Banning Lads Magazines

[Resident]

Any specific examples?

 

I'll agree with you in part. Men looking at naked women isn't viewed as innocently by society. It's rare to see men going into lapdancing clubs in adverts. There's a differrnt morality to it.

 

However, an advert for chocolate is hardly a cultural landmark. As an aside, it's also an awful advert.

 

I agree that the advert is awful but it illustrates a point. The same advert with the same content/script/set but with the genders reversed would never make to air because it would be seen as sexist and therefore an inequality exists because this version is allowed. Essentially it's showing that it's ok to be sexist if you're a woman.

 

The point is why is morally different? It's the same act with the only difference being the gender roles being reversed, as with the main argument of the thread, why should 'lad's mags' be subjected to a ban whilst the female equivalent not

 

That aside morals are subjective so why should one minority group with extreme moral views be allowed to force the rest to comply with those views.

[Hots on]

You'd be surprised how many men share the same concerns.

 

When I say opposition I mean active vocal opposition; its a given really that 95% of men will be against it but very few will go out of their way to actively protest, It'll be women that do that.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 15:42 ----------

 

I agree that the advert is awful but it illustrates a point. The same advert with the same content/script/set but with the genders reversed would never make to air because it would be seen as sexist and therefore an inequality exists because this version is allowed. Essentially it's showing that it's ok to be sexist if you're a woman.

 

The point is why is morally different? It's the same act with the only difference being the gender roles being reversed, as with the main argument of the thread, why should 'lad's mags' be subjected to a ban whilst the female equivalent not

 

That aside morals are subjective so why should one minority group with extreme moral views be allowed to force the rest to comply with those views.

 

You're not one of those boring masculinists are you??

[MrSmith]

When I say opposition I mean active vocal opposition; its a given really that 95% of men will be against it but very few will go out of their way to actively protest, It'll be women that do that.

 

You're not one of those boring masculinists are you??

 

I would think that 95% of men wouldn't give two hoots about it.

[Halibut]

I agree that the advert is awful but it illustrates a point. The same advert with the same content/script/set but with the genders reversed would never make to air because it would be seen as sexist and therefore an inequality exists because this version is allowed. Essentially it's showing that it's ok to be sexist if you're a woman.

 

The point is why is morally different? It's the same act with the only difference being the gender roles being reversed, as with the main argument of the thread, why should 'lad's mags' be subjected to a ban whilst the female equivalent not

 

That aside morals are subjective so why should one minority group with extreme moral views be allowed to force the rest to comply with those views.

 

What you conveniently forget there is that the overwhelming majority of sexism runs in a male to female direction. Historically and currently.

 

Which magazines are you suggesting are the female equivalent of 'lads mags'?

[truman]

What you conveniently forget there is that the overwhelming majority of sexism runs in a male to female direction. Historically and currently.

 

 

So two wrongs make a right?

[Halibut]

I would think that 95% of men wouldn't give two hoots about it.

 

Which nicely illustrates the problem. We need to educate our young men about respect for women.

 

There's been a lot of talk about Muslim attitudes to women - fair do's, there are issues that need addressing, but attitudes to women and sex in the majority white/Christian community need looking at too.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 15:51 ----------

 

So two wrongs make a right?

 

Not at all, but the balance in society is still set pretty firmly in favour of men.

[Chris_Sleeps]

The same advert with the same content/script/set but with the genders reversed would never make to air because it would be seen as sexist

That's supposition. You can't know the grounds on which an advert that hasn't been would be opposed if it was made.

 

I think one main reason that you don't see adverts featuring men looking at strippers is that it's not a lifestyle that is promoted. Men suffer from the awful Lynx adverts - in that if they buy a product then they're suddenly sexually attractive to women.

 

Advertising isn't the best medium to measure by anyway. It's very rare that they have any merit.

The point is why is morally different?

The difference is that women can look at naked men and that can still be considered innocently. It undermines your own point in a way, in that male strippers still aren't objectivised in the same way.

 

It's also different in that women buy a theatrical performance from men on a stage, and not a 1-on-1 performance in private that one finds in lapdancing.

[Resident]

What you conveniently forget there is that the overwhelming majority of sexism runs in a male to female direction. Historically and currently.

 

Which magazines are you suggesting are the female equivalent of 'lads mags'?

 

Which ever ones have and/or still publish images of images whether they be of a man or a woman in the same or similar vein as the 'lad's mags'.

 

I seem to recall one such woman's publication, though I can't remember which one published a picture of Beckham in nothing but 'tighty-whitey's' with an arrow drawn point to his crotch with the caption "Lucky Posh!"

 

Watch for an edit, I'll see if I can find it online

[Halibut]

Which ever ones have and/or still publish images of images whether they be of a man or a woman in the same or similar vein as the 'lad's mags'.

 

I seem to recall one such woman's publication, though I can't remember which one published a picture of Beckham in nothing but 'tighty-whitey's' with an arrow drawn point to his crotch with the caption "Lucky Posh!"

 

Watch for an edit, I'll see if I can find it online

 

Don't bother thanks, I don't need to see it to believe you. I really don't want to see Beckham in his smalls, ta.

[truman]

It's also different in that women buy a theatrical performance from men on a stage, and not a 1-on-1 performance in private that one finds in lapdancing.

 

Are you really sure about that? Do you think it's all the "Full Monty" sort of stuff?