After 10 years Nuts magazine closes

245

Comments

  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Avoid Twitter then. The same people I think you refer to after hearing of Nuts closure both claim it as a victory for in the feminist 'lads mags' crusade and are calling for the closure of Zoo, page 3 and online pornography next.

    I just love the feminists who think it is ok for them to decide what other women do, surely as long as it is consensual then its up to them if they pose in magazines etc ? And have they not thought that if you got rid of all legal versions of soft through to hard porn that a far more unpalatable situation would return and that's the illegal and underground porn of years ago which was a very unsafe environment for its participants.
  • DinkyDoobieDinkyDoobie Posts: 17,786
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The "feminists" who think banning lads mags and porn are going to solve anything are the same kind of people who think video games cause violence.
  • muggins14muggins14 Posts: 61,844
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Heartache wrote: »
    Where will the Big Brother ex HM's go now. :o
    Hahaha I was thinking that myself. Without the lure of a potential Nuts shoot, what kind of women will be attracted to becoming BB housemates! :D Perhaps tidy ones who like to cook and clean, to increase the potential of appearing in Good Housekeeping?
  • Welsh-ladWelsh-lad Posts: 51,908
    Forum Member
    :cry::cry::cry:

    Got a couple of stag-do's coming up later this year. What am I going to read on the plane now?!?:cry:

    'Read' lol .D

    That's pushing it!
  • CELT1987CELT1987 Posts: 12,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Found it strange that a mag which showed tits was called Nuts.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Heartache wrote: »
    Where will the Big Brother ex HM's go now. :o

    Well Zoo will obviously have the pick of the, for want of a better word, "litter" now.

    I guess the sensible thing to do would have been to merge Nuts and Zoo. At least they could have kept the job losses down to a minimum and a single title would have stood a better chance of surviving.

    It probably doesn't help that for the past few years, you could 'illegally' download both Nuts and Zoo online in PDF format.
  • Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    Well the people on twitter probably do have sex you know. The entire spectrum of human sexual possiblity is not limited to flicking through the pages of Nuts.
    Nor does it need to be limited to only having sex, which you can surely imagine not everyone is able to do for a whole host of reasons. If someone gets their kicks from nude photos so what?
  • I, CandyI, Candy Posts: 3,710
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've never bought or even read Nuts before, but didn't it simply feature pictures of topless women, like page 3? In which case, how could it ever continue to exist when you can access full frontal images and more on the internet, and for free.
  • kippehkippeh Posts: 6,655
    Forum Member
    I guess the sensible thing to do would have been to merge Nuts and Zoo. At least they could have kept the job losses down to a minimum and a single title would have stood a better chance of surviving.

    That would have been a good one for the kiddies, alongside the comics Whizzer and Chips, Shiver and Shake, Whoopee and Wow!.........Nuts and Zoo! :D
  • Frankie_LittleFrankie_Little Posts: 9,271
    Forum Member
    It's not good that the people who worked for Nuts will now be job hunting, although from what little I know about publishing, perhaps most are freelancers.

    I don't think this is anything to do with porn , just a sign of the times, everyone is moving forward in this digital age. Woman's Weekly will be next :cry:
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I, Candy wrote: »
    I've never bought or even read Nuts before, but didn't it simply feature pictures of topless women, like page 3?

    No.

    Obviously the women were topless in many of the pictures, but the shoots were more "glamour" in nature. It wasn't really ever meant to be "porn" in the sense of what you can access on the internet, because the glamour shoots were only part of the content.

    It was typically "male" in content, with features on football, gadgets, films, music e.t.c..
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    And have they not thought that if you got rid of all legal versions of soft through to hard porn that a far more unpalatable situation would return and that's the illegal and underground porn of years ago which was a very unsafe environment for its participants.
    I fear there'll be undesirable effects not being taken seriously or being dismissed as the mutterings of bitter misogynists should these campaigns achieve their core goal of the criminalisation of the creation and consumption of pornography, online or offline.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The "feminists" who think banning lads mags and porn are going to solve anything are the same kind of people who think video games cause violence.

    Well there is evidence that there is some link between video games and violence. People prone to violence or contemplating a violent act have been shown to be unusually heavy users of violent video games. Obviously people will argue the balance of cause and effect until the end of time. But there is a reason why people in prisons are not allowed to sit playing violent video games for hours at a time.
  • GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It was typically "male" in content, with features on football, gadgets, films, music e.t.c..

