Lads' mags protest

[Bryn]

This anti-lads mags stuff really angers me. Not because I would miss them if they disappeared tomorrow; I don't read them, I'd sooner read something interesting and stimulating, wank over porn or better yet get laid. But they're so unbelievably harmless, the women within them are consenting adults who are compensated for their work. Furthermore, it offends me that in a world with so many disgusting things happening; the slow descent of the United Kingdom into a police state being the one which springs immediately to mind at the moment, they think this is worth demonstrating over. Finally, and it's the most childish argument but it's valid nonetheless, those women's magazines are no less sexist and objectifying, and in fact I would say the negative and harmful impact on young girls and women is far more tangible than any ills caused by lads mags.

[Guest MattP]

Some people really need to occupy themselves with something.

[leicsmac]

Exactly.

 

There is a real bitchiness to magazines like this, and I'd argue they are more damaging to the self-esteem of insecure young women and girls than a few risque photos of Page 3 girls. 

 

Women who ordinary men would go gooey eyed over are ritualistically torn to pieces in Heat and the like for the crime of having a bit of cellulite, wearing the same item three times or a couple of spots while walking to Tesco in December without any make-up on. The argument that they're showing what women really look like as opposed to the photoshopped and airbrushed images in lads' mags is rather undermined when you consider they show these images purely to point, laugh and bitch.

 

They're vile little publications. If the feminist protesters really wanted to be taken seriously as campaigning against the objectification of women, they'd be outside Heat's office as well. As it is, they just look like a rabble of men-hating hypocrites.

 

Nail on the head Bilo.

[DennisNedry]

Lads mags do nothing for me these days, I've been desensitised

 

xhamster anyone?

[bovril]

This anti-lads mags stuff really angers me. Not because I would miss them if they disappeared tomorrow; I don't read them, I'd sooner read something interesting and stimulating, wank over porn or better yet get laid. But they're so unbelievably harmless, the women within them are consenting adults who are compensated for their work. Furthermore, it offends me that in a world with so many disgusting things happening; the slow descent of the United Kingdom into a police state being the one which springs immediately to mind at the moment, they think this is worth demonstrating over. Finally, and it's the most childish argument but it's valid nonetheless, those women's magazines are no less sexist and objectifying, and in fact I would say the negative and harmful impact on young girls and women is far more tangible than any ills caused by lads mags.

I agree with you on the vile women's magazines, but I can't see how they're more objectifying than a magazine whose idea of jouranlistic variety is going from '30 best tits in Britain' to '30 best reality tv tits' to '30 best page 3 tits of all time'.

And if you're worried about Britain's descent into a police state you should be thankful people are allowed to protest something freely and peacefully.

 

Also, why do some people get so pissed off about "whinging and moaning" from feminists they need to whinge and moan about it on the internet?

[Larry_LCFC]

Some people really need to occupy themselves with something.

Any suggestions

[Guest Bilo]

I agree with you on the vile women's magazines, but I can't see how they're more objectifying than a magazine whose idea of jouranlistic variety is going from '30 best tits in Britain' to '30 best reality tv tits' to '30 best page 3 tits of all time'.

And if you're worried about Britain's descent into a police state you should be thankful people are allowed to protest something freely and peacefully.

Also, why do some people get so pissed off about "whinging and moaning" from feminists they need to whinge and moan about it on the internet?

The point I personally am making is that womens' magazines such as Heat show two types of photos of women: Glamorous women at premieres and parties where their outfit, make-up and hair are judged and photos of women in day-to-day situations where they are ripped apart by a pack of Sloaney, middle-class, spiteful wolves.

I agree that the '30 Greatest Tits' are obectifying and puerile, but they aren't nasty. I don't think I've ever seen an attractive, successful size 12 woman ripped to shreds in Nuts and Zoo for having a bit of cellulite, spots or 'bad hair.'

Heat isn't just guilty of objectification, it's guilty of bullying at its very worst. Let's not forget as well that their target audience is young women and late teenage girls, often impressionable and insecure about their appearance.

When an insecure young woman or teenage girl sees somebody like Billie Piper, who most reasonable people would see as an attractive young woman, laughed at and scorned for having a chinful of spots it can only have a negative impact.

This is far more true than women being idolised in lads' mags because most people KNOW that these women are airbrushed, photoshopped and made up to within an inch of their lives. They're rightly criticised for not showing 'real women' and giving impressionable young men an idealised view of how a woman looks.

Heat, by contrast, do show real women. The problem is that real women, in their boyfriends' t-shirts and a pair of high street jeans going to the corner shop for a pint of milk, are there as a target of derision far more often than is healthy. This might be argued to make some women 'feel better' because they can see that not every woman, even celebrities, look perfect all of the time but it will certainly have a negative impact on others due to the sheer vitriol poured upon female celebs for daring to have a bit of acne and not spending four hours covering it up.

It's spite on a page. Zoo and Nuts are a bit of harmless fun by comparison.

[Zingari]

I'm thoroughly disgusted by the whole filthy business of so called "lad's mags"!!

 

Right, I'll be in the hottest celebs or milf appreciation thread if anyone wants me. 

[bovril]

The point I personally am making is that womens' magazines such as Heat show two types of photos of women: Glamorous women at premieres and parties where their outfit, make-up and hair are judged and photos of women in day-to-day situations where they are ripped apart by a pack of Sloaney, middle-class, spiteful wolves.

I agree that the '30 Greatest Tits' are obectifying and puerile, but they aren't nasty. I don't think I've ever seen an attractive, successful size 12 woman ripped to shreds in Nuts and Zoo for having a bit of cellulite, spots or 'bad hair.'

Heat isn't just guilty of objectification, it's guilty of bullying at its very worst. Let's not forget as well that their target audience is young women and late teenage girls, often impressionable and insecure about their appearance.

When an insecure young woman or teenage girl sees somebody like Billie Piper, who most reasonable people would see as an attractive young woman, laughed at and scorned for having a chinful of spots it can only have a negative impact.

This is far more true than women being idolised in lads' mags because most people KNOW that these women are airbrushed, photoshopped and made up to within an inch of their lives. They're rightly criticised for not showing 'real women' and giving impressionable young men an idealised view of how a woman looks.

Heat, by contrast, do show real women. The problem is that real women, in their boyfriends' t-shirts and a pair of high street jeans going to the corner shop for a pint of milk, are there as a target of derision far more often than is healthy. This might be argued to make some women 'feel better' because they can see that not every woman, even celebrities, look perfect all of the time but it will certainly have a negative impact on others due to the sheer vitriol poured upon female celebs for daring to have a bit of acne and not spending four hours covering it up.

It's spite on a page. Zoo and Nuts are a bit of harmless fun by comparison.

 

You're right of course. I think that what women object to in lad's mags is not so much the phsyical portrayal of women but the way they are put across purely as sex objects (read the 'interviews' with the models, mostly written by jobbing copy writers straight out of Uni). Just as Heat could influence an impressionable teenage girl, I'm sure there are plenty of knuckle-dragging, impressionable men who expect all women to act like that. If Heat is bitchy, Nuts is just sleazy, I don't know which is worse.

 

What I was trying to say in the first post is that you can't tell people what they should be offended by. I don't see why people get so wound up when they see a protest they don't agree with.

[Leicesterpool]

To be honest i don't see the point in buying lads mags when you've got the internet, however it should be up to you what you buy and read or w*ank to.Though i've got to admit i think the future of lads mags don't look great, I honestly can see them getting banned. 

 

Oh and by the way who says only lads read them!

[The God Emperor]

You're right of course. I think that what women object to in lad's mags is not so much the phsyical portrayal of women but the way they are put across purely as sex objects (read the 'interviews' with the models, mostly written by jobbing copy writers straight out of Uni). Just as Heat could influence an impressionable teenage girl, I'm sure there are plenty of knuckle-dragging, impressionable men who expect all women to act like that. If Heat is bitchy, Nuts is just sleazy, I don't know which is worse.

 

What I was trying to say in the first post is that you can't tell people what they should be offended by. I don't see why people get so wound up when they see a protest they don't agree with.

its that the protest is so pointless. men are always going to make comments to each other when an attractive lady walks past, that doesnt mean they are seeing her as just an object, all they are doing is commenting on a certain feature of hers. the same way we all comment on vardy's finishing and kasper's dealing with corners, we are not saying that their character is completely defined by this specific feature, its just the one we are talking about at the time.

