Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    In this aspect, they are not objectifying men. Rather they base their decision as to whether have sex or not with a man, on their level of attraction, physical or otherwise, to that same man. In no sense is denying other men sex an objectifying or harmful act.
    At the end of the day it is these standards that drive many men to lads mags in the first place. I'm not saying one side is right or wrong in this, i'm saying the sexual needs of the two groups are entirely different, and some women have found power through exploiting mens needs. Imagine you like having sex 4 times a year but your partner only likes it once per year, further to that you have no imagination, what would you do to release that strong sexual tension? You'd watch a porno; indeed some women do. And would you settle for watching normal people? No. This is capitalism, you want the best bang for your buck, so when given the choice between a perfect male with a 6 pack etc. and some fat grotesque 50 year old man, you will always choose the former unless the later is your thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, you'd have a point if we were talking about things actually being banned. We're not, we're talking about a university-run shop boycotting something unethical. My student union doesn't sell Coca Cola products for this reason. People can and should be able to buy and read whatever they like, even if it's degrading and offensive. That's not the point, the point is a university shouldn't be selling sexist material.
    Do you accept that Cosmopolitan and other magazines that have "hot man" pages with half naked, dripping wet from a waterfall six-pack men are sexist? Notice I never try to equalize with history of women's oppression.

    Sex sells, so adverts are sexually motivated, so nearly all publications contain some sexist content. Do we ban everything?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    You know what I hate? When people do critical thinking or something for a level then go around misusing the term ad hominem. Sigh.
    "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

    Your comment "lol at all the boys who need their porn." was a (failed) attempt to discredit the arguments of people defending lads mags based on the rather immature claim that they need them for pornography. It's an ad hominem because you are attacking the person, rather than attempting to actually counter their arguments.

    And FYI I neither do critical thinking nor A levels
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why? Surely the onus should be on that minority which commits sexual offences or develop problems with image etc.. You propose an extremely draconian measure, examples of which are found only in strict Islamic society.


    How do you justify this only applying to sexual information made and distributed by consenting individuals? Why not violent movies and music? Perhaps we should stop promoting all art forms which can be construed as harmfull to society. Which would indeed sweep the board clean. All free expression bar that which is completely bland will dissapear from our lives for the benefit of an extreme minority of mentally disturbed people.
    I know entirely what you're saying. If you want, you can read my above post which doesn't answer your questions but does give a glimpse into my thinking. Got to get ready to go out!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    In this aspect, they are not objectifying men. Rather they base their decision as to whether have sex or not with a man, on their level of attraction, physical or otherwise, to that same man. In no sense is denying other men sex an objectifying or harmful act.
    Now I'm going to flip this around for you, and see if you see where I'm coming from:

    In this aspect, they are not objectifying women. Rather they base their decision as to whether to want to have sex with a woman, on their level of attraction, physical or otherwise, to that same woman. In no sense is denying other women sex an objectifying or harmful act.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You are wholly misguided. Second wave feminism was a response to increasing exploitation and objectification of womens' bodies, not the cause of it. It is irrelevant that the sex industry is often a lucrative source of employment for some women; what matters is the harmful and degrading portrayal of women within these magazines and the effect of that on society.
    I would argue that it is men who are suffering if it is women who are self objectifying and exploiting mens higher sexual appetite. There is no proof that such magazines have any effect on the male psyche of a country. Indeed, there are many countries where lads mags are banned but women still face the same myriad of problems they feel they face here - if not more. The objectifying of women happens to satisfy a male need that has existed for centuries, but there is little if any overlap between that need being satisfied leaking into real life.

    Like I said, much more pressure for women is felt from other women than it is from men. The bullying that creates eating disorders largely comes from other women. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it; you can't say 'I want women to be completely free to do what they want, unless of course I object to it because men benefit in someway.'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Sure sure, I know what I said can be interpreted in that way but in my opinion, it's all about a healthy balance. I feel the most important issue is how all aspects of media draw heavily from and moreover perpetrate, this sexualised imagery. It's become so commonplace.
    You still haven't really explained what is wrong with sexualised imagery, nor provided any evidence to back up the criticisms of it.

    I have nothing against people having sex, going to clubs, getting responsibly drunk, responsibly taking drugs and generally having a ******* amazing time because I think that these are all enjoyable things to do with your friends.
    Great, so do I. Completely irrelevant though.

    I think this is just so infinitely better than buying a copy of Nuts, seeing a naked girl, having a **** in your bedroom, ******** your pants when your mum knocks on the door and then whilst going through puberty having a distorted take on girls. Essentially, I just think that as a society we can do better.
    Again, I agree it's a little sad if people choose to do that. But who am I, or you, to tell them what they can and cannot do when it harms no one else (and again, you have provided no evidence to support claims that lads mags harm anyone). You also seem to be suggesting that reading lads mags and "having sex, going to clubs, getting responsibly drunk, responsibly taking drugs and generally having a ******* amazing time" are mutually exclusive. They clearly aren't.