    It was stereotypical, often tacky, male content that on the whole most men actually aren't that interested in, as proven by the readership figures... Or at least they aren't interested enough to buy the crap.
  • Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    No.

    Obviously the women were topless in many of the pictures, but the shoots were more "glamour" in nature. It wasn't really ever meant to be "porn" in the sense of what you can access on the internet, because the glamour shoots were only part of the content.

    It was typically "male" in content, with features on football, gadgets, films, music e.t.c..
    When I bought them in my youth I always found they catered to a type of male that I couldn't really identify with. Football, cars and gore aren't my thing at all. Boobs, on the other hand...
  • ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,591
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I, Candy wrote: »
    I've never bought or even read Nuts before, but didn't it simply feature pictures of topless women, like page 3? In which case, how could it ever continue to exist when you can access full frontal images and more on the internet, and for free.

    I'm surprised there's any jazzmags left at all in the age of internet Pr0n:confused:

    I suppose one problem a generalist "Mens mag" like Nuts has is that men tend to be either very interested indeed in a subject or not at all. So someone into photography will simply buy a camera review, a mad keen cyclist will want all the bike stuff but be totally disinterested in fishing or cars.
  • Lordy LordyLordy Lordy Posts: 1,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think it's shocking mags like this are closing it's more of a shock they have lasted so long in the internet age.

    You think Nuts was 'shocking'?:o

    Phew, you really need to get out more;-)
  • GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You think Nuts was 'shocking'?:o

    Phew, you really need to get out more;-)
    Eh? :confused:
  • GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Shrike wrote: »
    I suppose one problem a generalist "Mens mag" like Nuts has is that men tend to be either very interested indeed in a subject or not at all. So someone into photography will simply buy a camera review, a mad keen cyclist will want all the bike stuff but be totally disinterested in fishing or cars.
    Well quite...
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gneiss wrote: »
    It was stereotypical, often tacky, male content that on the whole most men actually aren't that interested in, as proven by the readership figures... Or at least they aren't interested enough to buy the crap.

    Thing is, Zoo is essentially the same magazine and their readership is obviously doing well enough to survive so I don't think it's down to how "tacky" it was personally.
    Shrike wrote: »
    I'm surprised there's any jazzmags left at all in the age of internet Pr0n:confused:

    Nuts isn't a jazz mag .. at least not by my definition of what a jazz mag always has been.
    Shrike wrote: »
    I suppose one problem a generalist "Mens mag" like Nuts has is that men tend to be either very interested indeed in a subject or not at all. So someone into photography will simply buy a camera review, a mad keen cyclist will want all the bike stuff but be totally disinterested in fishing or cars.

    I think this is basically it really. Each individual section of a magazine like Nuts will invariably have a plethora of free websites catering for it so people aren't exactly going to pay out to subscribe to a magazine just to get movie news or tech news when they can get it online.

    But then, as I said, Zoo is essentially the same magazine so they're obviously doing something right to still be around.

    That said, I suppose it's entirely feasible that they could be struggling as well but just have more money available to shore up any shortfall in readership.
  • scottie2121scottie2121 Posts: 11,284
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good riddance.

    A decent society shouldn't tolerate such rubbish and it's heartening to know that at least one source of sad sad titillation has gone.

    Onwards and upwards!
  • Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,189
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good riddance.

    A decent society shouldn't tolerate such rubbish and it's heartening to know that at least one source of sad sad titillation has gone.

    Onwards and upwards!

    But what is your definition of a "decent" society and what you consider to be rubbish is going to be very different to what others consider to be "rubbish".

    Nuts and Zoo aren't publications I would purchase, but that doesn't give me the right to say others should not buy it.
  • ArcanaArcana Posts: 37,521
    Forum Member
    Quick Poll

    Are you glad to see Nuts go?

    Yes 51.03%

    No 48.97%

    ☑☒☑☒☑
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 16,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What a terrible loss to the publishing industry and the all-important vacuous reality TV "babes" that made a living out of it. Hopefully it is the beginning of the end of seeing these talentless non-entities being plastered all over print media. Maybe they can all go on and do something worthwhile with their lives without everyone needing to know about it.

    Good riddance to Nuts and all who sailed in her.
  • FrankieFixerFrankieFixer Posts: 11,530
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The audience they are aiming at don't care about print media, they'll just be plastered over digital media with even more photos as you don't need to worry about printing costs. Every fetish or technological or sporting news can be catered for with your phone or tablet and you don't even need to get out of bed.
Sign In or Register to comment.