Indeed it's quite outrageous.
Think of the children everybody.
Can you imagine what would happen if a small child were to catch a glimpse of the cover of one of these lads mags.
As has already been pointed out earlier in this thread they would become rapists and pillagers.
Come on people lets stop this madness and end the rapist production factory which is zoo magazine.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Not that I ever looked for Thomas the tank engine but yes, when I was about 8/9 they did make me feel uncomfortable.
Just because we disagree doesn't mean you should throw personal insults. I wouldn't dream of calling all those who think its fine as loose moralled pervs for example.
First, where is the personal insults?
Second, you must have been very tall to see the slanted top shelves with the magazines on it...
Have to say it i never noticed them as a child and speaking to the Mrs, her pal and one of my pals, not one of them noticed them at that age.
I'm genuinely amazed magazines and newspapers still exist at all. They probably won't in 10 years, much to the pity of a few sad women in offices who need to get their daily gossip fix sans a computer.
I think they still will in 10 years. There'll always be people who'll buy a paper for when they go in a café and have something to eat and drink. People will also buy a paper for when they're travelling 10+ miles on the bus or train. Unless tablets get knocked down to something like £10, I doubt they'll start selling enough to put a serious dent in tabloid sales.
Personally I think the age at which children are at risk of influence by these rags is 11-16. Boys looking at or buying nuts, zoo etc and girls buying Heat, New etc worry me. I don't want my son to think women are hairless, sexual objects...
He won't. He'll just look at those to spend all his time like every other boy of that age, hamshanking himself senseless.
Personally I think the 'think of the children' stuff is a ruse. Children aren't interested in them and they are out of reach anyway.
I'm not thinking of the children, I'm thinking of the teenagers. Or more specifically, my children WHEN they are teenagers
Personally I think young children are more under the influence of footballers and pop stars. Not sure if this a good thing either but it's definitely not a bad thing. When I was little all I wanted was to marry Michael Jackson :cool:
What a load of rubbish all this is - what children have been harmed by seeing a woman with big tits on the front page of Nuts magazine in the Co-op? Precisely none!
When I was kid, Heat magazine and its equals did not exist. Zoo, Nuts etc also did not exist. Magazines with adult content were a specialist thing, but over the last 15 years it seems to have crept into the mainstream. 50/60 years ago a woman who got engaged/married was expected to quit her job and go make babies. Things have progressed. This also applies to the era in which I grew up except in certain areas i.e. concerning the newspaper/magazine industry.
I guess, judging by my own experiences I felt things were so much better now but seeing the shit spouted by some people on the Internet today I can see many people don't care that men and woman should be treated with equal courtesy. I'd hoped my kids would grow up in a better world, I was wrong. I just clearly choose the right people to associate with.
No, but I expect you saw Playboy and Penthouse (a little bit up-market) plus all the more sleazy British mags like Fiesta and Knave. Then there were a few fairly hardcore publications that were often kept in covers, and that was in conservative Richmond not Soho.
Today's lad's mags seem pretty tame in comparison to some of the mags that were on sale in highstreet newsagents In the 70's.
What a load of rubbish all this is - what children have been harmed by seeing a woman with big tits on the front page of Nuts magazine in the Co-op? Precisely none!
Certainly not by the 2D version.
With the 3D version, it could be another matter.......:D
Meanwhile...mothers are still taking their nine year old daughters to Rhianna shows and complain when she's late on stage. Seems some parents are happy for their kids to see gyrating victims of domestic violence sing explicit lyrics, but a pair of tits in Tesco? God, no.
coop must not now have sexy good looking women in ads. only plan looking woman.
How do you go from covering up sexualised images on the front cover of mens magazines in supermarkets and newsagents, to "must now not have sexy good looking women in ads only plain ones"?
Meanwhile...mothers are still taking their nine year old daughters to Rhianna shows and complain when she's late on stage. Seems some parents are happy for their kids to see gyrating victims of domestic violence sing explicit lyrics, but a pair of tits in Tesco? God, no.