    I also don't see what makes you think boys will grow up with a distorted view on girls. Just because I'm exposed to pictures of women with 'idealised' (whatever the hell that means) bodies does not mean I expect every women to have a body like that. Likewise, I'm sure you will have been exposed to images of men with 'idealised' bodies and I am sure you are perfectly capable of differentiating these images from reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, you'd have a point if we were talking about things actually being banned. We're not, we're talking about a university-run shop boycotting something unethical. My student union doesn't sell Coca Cola products for this reason. People can and should be able to buy and read whatever they like, even if it's degrading and offensive. That's not the point, the point is a university shouldn't be selling sexist material.
    bold - says who? this is subjective so lets leave it because we disagree on it obviously.

    and very nice! you actually have a point. if one agrees this is unethical and if one agrees this should not be sold then yes end of story.

    their points lack all sort of logic and are just ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just shows about double standards, I have read womens magazines before as they are just as interesting to read as mens mags just not as catered to a male audience but often find the articles more obsessed with women as sex objects then mens.
    That’s a good point actually. Having flicked through a few women’s magazines myself, some of them do perpetuate the idea of a woman as a sex object. I’ve seen articles with titles such ‘the best way to please your man orally.’ A lot of the articles seem to be about how women can service men, and occasionally, how women can utilise their sexuality to gain things , often of a material nature from men (as you said, drinks and free taxi rides). It’s rather upsetting that women are encouraged even by their own magazines to consider their looks as their singularly most important and defining asset.

    Not long ago, a woman sent a letter into Cosmo (ugh) conveying how upset she was when she had found out her husband had been visiting strip clubs. Cosmo’s response was to basically ‘put up and shut up’ because ‘that’s what men do.’ In my opinion, they completely undermined her feelings and tried to cast her off as ‘hysterical’ to other readers. Women’s mags are probably more responsible for generating gender stereotypes than any other form of media. Nevertheless, perhaps I’m just picking the worst aspects of women’s mags here...

    As much as I sympathise with feminist causes, quite frankly, I think trying to ban such magazines patronises men. Perhaps I’m naive, but I believe that most men who look at these mags are able to distinguish between the women in them, and the women they encounter on a day-to-day basis. Then again, I’m not particularly clued up on psychological theories concerning the subconscious mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry but if men are banned from seeing ladies in magazines they are more likely to turn to the internet. As we know, the internet has plenty of portrayals of women in far more used situations. Therefore by banning the mild stuff in papers and magz, they are actually causing more damage to the use of women as sexual objects.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I would argue that it is men who are suffering if it is women who are self objectifying and exploiting mens higher sexual appetite. There is no proof that such magazines have any effect on the male psyche of a country. Indeed, there are many countries where lads mags are banned but women still face the same myriad of problems they feel they face here - if not more. The objectifying of women happens to satisfy a male need that has existed for centuries, but there is little if any overlap between that need being satisfied leaking into real life.

    Like I said, much more pressure for women is felt from other women than it is from men. The bullying that creates eating disorders largely comes from other women. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it; you can't say 'I want women to be completely free to do what they want, unless of course I object to it because men benefit in someway.'
    What? This has noting to do with the issue of the sexualisation and objectification of women in 'lads mags'. It is also a huge generalisation, and one which is completely unfounded. Eating disorders are complex, and are the culmination of many factors, only one of which is sometimes bullying by others, both men and women.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How's this for a compromise in this thread:

    -All of the women in here who've never read "Cosmopolitan" or "More" or any of the other mags that treat men as objects, can feel free to keep whinging about what other adults get up to in their free time.

    The rest of you, stop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not surprised, they are feminists mind you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    What? This has noting to do with the issue of the sexualisation and objectification of women in 'lads mags'. It is also a huge generalisation, and one which is completely unfounded. Eating disorders are complex, and are the culmination of many factors, only one of which is sometimes bullying by others, both men and women.



    At the end of the day. What two consenting individuals decide to do or sell to other consenting individuals should not be affected by you being offended.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    What? This has noting to do with the issue of the sexualisation and objectification of women in 'lads mags'. It is also a huge generalisation, and one which is completely unfounded. Eating disorders are complex, and are the culmination of many factors, only one of which is sometimes bullying by others, both men and women.
    olivia, do you really think women are objectified?

    i personally find this offensive if someone thinks that simply because i stare at boobs in a magazine that i now go around the street and all i see is tits n' arse. yea i like boobs and wanna get off to them from time to time, but I in no way apply PICTURES to the real world.

    if some do thats a problem - but dont GENERALISE.

    ps ironic that you think its a generalisation when you are the one making it as i said above.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    Do you accept that Cosmopolitan and other magazines that have "hot man" pages with half naked, dripping wet from a waterfall six-pack men are sexist? Notice I never try to equalize with history of women's oppression.

    Sex sells, so adverts are sexually motivated, so nearly all publications contain some sexist content. Do we ban everything?
    No we don't 'ban' everything. In this instance nothing is being 'banned' at all. But it's inappropriate for a university, an educational institution, to condone degrading publications and sell pornography, and photographs of topless women are pretty much that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

    Your comment "lol at all the boys who need their porn." was a (failed) attempt to discredit the arguments of people defending lads mags based on the rather immature claim that they need them for pornography. It's an ad hominem because you are attacking the person, rather than attempting to actually counter their arguments.

    And FYI I neither do critical thinking nor A levels
    Pinpoint the 'hominem' or person that I was debating with and whose argument I was trying to undermine, and then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on :]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    But it's inappropriate for a university, an educational institution.


    Why? Im pretty sure everyone at university is a consenting adult? Are you saying that the minute a male student sees a pair of tits he is going to transform into a slavering, drooling rape monster?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    bold - says who? this is subjective so lets leave it because we disagree on it obviously.

    and very nice! you actually have a point. if one agrees this is unethical and if one agrees this should not be sold then yes end of story.

    their points lack all sort of logic and are just ridiculous.
    The feminist society have put forward their (very convincing) argument on why it's unethical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i'm sure the LSE kids aren't too young to just go to the next store and get what they need... So unless the ban is to encourage exercise it's pretty pointless and just makes feminists look kinda stupid.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.