Filling their heads with unrealistic exceptions about love, their body and how men should behave. I think that's more damaging than looking at a pair of boobs.
'Lad Mags Bags'
- Thread starter Doomedspeed
- Start date
Filling their heads with unrealistic exceptions about love, their body and how men should behave. I think that's more damaging than looking at a pair of boobs.
A cursory glance down Kilburn High Road on a Friday night would suggest women's ideals of love, their body and how men should behave perhaps could probably do with being made a bit more unrealistic.
Exactly.
Well enough
When I stay over in Instow the night life is lacking, so every now and then a visit to Bideford is warranted!
Since when does Instow have a nightlife
Bideford's dead now Wetherspoons have moved in (well, as good as, it's been open a week so Quigley's etc hasn't got a hope in hell of surviving) and Barnstaple's full of chavs/***** that pack Fever/Toko/Glitterball/insert new name here, the 2 Wetherspoons and Venue to the max. Hardly great options!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Quite, I nearly spat out my tea at the irony of This Morning discussing the objectifying of women from lad's mags and then moving straight on to their 'fashion expert' who was brought in to critique (****g off) what some z list female celebs wore on some red carpet last night.
I'm no psychologist but I'd suggest young girls knowing that women with certain assets can make a living from getting their baps out is less damaging than being told if your belt doesn't match your handbag you deserved to be laughed at on national television.
Last edited:
I pretty much said the following in the other thread we had before, but essentially....
These days, the top shelf magazines are well covered up and difficult for anyone to buy unless they are the right age. Further to that, I would imagine that such magazines have a tiny readership these days, given how readily porn can be found on the internet.
The 'Lads Mags' though have changed over the years. Specifically since the likes of Nuts and Zoo came along. The Publishers of these magazines are basically creating soft porn magazines, aimed at a fairly young demographic of teenage boys, they have pushed the boundaries as far as they can while keeping the magazines where they are and not on the top shelf. You can see why they have done it, but it looks like this may not work for them forever.
The other magazines have you mentioned are significantly different.
Men's fitness type magazines which often have a bare chested man on the cover are creating an image to aspire to, its what many men want to look like, there is nothing overtly sexual about these images.
Magazines though which features implied nude women on the cover in erotic and suggestive poses are created solely for the male gaze. There is of course the long old debate about whether these women are being exploited, but it also raises perhaps the more significant question of what effect it has on young girls and what they should be aspiring to.
Personally, I don't care either way whether they cover up these magazines, but I can fully understand why they want to and if it goes ahead, the publishers only have themselves to blame for pushing the boundaries too far.
Kays catalogue lingerie section FTW (fap the world)
Hah, good memories.
I think many of these feminists fail to grasp that a lot of women actually want to be treated as sex objects. I imagine the competition to get on the front of one of these mags or appear on Page 3 etc is pretty high. But then, is that because they've been conditioned by our sexist society to think their value is purely in their looks, or is it just evolutionarily advantageous for a woman to strive to be sexually desirable?
Since when does Instow have a nightlife
Bideford's dead now Wetherspoons have moved in (well, as good as, it's been open a week so Quigley's etc hasn't got a hope in hell of surviving) and Barnstaple's full of chavs/***** that pack Fever/Toko/Glitterball/insert new name here, the 2 Wetherspoons and Venue to the max. Hardly great options!
Well, there's the Wayfarer... or the ferry over to Appledore during the summer
Barnstaple has been a dive for donkeys now though, hasn't it? Plenty of decent fighting pubs, but not much else about. Honestly can't think of anywhere nearby worth going to for a good old soak.
Load of crap by a bunch of iron boxed feminists who want a good seeing to and a strong man to tell them to make the dinner
I don't really care, if the shop wants to do it, let em do it. As long as they cover up all the topless hunks on gay times and whathaveyou as well.
I don't really care, if the shop wants to do it, let em do it. As long as they cover up all the topless hunks on gay times and whathaveyou as well.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
he never said it was wrong to "dress like a ****". What he said what that probably causes more rape than some lad mags. But you don't see the femo nazis moaning about that. Instead they defend women who "dress like *****" by saying that they SHOULD be able to dress like that and not bare any responsibility for anything that might happen to them as a result.
While sure they should be able to. That is not the point.
