Men's magazines! The double standards! The hypocrisy!
...etc., etc. 
Apparently women's distaste for lads' magazines and wishing for them to be permanently removed from shelves because of their objectification and sexualisation is unfair and hypocritical because, well, what about women's magazines?! What about all the men on the front of those?!
Well, er... there aren't any?
For some reason a lot of people seem to think that it's hypocritical to get rid of men's magazines for objectifying women because women's magazines do the same thing - since when? This is one of the more common arguments against it but the only people I've ever come across on women's magazines is women.
And to be perfectly honest should a man ever be pictured topless or scantily clad somewhere, it will have no effect on his ability to always be taken seriously by his peers, whereas women have to struggle on a daily basis not being reduced simply to how they look or their lady parts.
Apparently women's distaste for lads' magazines and wishing for them to be permanently removed from shelves because of their objectification and sexualisation is unfair and hypocritical because, well, what about women's magazines?! What about all the men on the front of those?!
Well, er... there aren't any?
For some reason a lot of people seem to think that it's hypocritical to get rid of men's magazines for objectifying women because women's magazines do the same thing - since when? This is one of the more common arguments against it but the only people I've ever come across on women's magazines is women.
And to be perfectly honest should a man ever be pictured topless or scantily clad somewhere, it will have no effect on his ability to always be taken seriously by his peers, whereas women have to struggle on a daily basis not being reduced simply to how they look or their lady parts.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by IlexBlue
...etc., etc.
Apparently women's distaste for lads' magazines and wishing for them to be permanently removed from shelves because of their objectification and sexualisation is unfair and hypocritical because, well, what about women's magazines?! What about all the men on the front of those?!
Well, er... there aren't any?
For some reason a lot of people seem to think that it's hypocritical to get rid of men's magazines for objectifying women because women's magazines do the same thing - since when? This is one of the more common arguments against it but the only people I've ever come across on women's magazines is women.
And to be perfectly honest should a man ever be pictured topless or scantily clad somewhere, it will have no effect on his ability to always be taken seriously by his peers, whereas women have to struggle on a daily basis not being reduced simply to how they look or their lady parts.
Apparently women's distaste for lads' magazines and wishing for them to be permanently removed from shelves because of their objectification and sexualisation is unfair and hypocritical because, well, what about women's magazines?! What about all the men on the front of those?!
Well, er... there aren't any?
For some reason a lot of people seem to think that it's hypocritical to get rid of men's magazines for objectifying women because women's magazines do the same thing - since when? This is one of the more common arguments against it but the only people I've ever come across on women's magazines is women.
And to be perfectly honest should a man ever be pictured topless or scantily clad somewhere, it will have no effect on his ability to always be taken seriously by his peers, whereas women have to struggle on a daily basis not being reduced simply to how they look or their lady parts.
See, the problem is that you aren't dealing with the issue at heart.
Instead, you're trying to divert the attention away from the lads mags farce to ' women's mags ' ???????
You're running away from the main topic...... no surprises there!
Original post by Algorithm69
I want dildos banned. How dare women reduce the male form to simply an object of female pleasure of grossly exaggerated size. Ban them I say!
Also, I think most people have made the argument that female mags objectify women just as much as men's mags. Although they also objectify men in many ways.
Also, I think most people have made the argument that female mags objectify women just as much as men's mags. Although they also objectify men in many ways.
Grossly exaggerated size?? I don't know what you're talking about
Original post by IlexBlue
Apparently women's distaste for lads' magazines and wishing for them to be permanently removed from shelves because of their objectification and sexualisation is unfair and hypocritical because, well, what about women's magazines?! What about all the men on the front of those?!
Well, er... there aren't any?
For some reason a lot of people seem to think that it's hypocritical to get rid of men's magazines for objectifying women because women's magazines do the same thing - since when? This is one of the more common arguments against it but the only people I've ever come across on women's magazines is women.
Image taken from another thread:
Why are feminists not campaigning to ban this?
The reason, of course, is that they are seeking to ban "lads' mags" simply because they don't like them, and seem annoyed that men look at women in a sexual way.
