Lose The Lads Mags Campaign

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Should "Lads Mags" Be Removed From The Shelves Of Supermarkets?

• No - 70 votes
• 78%
• Yes - 20 votes
• 22%

See final stats

Stats until: 13:51 Thu 02nd May 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[Sharingan]

I voted no. Total storm in a teacup.

[jim360]

I voted "yes", but I don't feel that strongly about it and probably meant "no" on reflection.

[Sharingan]

You used to be undecided but now you're not so certian jim? ;-)

[wiltsman]

Could we have a 'Don't Know' button Ed?

[woofgang]

Interesting that you should mention Mary W. My feeling is that we need people like her (and Victoria Gillick) to do what rabbi's call "arguing for God"

I can't find the link now....the concept is that when you are trying to establish the truth or the right way, its important that all views are considered and respected including those that are extreme and which will be discounted. You give time to consider the views and don't simply dismiss them as extreme but identify why they are extreme or unacceptable.

[carrust]

At least with the 'lads mags' you know what you're getting. Take a look at the Daily Star or Sport for instance. It's full of adverts for on-line porn that you download to your phone, apart from every other page having a semi-naked girl on it.

[Sharingan]

Chomsky touched on something similar Woof but in a more negative context.
''The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.''

[AB Editor]

I'm not sure that I dismissed that anti-liberalism view? I just made the comparison.

[Octavius]

I don’t see the appeal of them myself and selfishly couldn't care less if they were removed or not, but I am wary of what UKFeminista are advocating. If a person can sue for finding something “demeaning”, then anything can, and will, be censored. Offence is taken, not given, and almost everything offends somebody. They probably feel the same about such visions in art galleries or sculpture. They consider that women need to be protected and must cover up all parts of the flesh. So what comes after this? Christians banning shops stacking The God Delusion, atheists banning shops selling the Bible?

This latest advocation of pro-censorship has drawn paralels with the likes of Mary Whitehouse and Catherine Mackinnon, so yes Ab Editor.

[youngmafbog]

And where would it stop?

So long as they are not breaking the law why should they be banned.

Judging by some comments clearly some people have never read one recently but seem to feel free to comment - wrongly.

[woofgang]

Ed, not saying that you dismissed the view at all, just commenting...
Sharingan, the difference between the positive and negative is the ensuing action....if all you get is conversation then pretty pointless...its when the conversation leads to decision and action that its a valuable activity.

[Sharingan]

I personally think more or less along the lines of Stephen Fry about people taking offence at everything. They simply need to get over themselves and not make a huge fuss about nothing. I mean how important is this issue really, even if you take it to it's furthest extreme? Absolutely not very.

'It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fu*$king what?’

[woofgang]

so denying the Holocaust is okay? shouting out "hello darling, nice t*ts" is okay?

I agree about a sense of proportion but where would you put the line?

I think with issues like this, public opinion will deal with it or not. If the people who buy such magazines are seen as pathetic losers who can't get a real girl, then the magazines will vanish faster than snow on fresh Sugar (sorry, just heard that phrase the other day and it seems appropriate to this thread)

[tamborine]

No one is forced into shops. If you dont approve, keep out !

[AB Editor]

"Judging by some comments clearly some people have never read one recently but seem to feel free to comment - wrongly."

Maybe - have you recently? What's your opinion of the content? Does it encourage a positive or negative view on women? Are they considered people, or just a place to rehome a trouser snake?

[AB Editor]

"No one is forced into shops. If you dont approve, keep out !"

Except this is in part about the people that work in these shops and children (who we assume are dragged along by a parent). You could suggest "leave if or lump it", but then, what's wrong with trying to improve your working conditions?

[Octavius]

Are they though, or are these 'improved' working conditios being forced on them by UKFeminista.

[Sharingan]

Niether is 'okay' Woofgang, but it's life, people DO deny the Holocaust and shout out inapprpriate remarks, but people really do need to just deal with those things. I live partly in Germany where Holocaust denial is a crime and it hasn't helped a jot with anti semitism, in fact I'd say the exact reverse as it give neo Nazi's something to bleat about because their 'freedom of speech' has been curtailed.
With lads mags it's rather more simple, if people don't like them don't buy them, but don't inflict their opinions on me by lobbying for their removal. To me THAT is more demeaning to women than anything in those magazines, the idea that as a female I would feel oh so traumatised and humilated because a pack of neanderthals print silly macho nonsense in a mag I wouldn't wipe my behind on, that they ought to be removed to protect delicate feminine sensibilities. Isn't that actually a backwards step in the realms of feminism? does that not just depict women as weak and the victims of men? I am not happy with being drawn into that stereotype by these women who lobby about such trivial things.

[woofgang]

they wouldn't say that it is trivial, but a straw in the wind. Myself, yes I made the joke about supermarket dating, but for me it is a different straw in the wind and, were I at the stage where I was looking for a date, I would be drawing my own conclusions from the reading matter chosen by my prospective new friend.

As I have already said, i don't think that removing them would be particularly helpful and the way forward is to change public opinion to the point where they are seen as the chosen entertainment of the spotty no-hoper.

[Octavius]

woofgang, would you say the same of those men who read Gay Times and Attitude, they objectify men in a sexual way and would constitute sexual harassment of a male employee - especially the naked editions. Its not the availability of such stuff that makes some men objectify women.