The beeb have the story now and they've reported that they're only entering into a 30 day consultation about it's future and that it could close - not that it will.
The publisher of Nuts magazine announced it has entered into a 30-day consultation with staff about potentially closing the publication.
IPC Media said it would also consider closing its website, Nuts.co.uk.
Nuts' readership, along with other "lads mags" like Zoo and Front, has dropped by more than 70% on average in the last eight years.
Managing Director at IPC Paul Williams said the publisher would give Nuts' staff all the help they needed.
He added: "After 10 years at the top of its market, we have taken the difficult decision to propose the closure of Nuts and exit the young men's lifestyle sector."
Magazines don't 'cause' things but they can contribute negatively in many ways.
For example they can present women as objects put there for the pleasure of men.
They can reinforce a particular - and not necessarily desirable - image that women should be aiming for. Let's face it, how many cheap, tacky chavvy wag-wannabes do you see in the streets with their false tan and weird hair? They may be a product of, amongst other things, the image portrayed in some magazines.
It's interesting how you dismiss as 'nutters' people who probably and rightly feel very strongly about the rights and role of women in society - a society which has, more in the past than the present, subjugated women in so many ways.
Good riddance to Nuts.
Onwards and upwards.
So no particular effect on society at all then other than beauty salons and hairdressers making more money than they used to.
And the 'presenting women as objects' argument works both ways.
Its a bit like the women who moan about Page 3. They forget you do NOT have to buy it and look at it. If people want to buy it, they should be allowed to. Trying to ban it is pathetic to be honest.
Its a bit like the women who moan about Page 3. They forget you do NOT have to buy it and look at it. If people want to buy it, they should be allowed to.
In the case of Nuts, it would appear people DON'T want to buy it.
objectification theory is a fallacy that has been debunked extensively. The only people who still use the term are the 'designer feminists' over on Mumsnet and anti sex campaigners such as Object and UKFeminista to forward their agenda. They see it as some silver bullet to try and shut down debate and have a dig at men.
It's nothing more than a assumption that men are so stupid that they will be affected negatively by such imagery, which is a rather condescending and smacks of man hate. It's saying people can't be trusted, that they need a moral guardian, in other words it's censorship.
Just because someone enjoys looking at an image of an attractive woman with her clothes off, does not suddenly trigger a switch where they then see all women as sex objects or pieces of meat.
Also it really shows just how daft the ban the lads mags campaign was, the fact that they were going after something that was on it's last legs anyway. They were about 10 years too late.
They can reinforce a particular - and not necessarily desirable - image that women should be aiming for. Let's face it, how many cheap, tacky chavvy wag-wannabes do you see in the streets with their false tan and weird hair? They may be a product of, amongst other things, the image portrayed in some magazines.
I think it's very rude and extremely judgemental, that you look at women on the street to be cheap and tacky, just because they wear false tan or have a haircut that you don't approve of. Infact it could be considered that you were very sexist in being so quick to judge a woman solely on her appearance.
It's always been a bit puzzling to me what the likes of Nuts, Zoo and Loaded were for. Articles about tech, football, cars, fitness etc. were better and more comprehensively covered by other magazines and in the last decade the internet has surely been the go-to forum for pictures of z-list female celebs with their knockers out.
Print media in many areas is struggling with the ubiquity of the all-encompassing online world so it's no surprise that the likes of Nuts are going under. I suspect many more magazines and even newspapers will go before too long as more people have access to tablets etc. where you can read online content clearly.
And of course it's no victory at all for the anti-smut brigade (or a pyrrhic one at best) since the reason for the mag's demise is simply down to poor circulation figures and not due to pressure from pro-censorship groups. The internet has already all but killed physical music media and it seems print media may well be next in line.
It's always been a bit puzzling to me what the likes of Nuts, Zoo and Loaded were for. Articles about tech, football, cars, fitness etc. were better and more comprehensively covered by other magazines and in the last decade the internet has surely been the go-to forum for pictures of z-list female celebs with their knockers out.