It obviously isn't the sexual content itself they are opposed to, or else they would be seeking to ban women's magazines as well. Essentially, they are being massively hypocritical, claiming to be against the sexual images on "lads' mags", but don't seem to have anything against the sexual content on women's magazines.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Image taken from another thread:
Why are feminists not campaigning to ban this?
The reason, of course, is that they are seeking to ban "lads' mags" simply because they don't like them, and seem annoyed that men look at women in a sexual way.
It obviously isn't the sexual content itself they are opposed to, or else they would be seeking to ban women's magazines as well. Essentially, they are being massively hypocritical, claiming to be against the sexual images on "lads' mags", but don't seem to have anything against the sexual content on women's magazines.
Why are feminists not campaigning to ban this?
The reason, of course, is that they are seeking to ban "lads' mags" simply because they don't like them, and seem annoyed that men look at women in a sexual way.
It obviously isn't the sexual content itself they are opposed to, or else they would be seeking to ban women's magazines as well. Essentially, they are being massively hypocritical, claiming to be against the sexual images on "lads' mags", but don't seem to have anything against the sexual content on women's magazines.
think you just won the thread.
makes me laugh how these lemon sucking feminists don't even read women's mags. maybe they should start by cleaning up their own 'house' first!
Original post by Algorithm69
To be fair her argument is that female magazines do not objectify men, which your example does not refute.
Agreed, but I feel OP is massively simplifying the issue by claiming that the only opposition to "women's magazines" should be "objectificiation of men".
I am arguing that there definitely IS hypocrisy in the "anti-lads-mags" groups not seeking also to ban women's magazines, because both feature images of semi-naked women, and often talk about sex on the front page.
Only reason women want lads mags banned is because THEY don't like them. No other reason. Nothing to do with sexism. Just a bunch of fat, bitter women making a big fuss about nothing.
Here's a question. The women on the front of these lads mags, have they complained? Have they made a fuss? No.
Petty, bitter, overweight women with no life.
Here's a question. The women on the front of these lads mags, have they complained? Have they made a fuss? No.
Petty, bitter, overweight women with no life.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Why are feminists not campaigning to ban this?
Why are feminists not campaigning to ban this?
They are. There are just as many if not more feminists criticizing toxic women's magazines than there are feminists taking issue with men's.
The idea that feminists are supportive or even indifferent to women's magazines is the most laughable strawman I think I have ever encountered on this site.
Original post by Algorithm69
To be fair her argument is that female magazines do not objectify men, which your example does not refute.
tbh Some women's magazines objectify men as well (not saying Lads mags don't do this).
Haven't the so called "feminists" lost this argument enough times today?
I'm out of rep right now, but well done OP for saying what you've said - it's wearisome how much nonsense is spouted on this issue on TSR.
(edited 10 years ago)
The issue is that objectifying someone with their consent is not against the law, it's not against your rights, and if it is against the rights of the women in question, they can be assumed reasonably mentally competent and free to decide that they can waive this right if they so please.
Those elements of feminist groups that demand such things should be banned are really awfully authoritarian; they feel that, because of their sensibilities, that a certain form of legal and consensually-created publication should be banned outright by the state, and those wishing to produce or consume them branded as criminals. That is a far greater infringement of any right, and it is not voluntarily waived - as sad as these magazines might be, those who freely and willingly make them and those who sell and read them are damned free to do so if they please, because it's ultimately freedom of expression, and it's with the naked women's explicit consent.
There is merit to suggesting they should be not in public view, or otherwise wrapped in opaque coverings so that staff and public who do find their existence offensive should not be unnecessarily exposed to them, as a matter of courtesy and respect. But to demand that those who do not hold such views should be forced by a state apparatus not to have these publications is just a scary and awfully entitled demand indeed.
The issue isn't about 'whether there are magazines with objectified men'. If the men in these consent (and they must, legally) then their objectification is not an issue. The issue is that these people calling for a ban value their own sensibilities more than the basic rights that society is based upon, and feel entitled to enforce their sensibilities upon others.