I'd hazard a guess they are not in general the same parents. The kind of parent that would take their nine year old daughters to Rhianna shows are the ones that take them to nailbars and tanning salons to prepare them for a 'glamour' career, and would quite happily see Zoo and Nuts remain in view.
I'd hazard a guess they are not in general the same parents. The kind of parent that would take their nine year old daughters to Rhianna shows are the ones that take them to nailbars and tanning salons to prepare them for a 'glamour' career, and would quite happily see Zoo and Nuts remain in view.
not the up tight of parents you mean. my parents were not up tight they told rude and dirty jokes. let us watch movies we could not see at the cinema. and watch tv afrer 9pm
i remember been up late to watch V.and lots of other t.v.
My parents were fairly liberal when it came to what I could watch on tv and read etc and I have turned out all ok. the most ****ed up people I know tend to be the ones with parents who attempted to shield them from the realities of life.
My parents were fairly liberal when it came to what I could watch on tv and read etc and I have turned out all ok. the most ****ed up people I know tend to be the ones with parents who attempted to shield them from the realities of life.
So were mine.
By far the most screwed up people I know are all religious of one group or another.
My parents were fairly liberal when it came to what I could watch on tv and read etc and I have turned out all ok. the most ****ed up people I know tend to be the ones with parents who attempted to shield them from the realities of life.
sounds ture. someone i knows like that with her son. not alound to go to park on his own.does not like that he finds grils sexy.in bed by 8pm school nights 9 pm weekends And hes 12 soon.
sounds ture. someone i knows like that with her son. not alound to go to park on his own.does not like that he finds grils sexy.in bed by 8pm school nights 9 pm weekends And hes 12 soon.
No, but I expect you saw Playboy and Penthouse (a little bit up-market) plus all the more sleazy British mags like Fiesta and Knave. Then there were a few fairly hardcore publications that were often kept in covers, and that was in conservative Richmond not Soho.
Today's lad's mags seem pretty tame in comparison to some of the mags that were on sale in highstreet newsagents In the 70's.
Yes, but the difference is the marketing and availability. As a 16 year old girl (or boy) I couldn't just stride into my local corner ship and pickup a copy of penthouse. They were for adults, adults who knew that women didn't all look like that. They are fantasy women.
These days a 16 year old girl can go and buy Heat and see journalists viciously picking apart the latest breed of celebrities for having no makeup, cellulite and shock horror :eek: putting on weight. A 16 year old boy can-far more easily-buy Zoo, Nuts or fast car mag and get a good look at some body-hairless, slutty girls biting their bottom lip and showing as much flesh as they legally can on a middle-shelf magazine.
Now if people make a choice to buy that then fine, I promise don't want to stop them. But some people don't really want to see these images and celebrity judgements, fair enough they don't have to look but, really I don't see why they can't just put an opaque screen across the front of the shelf so only the name is visible. Then everyone is happy. People can buy their mags but those who don't want them in sight when buying the Radio times don't have to. Life is a compromise. People should not be afraid to have an opposing opinion. And people should always have a choice where possible.
Personally, scantily clad girls just don't bother me, but being a feminist I detest their betrayal by the very publications who pay them. The girls are happy, I'm happy for them but they are often made to look simple/slutty or ignorant. And it is this impression of women that is passed onto the impressionable youth.
No, but I expect you saw Playboy and Penthouse (a little bit up-market) plus all the more sleazy British mags like Fiesta and Knave. Then there were a few fairly hardcore publications that were often kept in covers, and that was in conservative Richmond not Soho.
Today's lad's mags seem pretty tame in comparison to some of the mags that were on sale in highstreet newsagents In the 70's.
Indeed.
How did we get through the 70s without having our "childhoods corrupted"? :rolleyes:
There are no good reasons for magazines that contain sexual content to be sold in shops. The co-op should just ban them completely.
