Another thing to point out is that all this should do wonders for readership numbers, and when the mags are pretty much dying on their arse.

I think it was 2010 I last knew of someone buying Nuts magazine

Somewhat, yes. Although I'd be more concerned if they'd proved it wasn't coincidence, Or hypothesised some underlying cognitive structure which could be further examined. I'm struggling to think of how you'd have a control group for that experiment though, so it may have to stay as an observational study.

It's an interesting result for sure but I'm not sure what it actually proves, rather than just infers.

All men are rapists?

Some of the covers are fine eg bikini/swimsuit. The ones that I think are inappropriate are the ones as posted above with Lucy Pinder and a bit of tape on her nipples.

And yet the copy of Penthouse would have to be sleeved.

If you're looking for absolutely consistent logic you're in the wrong universe

I doubt if you will ever prove a causal link between a media product and a mode of behaviour.
Is it a leap of logic to think that if a young reader, who may not have fully developed, is only reading material which reinforces a certain point of view (be it political, sexual or even football), and then sees that language co-opted by his peers goes on to think that 'Yes, this is fine.'
You can't blame him, he's a product of his intake to a greater or lesser degree.
I'm not suggesting it's a gate way to being a sex offender, but opinions are informed by the consumption of media. Without being able to examine or experience alternative points of view, you're stuck with your mates, thinking all women (and girls) can be treated told that if they're upset they just need sex, regardless if you're the reason they're crying.

Obviously, I'm not a woman. So I can't say on their behalf whether or not that's true for all women, or some, or none at all. But it doesn't sound like a good way to treat another person. It's certainly not a way I'd like my daughter to be treated, if I had one.
But there does seem to be a lot of fuss being generated, and I do think there's a bit of a double standard in that some men's magazines (which are fairly indistinguishable from each other) are required to be sleeved while others aren't.

This kind of thing does crop up in a lot of aberrant behaviour psychology. The problem is proving the direction of causality. Does watching a lot of violent porn turn you into a rapist, or do rapists gravitate towards violent porn? It's a perennial question.


This was of course the actual object of the exercise.


I hate that phrase. You know why? It lets rapists off lightly. If all men are rapists, then those born men who rape someone have an excuse - 'its the way I was made'. As oppose to starting from the premise that not all men are rapists, therefore those that commit rape are either insane or have made a conscious choice to perform a heinous crime. 'All men are rapists' reduces men to the status of animals, no better able to control their behaviour than a rat. I find it massively insulting, a gross simplification and a way to allow actual rapists to abdicate their responsibility. It does exactly the opposite of what it patently is intended to. The person who coined it (Andrea Dworkin, I think?) isn't half as smart as she thinks she is.

Tesco considers action over lads' mags

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/j ... nuts-co-op

From an article referenced on the link above..

Tesco reveals lads' mags 'modesty' deal and under 18 ban

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23558211

So you're gonna need ID now?

It reminds me of a not the nine o clock news sketch where a priest goes into a newsagent and buys a copy of choir boys monthly and is served. Then another man asks for the Sunday Sport and is kicked out saying we do not want your sort in here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.