For me, Nuts and Zoo are essentially weekly 'summary' magazines. There's a little bit of everything there - showbiz news, tech news, film news, app news, car news e.t.c..
It's the sort of read you'd want when you had 10 minutes to kill really. If you want comprehensive tech reviews, you buy something like T3. Film reviews, you get Empire, car news you get something like Autocar and so on.
I think magazines like that do have a place, but, obviously, the internet also provides all of the above and more from the summary level right up to the in depth level.
For me, Nuts and Zoo are essentially weekly 'summary' magazines. There's a little bit of everything there - showbiz news, tech news, film news, app news, car news e.t.c..
It's the sort of read you'd want when you had 10 minutes to kill really. If you want comprehensive tech reviews, you buy something like T3. Film reviews, you get Empire, car news you get something like Autocar and so on.
I think magazines like that do have a place, but, obviously, the internet also provides all of the above and more from the summary level right up to the in depth level.
Yes, good point. And you could certainly argue that the internet is even better in serving up your weekly news / interests in bite-sized chunks.
It might be interesting to run a poll somewhere to try to see why the magazine's ex-readers stopped buying it.
Comments
Tolerate? it's not like the mag was a compulsory purchase or came through the door along with the free papers.
I've never set eyes on the mag but if it was legally available up there on the shelves then IMO it's as much a part of society as the Beano.
No show without Punch.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
A sac.
A Cul-de-sac not a nut sac
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26835072
So no particular effect on society at all then other than beauty salons and hairdressers making more money than they used to.
And the 'presenting women as objects' argument works both ways.
Mens health magazine disgusts me. sickening objectification and expectation to live up to an unrealistic ideal.
I wonder if that is due to increasing blindness amongst their target demographic.
And it gives many women work too.
In the case of Nuts, it would appear people DON'T want to buy it.
It's the proprietors that want to ban it because it's readership is down 70%. Why it's a consultation I don't know.
I also don't know why I have written readership down twice and my head if flooded with Bright Eyes.
LOL...I was just thinking that
objectification theory is a fallacy that has been debunked extensively. The only people who still use the term are the 'designer feminists' over on Mumsnet and anti sex campaigners such as Object and UKFeminista to forward their agenda. They see it as some silver bullet to try and shut down debate and have a dig at men.
It's nothing more than a assumption that men are so stupid that they will be affected negatively by such imagery, which is a rather condescending and smacks of man hate. It's saying people can't be trusted, that they need a moral guardian, in other words it's censorship.
Just because someone enjoys looking at an image of an attractive woman with her clothes off, does not suddenly trigger a switch where they then see all women as sex objects or pieces of meat.
I think it's very rude and extremely judgemental, that you look at women on the street to be cheap and tacky, just because they wear false tan or have a haircut that you don't approve of. Infact it could be considered that you were very sexist in being so quick to judge a woman solely on her appearance.
Carrying baggage?
Print media in many areas is struggling with the ubiquity of the all-encompassing online world so it's no surprise that the likes of Nuts are going under. I suspect many more magazines and even newspapers will go before too long as more people have access to tablets etc. where you can read online content clearly.
And of course it's no victory at all for the anti-smut brigade (or a pyrrhic one at best) since the reason for the mag's demise is simply down to poor circulation figures and not due to pressure from pro-censorship groups. The internet has already all but killed physical music media and it seems print media may well be next in line.
There should be no place in decent society for people like that.
For me, Nuts and Zoo are essentially weekly 'summary' magazines. There's a little bit of everything there - showbiz news, tech news, film news, app news, car news e.t.c..
It's the sort of read you'd want when you had 10 minutes to kill really. If you want comprehensive tech reviews, you buy something like T3. Film reviews, you get Empire, car news you get something like Autocar and so on.
I think magazines like that do have a place, but, obviously, the internet also provides all of the above and more from the summary level right up to the in depth level.
Yes, good point. And you could certainly argue that the internet is even better in serving up your weekly news / interests in bite-sized chunks.
It might be interesting to run a poll somewhere to try to see why the magazine's ex-readers stopped buying it.