'Lad Mags Bags'
- Thread starter Doomedspeed
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
They moan about some women in a magazine, but yet they have homosexuals on the BBC during the day making sexual innuendos and other such things on a daily basis.
Hopefully men can force the cosmo and other feminist magazines to also be put in to a bag because they are actually quite offensive to my sensibilities.
Hopefully men can force the cosmo and other feminist magazines to also be put in to a bag because they are actually quite offensive to my sensibilities.
email in trust
They should put all magazines in plastic bag/coverings.. It would probably stop me just reading it and not buying it instead.
Who the hell buys magazines in 2013... anyway..
He's passing a copy of Razzle around the office in a brown A4 envelope as we speak.
+11111111111111111111111111111
Got to love hypocrisy. Equal as amusing is the feminist group pushing this, "The Feministas" I though they were a joke off Futurama.
I don't see a problem with covering them up... at the end of the day a cover full of baps isn't something that should be on the lower shelves for kids to see anyway. In the same way some sunday "papers" should also be made to stop putting baps on the front pages and to be honest I think most now do.
The feminists want porn to vanish, that will never happen... but I don't see a problem with making it top shelf and covered.
In the same way I assume all the mags with 6pack make torsos on them should also be covered and up higher.
It is a free society and our access to legal porn is not being threatened so I really don't see a problem with making sure that it is hidden and out of sight of those who do not wish to see it and of course out of the view of children who do not need to grow up assuming naked women are something totally normal on the shelves.
I do however find it annoying when the feminist brigade shout on about top shelf mags leading to rape, murder and all sorts when they only have to goto town on a sat night to see their fellow women walking about in practically nothing and being overtly sexual and slutty... if anything is MORE likely to cause incidents its the girls who parade round like prozzies on a weekend and get blind drink and act like animals.
The feminists want porn to vanish, that will never happen... but I don't see a problem with making it top shelf and covered.
In the same way I assume all the mags with 6pack make torsos on them should also be covered and up higher.
It is a free society and our access to legal porn is not being threatened so I really don't see a problem with making sure that it is hidden and out of sight of those who do not wish to see it and of course out of the view of children who do not need to grow up assuming naked women are something totally normal on the shelves.
I do however find it annoying when the feminist brigade shout on about top shelf mags leading to rape, murder and all sorts when they only have to goto town on a sat night to see their fellow women walking about in practically nothing and being overtly sexual and slutty... if anything is MORE likely to cause incidents its the girls who parade round like prozzies on a weekend and get blind drink and act like animals.
Compared to what I've seen at Caesar's on a Saturday night they're bloody tame!
You know Bideford well then
Haven't set foot in there for.. maybe 4 years? Only did because I got in free as my stepdad was a bouncer there and even that wasn't worth it
I bet some stores that sell "Magic Mike" or whatever that stripper-based film was that came out recently won't be covered up..
LOL.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
I don't understand the point of this really, as a previous poster said it's not going to change the attitude of the people who buy it and are Lad mags really causing that much damage to the youth of today?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
No it isn't, because the women posing on the front of 'lads mags' are heavily sexualised and more likely to objectify women and their bodies in the minds of children at a young age.
It is not about discouraging people from buying the magazines, more about removing them from sight from young'uns.
Womens magazines, not so much.
It's because of views like yours which prove that the feminist movement is still very much needed. The battle of equality hasn't been won if you consider it so wrong that women can go out and wear what they want.
Instead you want to dictate to women what they should wear and how they should behave. What gives you that right? What makes you better suited to determine what they should do?
If you even had a basic understanding of why rape happens then you'd know that your idea that clothing causes rape is so far off the mark. Rape is about power, not having sex with someone in a short skirt.
As for the topic at hand, if a shop wants to cover up these things then fine. It's Their shop and they are likely responding to customer (albeit likely a focus group) demands and wishes. It would be nice to see an increase in decent sexual education rather than trying to hide away sex though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
One is modelling clothing, the other is modelling her bits.
But do children really know the difference? Because that's the cited aim here is it not, protecting kids from seeing women's bodies.
When I was my early teens, I knocked far more out over the bikini section of my mum's clothes catalogue than I did from anything else (this was pre-internet era mind).
Last edited:
You know Bideford well then
Haven't set foot in there for.. maybe 4 years? Only did because I got in free as my stepdad was a bouncer there and even that wasn't worth it
Well enough
When I stay over in Instow the night life is lacking, so every now and then a visit to Bideford is warranted!
So you're saying a woman in scanty underwear is totally different from a woman in scanty underwear just because one is striking a pose on the front of a magazine and the other striking a similar pose on an 8ft tall poster?
This confuses me greatly. Especially since those on the poster will be advertising lace etc whilst on the magazine they tend not to be see through!
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Kays catalogue lingerie section FTW (fap the world)
Exactly
When I was 14, the fact the model was doing a flirtatious pose or not made zero difference to an image's fapability.
What gets me about the discussion on this I've seen so far is that everyone is just taking it as red that an adolescent or child seeing a women in her underwear is psychologically damaging to them. Is this a proven fact, do we have studies from an unbiased source that show this?
I grew up watching things like Barbara Windsor falling out of her clothes in Carry On Films and I didn't turn out to be a sex-mad raging rapist.
No need to go off on one, he's just saying that if certain people claim these magazine's do something then it stands to reason that real women doing the same thing in public is just as harmful.
I don't see anywhere where he tried to dictate what people wear.
I think you'll find women's magazines to have a far more damaging effect on younger women than you would with a young lad reading a lad's mag. Just look at the celebrity culture that these younger girls are exposed to.. They look up to these celebs and strive to be like them, it's not healthy at all. You'll find many young women will go under the knife or starve themselves etc just to look like their airbrushed heroes.
Last edited: