h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am referring of course to the 'lads mags' debate,

should lads mags be forced to ware a cover?

Personally I think if they were put at adult eye level then there wouldn't be a problem but when you see them on display at child level then there is... but I suppose someone could argue that this discriminates against short people or the gentleman in a wheelchair who would then have to ask for assistance to reach the magazines

However, If we are going to insist such things be covered up then I think there are a few womans magazines that deserve the same treatment, I dont want my child wondering why women need advice to be thinner/sexier/whatever it is that week. it's disgusting... perhaps they too should be covered up and put on the top shelf which leaves the middle shelves free for eh... cookery and knitting magazines as long as the recipe/knitting pattern isn't too lurid

I tend to think that the sales of daily mail ought to be restricted!!
Supplied in a plain brown envelope with a large identifying mark on it and with it only being available to over 95's with a signed pass from both parents.

That's far more nasty than either the Lads Mags or the lasses ones.

how about all magazines should be sold with a cover? I'd much prefer that.

Put Burkas on them all.

Then bring in a body to ensure the contents are suitable. We could give it a snappy title like the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

" I don't want my child wondering why women need advice to be thinner/ sexier/whatever it is that week. it's disgusting..." [Dr. Anthea]



I don't want your child to be wondering that either. If I had my way, the tabloids and celebrity mags that clutter the checkout aisles would be gone or placed at a level where they'd only be visible to people eight feet tall.

I think we should pose the question the other way. Instead of having to justify why we think the magazines should be covered, the publishers should demonstrate why they should not

The only way these mags will get covered up (and I think they should be) is for some direct action by housewives who do the shopping. Pick the supermarket which cares the least and get a boycott going. Once you get some momentum going, larger groups with more influence will get involved in the campaign.

Sadly, you may not get a lot of press support/coverage, as the publishing empires are all into these mags as much as they are into the papers.

< housewives who do the shopping >

Whoah ... time warp ...

I already boycott magazines. Except for the People's Friend and Private Eye and Empire.

Mol

You dont see them in Waitrose

>>Instead of having to justify why we think the magazines should be covered, the publishers should demonstrate why they should not<<

I disagree completely. I think in a democracy you need a reason to ban something, not a reason to allow it.

I have no interest in lads mags. I used to buy Gay Times and Attitude, which are basically gay lads mags, but they don't seem to be covered by this latest 'outrage' (just like gay porn isn't discussed when porn being exploitative is being debated).

The reason we ban or restrict things is because they're harmful. I've not seen any argument that convinces me lads mags are harmful to anyone. Puerile and moronic, absolutely, but mercifully we don't ban things for being like that.

I think we should definitely cover up those lurid knitting magazines.

US supermarket checkouts are more puzzling thanrevealing. Every magazine cover has some (to me) interchangeable 30-something couple in fashion clothing, with a headline about who's cheating on whom, or who's expecting a baby.

Needless to say, this fails to sell me a magazine. I don't know these people, and don't owe them a shower gift.

I vote for more NASA photos at checkouts... Way more exciting than human body parts.

"The only way these mags will get covered up (and I think they should be) is for some direct action by housewives who do the shopping." [Icy North]

It's not unusual for men and women to be in the supermarket in roughly equal proportions in my area. %Relying just on the women won't work.

I'm not quite sure what the mag covers look like in the UK but here it is very common indeed for the TV mags to have nearly naked women on the cover as do things like Women's Health and some of the more lurid music mags etc. Women's magazines like Cosmo etc are included in this, IMO.

The harm they do is to show that women are only valuable as something to sell and within that they are only valuable as something to sell if they put a lot of flesh on display.

As for housewives doing the shopping. When Mol and I have finished dragging Icy kicking and screaming into the year 2012 we might remind him that it is not only housewives doing the shopping, but sometimes the teenaged sons and daughters of families, men (who may work outside the home or in it) and in my personal experience women who put in a full day at the office and shop in their lunchtimes.

And as I speak from experience I don't actually think that a glamour model is what I want those teeneagers to think is the only value a woman has as a role model or anything else.

Oh, not 2012 - that's *so* last year.

Just ban kids from shops, solves all our problems. Except when we want to send the kids to get our fags and booze.

Not sure why we are going backwards in modesty that we need to cover mags up. I don't go in enough shops to see them, but when they remove page 3 which children can easily access then perhaps there might be a case. Even the pornos were just on the top shelf, not covered.

They can't have it all ways, women in bikinis are okay if we're looking at how fat (or not) their arse is, but not if we're looking at how big (or not) their boobs are?

Not that I've been in a supermarket for a long time to see what all the fuss is about, so this is a totally uninformed opinion.

who are the they that want it all ways? Most women I know are sick to the back teeth of having these half naked women on magazine covers and in advertising and in our faces all the time (tbh I really don't want to see the likes of David Beckham in their undies all over the place either)

and do you mean, when the Page 3 boobs have gone we can start to look at other things we killjoys want rid of? or do you think we can manage to campaign against more than one thing at a time?

It's all part of the same message and it is a steady drip drip drip that our children and teenagers are seeing all the time. And if you've ever had a wailing 16 year old not wanting to go out because "her bum looks big in this" you'll know what it's like.

Nobody wants to actually ban anything (except that flippin' page 3...) per se, just not have it in everyone's faces all the time.

and, gah! host by my own typo...

I just take my glasses off, then it's all a beige blur on that shelf.

"Oh, not 2012 - that's *so* last year" [Icy North]

She probably wanted to be kind to you, Icy. 2013 would have presented you with too much shock.

There's a place for the tabloids, but I don't think that that place is a busy checkout line. Shopping is stressful for a lot of us. Why add to the stress with pictures of actresses without their makeup, or with cellulite in beach pictures. The other options always seem to have pictures of Kardashian women on the covers, with or without the men in their life. The stories that accompany these pictures are horrifying: tales of matriarchs who bed their sons-in-law, tell-all books by aunts who spill details of depravity, etc. There's too-much-information like the Kardashian woman who insisted on wearing high heels while giving birth. Why does it matter what she wore there or anywhere else? if the reports are not true, what motive could the media have for giving them? Why does one family get so much publicity? Why are shoppers exposed to this glut of rubbish when they have enough other problems to deal with?

I'm starting to feel inadequate. Perhaps it's because I shop in a little co-op, and perhaps it's because I only buy about 3 magazines a year (we have PE on subscription) so I just don't look at magazine displays, but I honestly can't remember the last time I noticed anything ... lewd? revealing? ... on the front of a magazine.

Or perhaps I've just become accustomed to it. Sorry. Failed feminist.

Mol