Turn on thread page Beta

Banning The Sun/Lads Mags from Sale at LSE watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    All the lads mags get their models from a small handful of agencies; which are run almost exclusively by women. The staff at the lads mags are also almost 50:50 male to female in ratio. So, as usual, you are just filling in the gaps how you imagine they would be filled rather than how they are.
    I was talking about the owners and the people who actually have any power within the company. The owners and the editor are usually male.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If they don't want to read the magazines, they don't have to buy them. If they're offended by glimpsing the covers then ask for black fronts to be put over the magazines like shops sometimes do for the top shelf. I think the feminist society seem to not only be overcomplicating the problem, but infringing on the freedom of the press and people's freedom to buy legal products.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    It isn't a myth. It is extremely common everywhere I go.
    Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. But honestly, do your female friends really scrutinise each other that much?
    Both anorexia and obesity are serious problems; however obesity currently kills hundreds of times more people than anorexia. The rate of eating disorder deaths has remained relatively stable, whereas the rate of obesity has more than doubled. Imagine that being bombared with images was somehow making women keep an eye on their weight, can you imagine how bad the situation would become if we banned such advertising?
    This type of advertising is not encouraging a healthy body-type, rather it's encouraging a dangerously thin one. It's possible to have responsible advertising which promotes a healthy lifestyle, it's not a trade-off between obesity and anorexia.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    In my humble opinion, the fact that pornographic material is readily-available to be purchased does pose serious ramifications. Firstly, it is quite evident that these publications are in most cases distributed under the guise of something quite other; as a part of the news, within lifestyle magazines amongst others and as such, it has become normalised within our society and culture. It's an important to consider what determines whether something is beneficial or not within our society. Personally, I believe that the overt sexualisation of the female species is something that is generally not productive in maintaining a harmonious and conscientious society. Clearly, others may feel differently but what must be assessed is the implications of such material. I would maintain that this cannot be resolved by reaching a situation where it becomes a case that 'if you don't like it, don't seek it out' because of the fact that such material has absolutely infiltrated all aspects of the media. Currently, any child can buy a copy of The Sun and be faced with something that they probably are not emotionally ready to deal with. It is well documented that introducing young children to pornography can, in some cases, have disturbing consequences and the publications like The Sun only serve to bridge the gap.
    A picture of a topless woman can have disturbing consequences on a young boy? I call ********, unless you want to point me to thse 'well documented' studies.

    Female breasts are natural, I see no reason why they should 'disturb' anyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I was talking about the owners and the people who actually have any power within the company. The owners and the editor are usually male.
    So what. There is rampant profiteering from everyone involved in lads mags. Lads mags are publically owned and traded so you have as much right to own that company as any man. Lets also not forget that the majority of successful businesses in this country are started by men, so it only seems common sense that those men would still run it. There will be more female business leaders when women learn to create their own successful businesses instead of relying on men to create them then forcing their way in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    A picture of a topless woman can have disturbing consequences on a young boy? I call ********, unless you want to point me to thse 'well documented' studies.

    Female breasts are natural, I see no reason why they should 'disturb' anyone.
    Not when they're overtly-sexualised and presented to pre-pubescent boys. They wouldn't be if we all lived in a nudist world but alas, sadly we do not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yes lets just remove these civil liberties. I mean who wants to be free? Lets control what jobs people have and what people can read and what they can buy. This is a University shop, the people there are mature enough to make their own decisions as to what they read. The people in the mags are also old enough to make their own decisions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. But honestly, do your female friends really scrutinise each other that much? This type of advertising is not encouraging a healthy body-type, rather it's encouraging a dangerously thin one. It's possible to have responsible advertising which promotes a healthy lifestyle, it's not a trade-off between obesity and anorexia.
    I tend not to hang around with girls that do such scrutinising, so my opinion is largely based on the scrutinising of them by other women. Eating disorders are mental problems that have roots and causes far beyond advertising and media. Usually it is because of bullying about weight, which comes from, you guessed it, other women. Any woman can get laid within 5 minutes of walking out their door if they want to, so really there is more pressure from women on men to look good and live right. The airbrushing that really affects women is done in their own magazines; which they buy of their own free will.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Not when they're overtly-sexualised and presented to pre-pubescent boys. They wouldn't be if we all lived in a nudist world but alas, sadly we do not.
    From the fact that you ignored my request for links to back up your claim of 'well documented' evidence, I'll presume it doesn't exist.