See there's that word "ban" again. This is why people get pissed off. A reasonable request has been turned into some kind of censorship verses freedom row when it's really just about freedom of CHOICE
Comments
Grow up
First, where is the personal insults?
Second, you must have been very tall to see the slanted top shelves with the magazines on it...
Have to say it i never noticed them as a child and speaking to the Mrs, her pal and one of my pals, not one of them noticed them at that age.
Meanwhile, Massive Guns & Ammo and Big Eff Off Tanks Monthly, still on sale in your local newsagent.
I bought a knitting magazine once, it had free needles. Think of the damage I could do with those babies
I think they still will in 10 years. There'll always be people who'll buy a paper for when they go in a café and have something to eat and drink. People will also buy a paper for when they're travelling 10+ miles on the bus or train. Unless tablets get knocked down to something like £10, I doubt they'll start selling enough to put a serious dent in tabloid sales.
He won't. He'll just look at those to spend all his time like every other boy of that age, hamshanking himself senseless.
I'm not thinking of the children, I'm thinking of the teenagers. Or more specifically, my children WHEN they are teenagers
Personally I think young children are more under the influence of footballers and pop stars. Not sure if this a good thing either but it's definitely not a bad thing. When I was little all I wanted was to marry Michael Jackson :cool:
Haha! That's what his Dad tells me too
No, but I expect you saw Playboy and Penthouse (a little bit up-market) plus all the more sleazy British mags like Fiesta and Knave. Then there were a few fairly hardcore publications that were often kept in covers, and that was in conservative Richmond not Soho.
Today's lad's mags seem pretty tame in comparison to some of the mags that were on sale in highstreet newsagents In the 70's.
Certainly not by the 2D version.
With the 3D version, it could be another matter.......:D
How do you go from covering up sexualised images on the front cover of mens magazines in supermarkets and newsagents, to "must now not have sexy good looking women in ads only plain ones"?
I'd hazard a guess they are not in general the same parents. The kind of parent that would take their nine year old daughters to Rhianna shows are the ones that take them to nailbars and tanning salons to prepare them for a 'glamour' career, and would quite happily see Zoo and Nuts remain in view.
i remember been up late to watch V.and lots of other t.v.
So were mine.
By far the most screwed up people I know are all religious of one group or another.
Bear Grylls?
Yes, but the difference is the marketing and availability. As a 16 year old girl (or boy) I couldn't just stride into my local corner ship and pickup a copy of penthouse. They were for adults, adults who knew that women didn't all look like that. They are fantasy women.
These days a 16 year old girl can go and buy Heat and see journalists viciously picking apart the latest breed of celebrities for having no makeup, cellulite and shock horror :eek: putting on weight. A 16 year old boy can-far more easily-buy Zoo, Nuts or fast car mag and get a good look at some body-hairless, slutty girls biting their bottom lip and showing as much flesh as they legally can on a middle-shelf magazine.
Now if people make a choice to buy that then fine, I promise don't want to stop them. But some people don't really want to see these images and celebrity judgements, fair enough they don't have to look but, really I don't see why they can't just put an opaque screen across the front of the shelf so only the name is visible. Then everyone is happy. People can buy their mags but those who don't want them in sight when buying the Radio times don't have to. Life is a compromise. People should not be afraid to have an opposing opinion. And people should always have a choice where possible.
Personally, scantily clad girls just don't bother me, but being a feminist I detest their betrayal by the very publications who pay them. The girls are happy, I'm happy for them but they are often made to look simple/slutty or ignorant. And it is this impression of women that is passed onto the impressionable youth.
Indeed.
How did we get through the 70s without having our "childhoods corrupted"? :rolleyes:
See there's that word "ban" again. This is why people get pissed off. A reasonable request has been turned into some kind of censorship verses freedom row when it's really just about freedom of CHOICE