Those elements of feminist groups that demand such things should be banned are really awfully authoritarian; they feel that, because of their sensibilities, that a certain form of legal and consensually-created publication should be banned outright by the state, and those wishing to produce or consume them branded as criminals. That is a far greater infringement of any right, and it is not voluntarily waived - as sad as these magazines might be, those who freely and willingly make them and those who sell and read them are damned free to do so if they please, because it's ultimately freedom of expression, and it's with the naked women's explicit consent.
There is merit to suggesting they should be not in public view, or otherwise wrapped in opaque coverings so that staff and public who do find their existence offensive should not be unnecessarily exposed to them, as a matter of courtesy and respect. But to demand that those who do not hold such views should be forced by a state apparatus not to have these publications is just a scary and awfully entitled demand indeed.
The issue isn't about 'whether there are magazines with objectified men'. If the men in these consent (and they must, legally) then their objectification is not an issue. The issue is that these people calling for a ban value their own sensibilities more than the basic rights that society is based upon, and feel entitled to enforce their sensibilities upon others.
Women's magazines are actually more damaging to women, if you think about it. At least in lad magazines the women are giving consent to those pictures. In women's magazines they'll take photos and run a "look at who's not wearing makeup" piece or take a picture of a woman at an unflattering angle and claim she's put on a grand total of five pounds.
If these magazines bother you so much, don't read them. If there wasn't demand there wouldn't be supply. So don't ruin it for other people even if you don't like them yourself.
If these magazines bother you so much, don't read them. If there wasn't demand there wouldn't be supply. So don't ruin it for other people even if you don't like them yourself.
Original post by Friar Chris
The issue is that objectifying someone with their consent is not against the law, it's not against your rights, and if it is against the rights of the women in question, they can be assumed reasonably mentally competent and free to decide that they can waive this right if they so please.
Those elements of feminist groups that demand such things should be banned are really awfully authoritarian; they feel that, because of their sensibilities, that a certain form of legal and consensually-created publication should be banned outright by the state, and those wishing to produce or consume them branded as criminals. That is a far greater infringement of any right, and it is not voluntarily waived - as sad as these magazines might be, those who freely and willingly make them and those who sell and read them are damned free to do so if they please, because it's ultimately freedom of expression, and it's with the naked women's explicit consent.
There is merit to suggesting they should be not in public view, or otherwise wrapped in opaque coverings so that staff and public who do find their existence offensive should not be unnecessarily exposed to them, as a matter of courtesy and respect. But to demand that those who do not hold such views should be forced by a state apparatus not to have these publications is just a scary and awfully entitled demand indeed.
The issue isn't about 'whether there are magazines with objectified men'. If the men in these consent (and they must, legally) then their objectification is not an issue. The issue is that these people calling for a ban value their own sensibilities more than the basic rights that society is based upon, and feel entitled to enforce their sensibilities upon others.
Those elements of feminist groups that demand such things should be banned are really awfully authoritarian; they feel that, because of their sensibilities, that a certain form of legal and consensually-created publication should be banned outright by the state, and those wishing to produce or consume them branded as criminals. That is a far greater infringement of any right, and it is not voluntarily waived - as sad as these magazines might be, those who freely and willingly make them and those who sell and read them are damned free to do so if they please, because it's ultimately freedom of expression, and it's with the naked women's explicit consent.
There is merit to suggesting they should be not in public view, or otherwise wrapped in opaque coverings so that staff and public who do find their existence offensive should not be unnecessarily exposed to them, as a matter of courtesy and respect. But to demand that those who do not hold such views should be forced by a state apparatus not to have these publications is just a scary and awfully entitled demand indeed.
The issue isn't about 'whether there are magazines with objectified men'. If the men in these consent (and they must, legally) then their objectification is not an issue. The issue is that these people calling for a ban value their own sensibilities more than the basic rights that society is based upon, and feel entitled to enforce their sensibilities upon others.