If i say to you that it is bad idea to walk down the street at night with £10000 in cash in your hand as you might get robbed. What i am not saying is that you deserve to be robbed or that i don't agree that you should be able to walk down the street without getting robbed. What i am saying is that walking down the street at night waving £10k in cash is asking for trouble.
That same thing when it comes to dressing like a **** and getting drunk. It is not misogynist to tell a female that walking around with no clothes on at night whilst drunk is going to increases the chances of harm.
I seriously think that females magazines are far worse when it comes to misandry than male mags are when it comes to misogyny. In female mags men are put down and women are taught that they are better then them and that men are all sorts of negative low life and worthless and non intelligent and all the worst. In male mags, all they do is treat women as beautiful and often only show the positives of women, which include their bodies. They are not writing about how women are terrible and all their negatives.
If there was a mens mag equivalent to cosmopolitan magazine the femo nazis would be going mad about how they are being misogynist towards women.
tl:dr even when women are shown in a positive light, even when womens mags are far worse at showing men in negative light, women still find time to complain about women being shown positively. Apparently liking a female body is objectification.
While sure they should be able to. That is not the point.
If i say to you that it is bad idea to walk down the street at night with £10000 in cash in your hand as you might get robbed. What i am not saying is that you deserve to be robbed or that i don't agree that you should be able to walk down the street without getting robbed. What i am saying is that walking down the street at night waving £10k in cash is asking for trouble.
That same thing when it comes to dressing like a **** and getting drunk. It is not misogynist to tell a female that walking around with no clothes on at night whilst drunk is going to increases the chances of harm.
I seriously think that females magazines are far worse when it comes to misandry than male mags are when it comes to misogyny. In female mags men are put down and women are taught that they are better then them and that men are all sorts of negative low life and worthless and non intelligent and all the worst. In male mags, all they do is treat women as beautiful and often only show the positives of women, which include their bodies. They are not writing about how women are terrible and all their negatives.
If there was a mens mag equivalent to cosmopolitan magazine the femo nazis would be going mad about how they are being misogynist towards women.
tl:dr even when women are shown in a positive light, even when womens mags are far worse at showing men in negative light, women still find time to complain about women being shown positively. Apparently liking a female body is objectification.
Last edited:
Exactly. And the covers of Evo/TopGear for car nerds and Sky at Night for astro nerds. I'd never see a cover again
IMO, it's starting to get a bit pathetic. It's the same with the smokers, if they want to smoke, they will buy the plain white packet. What difference is the package colour/logo/feel going to make?
Which are regularly broadcast in the middle of a Saturday afternoon
My point was really that while I understand the reason for the top shelf mags as that was a black and white decision, trying to get it to include lads mags starts opening a very large grey area. How do you define what is too sexual for the front cover? Or does it become a case that regardless of the cover the fact it has sexual content means it needs to be bagged? Again what is defined as content that is too sexual?
You say about mens fitness mags but why is a picture of a guy with his shirt off any less sexual than a woman in a bikini?
The imbalance of it all does amuse me though, I was at the cinema the other day with a few friends and diet coke advert came on. While I don’t care about it I don’t think in a million years they could do a similar advert like that with a woman.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
at least most glamour models arent anorexic looking compared to the 'oh my god look how much weight she has put on. ballooned to a size 10!' BS they print in womens mags.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
In general, yes.
Tasteful:
Not absurd or too far out of reality (i.e. down at the beach):
Generally fine:
Did this really need illustrating for you, or were you just goading me into posting pics of boobs?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
If they are going to impose rules it would make sense to bring in a general rule like you say.
However, a blanket ban of naked flesh on magazine covers sounds like pandering to prudes.
In general, yes.
Tasteful:
<snip>
Not absurd or too far out of reality (i.e. down at the beach):
<snip>
Generally fine:
<snip>
Compared with:
<snip>
Did this really need illustrating for you, or were you just goading me into posting pics of boobs?
Define tasteful in a way that's unambiguous and concise
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Show us some examples - I am particularly interested in the many magainzes which show almost all-nude males in highly sexualised poses.
I am also interested in any which often feature two almost all-nude males (wearing just jockstraps) rubbing each other*.
* Because I'm into that stuff, of course.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Shrug, you know what I mean. I knew I couldn't articulate it well or in a way that would not attract the OcUK pedant squad, so I posted the images for contrast.
If you can't see the contrast or difference, then you need someone more intelligent and articular than me to carefully explain it to you and slowly walk you through it.