I get annoyed how people believe a free society is one where you are free from being offended, just deal with it and get on with your life like I've done when someones critisised me on my appearance or some other feature.

[Guest ttfn]

To be honest i don't see the point in buying lads mags when you've got the internet, however it should be up to you what you buy and read or w*ank to.Though i've got to admit i think the future of lads mags don't look great, I honestly can see them getting banned.

Oh and by the way who says only lads read them!

Would you buy FHM if they had a Jennie Bond/Jess Ennis double shoot?

[Guest Bilo]

Would you buy FHM if they had a Jennie Bond/Jess Ennis double shoot?

 

Only if it was laminated.

[The Year Of The Fox]

They should just tax them more heavily. I like a tax on the stupid. Any tax on the stupid is fine by me.

 

Another one that should be more heavily taxed is energy drinks like monster/relentless and imitation red bull. All you see in the town centre is pikeys drinking that muck.

I dunno, im no chav though it certainly helped me get through the day at work yesterday and then the match following an all nighter friday night

[Leicesterpool]

Would you buy FHM if they had a Jennie Bond/Jess Ennis double shoot?

nah! getting bored with Jennie Bond anyway.

[21st Century Fox]

At the end of the day, like most things this is really a matter of greed. This whole thing wouldn't have blown up if companies like Bauer Media, IPC and the like weren't buying up swaths of shelf space below the top shelf.   I can't imagine it's particularly pleasant for a parent going in to buy a Dora The Explorer comic and having Jodie Marsh's silicone sacks pointing in your kids face.

[DennisNedry]

Doesn't anybody see the irony of a Muslim woman at the protest?

 

'Arguing against sexism whilst belonging to a religion that views me as little better than cattle'

[MooseBreath]

It's just another stupid thing which doesn't do the odd feminist who raises legitimate concerns any favours. For me it's a personal choice. If someone is happy to be objectified in such a manner then what's the problem. It's not as if we're all so simple that we think because one woman has exposed her funbags in a sleazy trashrag that every other woman in the world is up for being target practice in a quick game of yoghurt splash. You don't get people defending themselves against accusations of feeling up the female ticket attendant on the 8.15 to Derby by saying, I saw Jordan bent over a piano in Nuts so thought it was fine to cop a feel of that middle aged mother's love cushions. The vast majority of people are civilised enough to know what's appropriate and what's not and I can't see those magazines making any difference either way.

[Corky]

I don't quite see the connection between reading or seeing lads mags and violence against women, as though you only have to see a woman with few clothes on to then decide to go and thump a lady, not quite sure how that works.

 

I don't see a major problem with them, I don't read or buy them but the girls involved have chosen that career path and it's a living for them so it should continue. If shops want to stop selling them then that's fine but places should have a choice.

[Bettsj2]

Read about politics, science or other high brow subjects, or look at some bird from Hollyoaks with her rat out?

Ideal world, i'd be civil, sophisticated and respect the feelings of any woman who feels degraded by these filthy magazines and join the protest to get them banned from our newsagents shelves.

Real world, I cast my eye over Nuts whilst pretending to look for Boxing Monthly,

I like looking at pictures of attractive women in sexually suggestive poses. If that makes me an idiot, sexist, caveman etc, I dont give a shit.

PHWOAAARRRR!!!

[Kitchandro]

The word 'objectifying' is used way too much. Is it objectifying to find a woman sexually attractive? Are you objectifying your wife/girlfriend any time they're in a sexy outfit and you think 'I fancy a bit of that tonight'?

 

Maybe there's nothing wrong with being 'objectified', if that's what we're going to call it. Since when can a man not think a woman is fit and still have respect for them?

 

Besides, I've never come across a healthy, happy and secure woman who has a problem with these kind of things.

 

As a side note, I'm pretty sure lads mags are just for teenagers who haven't quite mastered the internet yet. And FHM is just a load of adverts.

[Finnegan]

Isn't feminism just another form of sexism?

 

 

Feminism is sexism.