There isn't a general right to publish anything, no matter how offensive and then display it in virtually every public place in the country. It isn't authoritarian to resent that and to want to remove something from public view that causes offence to huge numbers of people. The issue becomes how best to negotiate between the offended and the offender - maybe it should not be criminalised, but many other types of publicly disseminated hate are - and these mags are doing little more than pushing hatred of women as social, intellectual and creative members of society and insisting that they be viewed solely as sexual creatures for the sole benefit of men.
Two wrongs don't make a right, as someone has already pointed out.
Also, women's magazines don't have naked photos of men in them.
Also, women's magazines don't have naked photos of men in them.
Original post by Danz123
Yes, there are.
Your move kid.
Your move kid.
Oh my God I can see pubes
I still don't understand this lad mags banning thing. Sure, ban rape porn, child porn or other types of media that desensitise people to criminal offences. Why on earth would you ban magazines with naked women? I can't see why the state would have the authority to ban any content unless it encourages people to commit crimes. I'd love it if the state banned scientology. It's quite a dangerous cult. Have they done anything about it? No. Why? Because of freedom of expression/religion. Why doesn't that apply to these ladmags? I'm really sick of this debate, I've lurked for awhile but I can't ignore it anymore 
Original post by Fullofsurprises
There isn't a general right to publish anything, no matter how offensive and then display it in virtually every public place in the country. It isn't authoritarian to resent that and to want to remove something from public view that causes offence to huge numbers of people. The issue becomes how best to negotiate between the offended and the offender - maybe it should not be criminalised, but many other types of publicly disseminated hate are - and these mags are doing little more than pushing hatred of women as social, intellectual and creative members of society and insisting that they be viewed solely as sexual creatures for the sole benefit of men.
These magazines are mainly sold in newsagencies or supermarkets, which are privately run. I'm afraid they don't run by the needs of someone who is going to be offended by a 'lad magazine'. They're already in a well-hid place. I think those magazines just have as much of a right to be on the shelf as Gardener's World or Women's Weekly.
Also, you seem to be forgetting other important actors in this. The models who choose to pose for the magazines. Without them, I doubt the sections would feature.
Original post by Algorithm69
Oh absolutely I said that in my first post. Most women's magazines objectify men if not in image form certainly in their written articles. I believe I have seen articles such as "how to get mind-blowing sex out of your man" and the like.
Women's magazines do no favours to either gender. I believe they are most harmful to women simply because they are aimed at women (or shall I say pubescent girls).
- Endless unrealistic tampered images of perfect women
- Endless criticism of women's bodies and appearance
- Endless criticism of women's choices, reinforcing sexist expectations
- Very little substance, they are frothy, superficial, vain and un-aspirational
The worst thing is that they pretend to an interest in feminism. Again, it is frothy, ridiculous. A few token articles about female careers - something like "I work in business but I still have time to buy 1000s of shoes! Tee hee!".
They demean men/"boys" as dumb objects of lust, it's a pathetic attempt to appeal to 13 year old girls. It will teach them nothing about real relationships with real men, nothing important about emotions, confidence or choice. No just "give him this ___ and he will go wild!!"
This is why it bothers me a lot when people say "oh but feminists don't care about women's magazines". I'm a feminist and I think they are a worse problem than lads mags, if a less immediately visual one. Then again I know less about lads mags - although I have to agree, we shouldn't have demeaning, sexualised images of either men or women on display everywhere we go.
Spoiler
Lad mags are guilty of this, as are women's mags. I don't see why women's mags being a problem makes lads mags less of a problem.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Why is religion against sex?
- Would east asian guys go for european girls
- Should I stay at my job?
- My Crush is Perfect except for this one thing.
- English Literature Paper 1 J + H
- Long hair in the RAF
- I Feel Sorry for John Mayer
- Dolls' House compared to Bell Jar?
- Bodily hair
- Why do ugly guys complain they can't get girls?
- gcse speaking exam
- A-Level English
- Blackpill v Bluepill
- Am I being unreasonable for feeling uncomfortable when my female friend goes on about
- Make it More Magazine-ey !!
- Of Mice And Men GCSE Essays
- combined science
- Opportunities to write History
- I'm 19 and i have urge to lose my virginity. What advice can you give me as a male
- Probability distribution
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
