I'd posit there are actually less of them now than there were then. We've got better at a faster rate than their pernicious influence could make us worse.

I would suggest that the likes of Loaded have possibly had a bad influence generally as.. I don't think the word 'debased' is right, I want to use the word 'infantised' but that's not right either. I think the likes of Loaded have, to a degree, influenced the way young men are immature for longer. Loaded is essentially a teenager's fantasy (a fantasy which has existed since way before Loaded came along mind) but by publishing and therefore legitimising it, we now have men in their mid twenties thinking it's OK to still act like a 16 year old [LIFTED]wit and I think this has spread to women too, under the 'ladette' banner.

Loaded, FHM, Front & whatever (although I wouldn't necessarily point this accusation at GQ & Esquire, they're catering to a different fantasy) have basically said 'you don't need to grow up, just stick with us and drink booze and do stupid things and chase girls'. Now, we all did that anyway at some point, but most of us grew out of it. Loaded & Co are slowing that change for their readers. And in the process doing harm to both men and women.

There's always been that - men watching a stripper = 'seedy and lecherous'. Women watching a stripper = 'just a bit of fun'.

Total bollocks of course but that's not going to stop it being received wisdom for a while yet.

Covering them up is fine, but I got annoyed at having to sit through a feminist's rant about banning them on the BBC news this morning.

http://vimeo.com/63090059 - is this the ad?

Back to lads mags.
In 2011, a study was done by Middlesex University.
They compared statements given by convicted sex offenders who were attempting to form a justification of their actions, with sections of editorial from the likes of Nuts & Zoo.
A panel of men and women were asked to identify which was which from the samples. They weren't quick to spot which was which, and they had a 50% success rate.
More here if you're curious, and here.

Isn't it worrying that we have convicted rapists attempting to justify their actions in the same ways a high street magazine aimed at young men choose to write about women?