    AFAIK there is nothing 'overtly-sexual' about the images in the Sun, they simply are topless women. It's hardly hardcore pornography.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Fashion magazines are different because they don't treat women as sexual objects. Coat hangers, maybe, but fashion is not about selling sex. High fashion rarely makes women look more attractive - it makes them look different. The only point on 'The feminists' list that would justify banning them is the unattainable bodies one.

    While it could be argued that magazines like Cosmopolitan objectify men, there is not the history of oppression behind it for it to have a serious affect on the perception of men. I'm not entirely sure as I've never read one of these magazines, but I thought the men in these publications were famous for something else before, so being an objective of desire is secondary. The women in lad's mags are there for the primary purpose of looking sexually attractive.
    On your first point I agree, I never said fashion magazines treat them as sex objects, simply that they play into this whole body image thing.

    What I have to repeat is that advertising (in the main) is targeted AT WOMEN, so it is WOMEN who respond better to this "negative body image".

    Seeing as you haven't read Cosmopolitan or anything like it, I will disregard your views on them as uninformed and incorrect and based on assumptions, which they are.

    On your point about the history, thats they key word, history. These days male anorexia is the real killer, male suicide rates are substantially higher because this objectification and the body image issues affect men, but they don't have a history of talking about it, or having a group lobby on their behalf. These days men are discriminated against doubly because of the "shame and secrecy" surronding any issues they may feel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I tend not to hang around with girls that do such scrutinising, so my opinion is largely based on the scrutinising of them by other women. Eating disorders are mental problems that have roots and causes far beyond advertising and media. Usually it is because of bullying about weight, which comes from, you guessed it, other women. Any woman can get laid within 5 minutes of walking out their door if they want to, so really there is more pressure from women on men to look good and live right. The airbrushing that really affects women is done in their own magazines; which they buy of their own free will.
    In my humble opinion, whilst it may well be that 'any woman can get laid', this really says very little. It's not a question of merely 'getting laid', rather it's a matter of having sex with someone you'd actually like to. I guarantee that very few women would be able to have sex with someone they'd actually like to with five minutes of leaving their door. I do find the viewpoint that women are the controllers of sex rather amusing, and sometimes cringe-worthy. Men and women are equally able to having sex with someone they find attractive, and also equally unable to do so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    There was an article about it in The Guardian this week. I think it's true - women's fashion isn't made to make men notice women, it is made for other women.



    No, that's not what I meant. I don't feel women's magazines are as bad as men's magazines as they are more about the man himself, rather than just his body. However, men are not seen as sexual objects in society so showing them to be so doesn't do as much damage as women who are sexually harassed on a day-to-day basis.
    Sorry to double post and quote but I saw this and couldnt let it slide.

    "Men are not seen as sexual objects in society" - What is this? The 1900s? Robert Pattinson is revered because he is a sex object, the amount of girls I know who go out with targets and have the power in their sexual relationships? The liberalisation of female sexual attitudes has made men in general the objects. Please get your arguments up to date.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It's just obvious that they're right, or at least that they have a really good point. lol at all the boys who need their porn.
    I don't think any men read them for porn (not that FHM is pornography anyway). If people wanted pornography they would go online - theres much more variety, its free and isn't limited to still images. Rather childish ad hominem attack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    I don't think any men read them for porn (not that FHM is pornography anyway). If people wanted pornography they would go online - theres much more variety, its free and isn't limited to still images. Rather childish ad hominem attack.
    Why does porn make up a substantial part of these publications then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    On your first point I agree, I never said fashion magazines treat them as sex objects, simply that they play into this whole body image thing.

