Banning Lads Magazines

[Halibut]

Stop talking rubbish.

 

If feminists think for themselves, why is there such a thing as "current feminist thinking"? Surely feminists have a wide range of opinions?

 

Of course they do.

[Suffragette1]

Thank you for your retraction.

 

However you haven't made your position clear. You want to ban Page 3 for various reasons (of which I don't intend to debate here) but you want women to be able to choose what they wish to do and don't do.

 

Those two viewpoints are in opposition to each other. Can you clarify this?

They are not at odds with one another because I don't wish to ban all topless photos, merely the daily appearance of page 3 which is incongruous and inappropriate. Banning page 3 does not remove their choice of career, just one publication.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 13:58 ----------

 

Stop talking rubbish.

 

If feminists think for themselves, why is there such a thing as "current feminist thinking"? Surely feminists have a wide range of opinions?

 

They do but I don't think many if any think along the lines of exploitative seedy photographer as being the reason for opposing page 3 or topless photos.

[Happ Hazzard]

Shouldn't people be able to deside, FOR THEMSELVES, whether they want to buy newspapers with semi-naked women in them? People can also decide not to buy these newspapers, or to not shop at businesses that sell them, etc etc etc. Isn't that a basic hallmark of a free society, not just banning things willy nilly?

 

And again, when did the left/feminists become so prudish about nudity? It's worrying. Women's rights should include the right for women to earn a living as a glamour model, if they so wish.

[top4718]

Not got time to read all this thread but in my opinion these magazines have been on sale for twenty odd years or more and have not led to the collapse of Western civilisation, FHM was quite a readable magazine when I used to buy some of the others were a bit trashy and not really my thing.

 

These magazines do no harm, they obviously have a readership or they would fold and some/all of the girls who feature in them seem to have a reasonable lifestyle out of it (I know one of them, she's in Marbella at the moment on a photo shoot and loving it).

 

They have hidden the covers of these mags in the supermarkets and other shops see them as top shelf material so the alleged problem has already been addressed.

 

Perhaps protesting about the massive increase in the cost of day to day living would be a more worthy cause for these people to get outraged by.

[Suffragette1]

Shouldn't people be able to deside, FOR THEMSELVES, whether they want to buy newspapers with semi-naked women in them? People can also decide not to buy these newspapers, or to not shop at businesses that sell them, etc etc etc. Isn't that a basic hallmark of a free society, not just banning things willy nilly?

 

And again, when did the left/feminists become so prudish about nudity? It's worrying. Women's rights should include the right for women to earn a living as a glamour model, if they so wish.

 

*sigh*

 

Followed by *scream*. It has nothing to do with prudishness nor wishing to ban glamour modelling.

[Happ Hazzard]

Of course they do.

So what exactly is "current feminist thinking"? How can a poster be "out of date by a long way regarding current feminist thinking" if feminist thinking covers a wide range of opinions?

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 14:02 ----------

 

*sigh*

 

Followed by *scream*. It has nothing to do with prudishness nor wishing to ban glamour modelling.

Well that isn't the way it seems to me. Without page 3 and Lads Mags, where would glamour modelling exist? And would feminists be content about it continuing there, or would they continue their crusade to ban that as well?

[woodmally]

Well, looks like the law is working with campaigners to ban these from being sold in public.

 

I will hold my hands up to never ever buying a lads or porn book in my life, would never dream of it

 

I think these days, people can find far more graphic stuff on the internet so things like Page 3 and lads books should be binned.

 

We are 2013 not 1999.

 

Well lets look at the way men are portrayed in womens magazines then. Topless and for their amusement. I have no problem with either womens or mens magazines.

 

It seems to me that Feminists are now attacking freedom of speech and expression. These women are being paid, hansomly, for very little work. I have to graft 35 hours a week.

 

If they are so opposed to them then a simple solution. Dont buy them and stop dictating to us how we live our lives.

[Obelix]

They are not at odds with one another because I don't wish to ban all topless photos, merely the daily appearance of page 3 which is incongruous and inappropriate. Banning page 3 does not remove their choice of career, just one publication.[

 

But it does restrict their choice - that's the point. It is a reduction of freedom and the top of a slippery slope. Banning page 3 can hardly be said to be done from a viewpoint of the models safety, it's simple soft porn and a long way down the slippery slope indeed.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 14:08 ----------

 

*sigh*

 

Followed by *scream*. It has nothing to do with prudishness nor wishing to ban glamour modelling.

 

Then what is it about? At the moment what it *appears* to be about is getting back at men because you don't like men for some reason. I'm certain that's probably not what it's about but that is how it appears.

[Suffragette1]

So what exactly is "current feminist thinking"? How can a poster be "out of date by a long way regarding current feminist thinking" if feminist thinking covers a wide range of opinions?

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 14:02 ----------

 

Well that isn't the way it seems to me. Without page 3 and Lads Mags, where would glamour modelling exist? And would feminists be content about it continuing there, or would they continue their crusade to ban that as well?

 

There are some feminists who would like to ban all porn because they feel that it has a detrimental effect on how women are perceived, treated and impacts on heterosexual relationships. So perhaps that group of feminists fits your description.

[Resident]

 

I don't think it's a good argument against the banning of lads' magazines because I think it's wrongheaded at best and monumentally stupid at worst. I also think there are plenty of better arguments for being against the banning of lads' mags.

 

There are no good arguments for banning 'lads mags'. Principally because no-one is forced to posed for them, in fact they're well paid for it and the publication isn't breaking the law.

 

Any other area you could possibly bring to the table would, in the interests of equality would have to include ALL mags, both 'lads' and womens.

 

 

I think that gender theory is too complex to grasp for some on here.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 13:29 ----------

 

 

103,000 people at least think this, me included.

 

We are asking Dominic Mohan to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.

 

We are asking very nicely.

 

The Sun's readership is around 7.2 MILLION. Do you really think that they're going to listen to less than 1.5%? (I'm being kind and assuming that all of the 103,000 signatories actually read the Sun newspaper to reach that percentage figure. In my opinion I highly doubt even 1% of those actually do)

 

Oh and I also see that neither you or Jessica have past comment on the video clip I posted? I'll assume that you cannot counter it.