    What I have to repeat is that advertising (in the main) is targeted AT WOMEN, so it is WOMEN who respond better to this "negative body image".

    Seeing as you haven't read Cosmopolitan or anything like it, I will disregard your views on them as uninformed and incorrect and based on assumptions, which they are.

    On your point about the history, thats they key word, history. These days male anorexia is the real killer, male suicide rates are substantially higher because this objectification and the body image issues affect men, but they don't have a history of talking about it, or having a group lobby on their behalf. These days men are discriminated against doubly because of the "shame and secrecy" surronding any issues they may feel.
    Women respond to this advertising because they have been socialised to do so. There is nothing in their nature to make them more likely to respond to this, but as I have mentioned earlier, they are made to feel like they must be attractive to have a place in society. This is increasingly become the case for males, but I still don't think it has reached the same level as it is for females. Feminists are becoming more concerned with male problems and many have studied men and masculinities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    In my humble opinion, whilst it may well be that 'any woman can get laid', this really says very little. It's not a question of merely 'getting laid', rather it's a matter of having sex with someone you'd actually like to. I guarantee that very few women would be able to have sex with someone they'd actually like to with five minutes of leaving their door. I do find the viewpoint that women are the controllers of sex rather amusing, and sometimes cringe-worthy. Men and women are equally able to having sex with someone they find attractive, and also equally unable to do so.
    Despite not being the men they would like to sleep with it clearly shows that it is not men who are picky or objectifying women; they will accept them, marry them, and sleep with them no matter how they come - tall, short, fat, thin, blonde, ginger, legless, brain dead etc. If women are generally pickier about looks/personality then surely it is they who transfer their objectifying into the real world in a far more widespread and harmful way than men ever do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noogles16)
    I agree with all five statements. I personally do not take any interest in female magazines with sexualised images of men and think they ought to be banned as well. I think the root of the problem is that were surrounded by such unrealistic, unhealthy portrayals of men/woman which is why it is hard to really be able to understand the other gender. And I think it is different with sexualised images of men anyway as topless men with six packs are seen as masculine players/ dominating Predators whereas with sexual images of women they are often seen to be passive victims so there is an unbalance. To those who say it is an infringement of liberty - Almost all laws are some form of social engineering and therefore mould us to be certain people and thus infringe personal liberty.
    Must I repeat that this is YOUR interpretation of images. Images cannot show "domination" unless he is literally standing on a naked woman he has dragged out the cave by her hair. Similarly a woman cannot be a passive victim unless she is literally being shown as a passive victim. Stop adding meaning to images that isn't implicit in the image.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Women respond to this advertising because they have been socialised to do so. There is nothing in their nature to make them more likely to respond to this, but as I have mentioned earlier, they are made to feel like they must be attractive to have a place in society. This is increasingly become the case for males, but I still don't think it has reached the same level as it is for females. Feminists are becoming more concerned with male problems and many have studied men and masculinities.
    There is always an excuse, usually male related, as to why some bad part of the female nature exists... You admitted it yourself that women dress and use fashion primarily for other women. It is other women who are the truely judgemental about other women, and it is women who provoke eating disorders in other women through their general *****iness and judgementalism. It is the competition between women to advance their looks on such a widespread scale that causes all of the problems you are blathering on about. Men have never really demanded that much of female looks; indeed, as I have pointed out already women can get laid on tap. As you admit, some men are now begginning to up their game, which is in turn shaming other men into attempting to conform, but they will never be as weak as women nor as judgemental and *****y, so their problems will never grow to the size of womens. Feminists are not interested or concerned about male interests, they have done nothing for men in their entire history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the femenists need to get their ******* act together and start tackling real problems regarding female rights in London and the surrounding area rather than trying to take away the freedoms of consenting individuals who don't agree with them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    Same. Lots of retarded, knee-jerk anti-feminists in this thread.
    Agreed.
    Most girls I know wouldn't buy gal mags or whatever the equivalent of a Lad Mag is :dontknow: which is why there is never as much attention on that.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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.