Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Banning The Sun/Lads Mags from Sale at LSE watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Erm, I didn't? I was pointing out that the mainstreaming of lad's mags may have impacted the way people regard women. Some men are feminists, so I certainly don't include them in this. I know men who treat women as equals and would never use them for sex. However, there are men who don't think like this, and their attitudes are not going to change if it is still seen as acceptable to objectify women.

    I refuse to 'expect a bit of give and take' when it comes to this issue. I don't want to be touched when I go out, or do I want to be made to feel like something that exists for men to look at. I don't know any woman who feels flattered by having someone honk at them - all it means is that the driver has recognised you are a young female, someone who he feels would be suitable to have sex with. Yes, people apply different meanings to certain actions, but you would struggle to find a woman who appreciates being made to feel that way.
    I'm sorry but I just think you are either lying or overreacting or at least an alt for another user on here who says pretty much the same thing as you but very few girls seem to say this and the ones that do seem to basically repeat the same things.

    It basically seems that you seem to dislike the way that someone looking or making certain sounds to you means, but dont you think your generalisations can be just as hurtful? I find your comments on men quite hurtful as it portrays them as seemingly sex mad and wanting something with any young woman they see. If what you said is true it actually doesnt mean the guy who does it wants to have sex with you it could just mean he wants to feel good about himself or to show off in front of his friends, the fact that it was you doesnt matter in the slightest, its not that he is objectifying you in the way you think but trying to feel better about himself.

    Like anyone and myself included you have used personal experience, you say you dont know any woman who liked getting honked at, doesnt mean they dont exist, doesnt mean the amount is higher or lower than women who dont etc but it comes down to modern ideas of morals and sexism/equality. We are lead to believe that we should live by the idea that we shouldnt say or do anything that can be seen as negative just in case someone gets offended.

    Bit tired so will finish there though I want to say more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    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.
    its funny how women by trying to gain "equality" just give more and more ammunition to those men that mistreat them (i.e. true chauvinists).

    in this case it is the stupidity/lack of logical thought in such arguments as you just countered. if women think women like sophie howard are portrayed as passive victims then that is very very sad for them. let alone belive that images (which are up for interpretation) are interpreted in the exact same way that they do - or that men interpret them at all - as opposed to just getting it off and not having deep philosophical thoughts about whether that women is a "victim".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    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.
    The question of socialisation is one that makes this argument very difficult to refute. There is no evidence that there is "nothing in their nature to make them more likely to respond to this." Frankly it seems women pressure women, blame society and then blame men because men are more powerful in society. I just do not see the logical jump to blaming society, its a cop-out.

    Anyway back to the issue. If the feminists want to make a real stand, they would ban FEMALE magazines, which promote thin/sexy/dieting/sexual tips, which WOMEN read and are therefore far more affected by. Cosmo tells your every week that to keep a man you must be Thin/Sexy/Famous/Sexual goddess. Lads Mags do not appeal to women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S_123)
    Agreed.
    Most girls I know wouldn't buy gal mags or whatever the equivalent of a Lad Mag is which is why there is never as much attention on that.
    Have you ever seen the sales figures for Cosmopolitan? etc?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Why does porn make up a substantial part of these publications then?
    Because men like looking at the bodies of beautiful women, just like women like looking at the bodies of good-looking men? It's perfectly natural. Many of my female friends enjoy reading magazines featuring muscular males topless on a beach or whatever - is this objectifying males? Or can objectification only work one way?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Because men like looking at the bodies of beautiful women, just like women like looking at the bodies of good-looking men? It's perfectly natural. Many of my female friends enjoy reading magazines featuring muscular males topless on a beach or whatever - is this objectifying males? Or can objectification only work one way?
    Oh yes, I am uniform in my opinions. If those images are sexualised, in my humble opinion, they should not be shown, or at they very least not become normalised into the fabric of our society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Oh yes, I am uniform in my opinions. If those images are sexualised, in my humble opinion, they should not be shown, or at they very least not become normalised into the fabric of our society.


    Im not being funny but what exactly has it got to do with you? You are not being forced to look nor partake in these publications are you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I didn't mention women exploiting women because it wasn't relevant. All business people exploit all genders because they want to make a profit. However, within this discussion, men exploiting women is relevant. I fail to see how this is sexist - I am talking exclusively about lad's mags and their owners.
    You implied that the men who owned it wanted the women to suffer so they kept making profits, which is just reaching. The men who own it want to sell pictures of tits to make a profit. They have no agenda to make women feel like they have to look perfect. Men like good looking women, it's biological and you can't hold it against them, and weather or not they look at some pictures in a magazine isn't going to change them. Just because they like looking at 'unattainable' figures doesn't mean they opress women without it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Surely they are objectifying all the men they rate purely on attractiveness. They become objects for visual pleasure and later sexual gratification, nothing more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Oh yes, I am uniform in my opinions. If those images are sexualised, in my humble opinion, they should not be shown, or at they very least not become normalised into the fabric of our society.
    I am glad you are at least consistent in your ideas, it is more than can be said for most feminists. Unfortunately it doesn't make you any less wrong.

    Would you rather we went back to the Victorian period where sex was considered taboo? That way you would never have to look at any sexualised images. On the other hand I think women have a lot more freedom nowadays. The correlation between sexual liberation and womens rights is a positive one, what you would like is a step backwards, both in terms of personal freedoms and womens rights. Rather ironic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What idiots. A women body hungers for nothing more than a **** and a child, a mans body hungers for a pussy. Simple biology.

    Most of these women are the same insecure people that pass anti discrimination laws, they want people considered on a certain basis that they believe they will do well in (e.g. grades or personality).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not being funny but what exactly has it got to do with you? You are not being forced to look nor partake in these publications are you?
    I would agree with you if I thought this was a solely private matter, but in my opinion, it's not; this sort of material has become so tied to our society that it's inseparable from public life. If you wanted to order it online and have it delivered, I certainly wouldn't object but I do feel that when it's smacked across billboards, played continuously on television, forms a central part of advertising etc etc, it's generally harmful to society. Of course, here I'm speaking more generally to all overtly-sexual imagery. I think that a decent step forward would be to cover all publications which contain overtly-sexual material and ban its use within advertising.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Tasteless and degrading to you, not to everyone. I dunno what you have got a bee in your bonet about, honestly. These women are earning, on average, 10x more than they would be working in Tescos where their natural brain power would lead them in life. They are living the feminist dream. I think what you really take offence to is that men should benefit in any way from the advent of feminism. Given that universities are almost universally over 50% female now I very much doubt men have the idea that women are just sex objects somehow.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    lol at you for making a fool out of yourself. banning lads mags in a student union shop, as symbolic as it may be, will not prevent boys from getting porn.

    furthermore, that is not the issue. the issue is that people should be allowed to do what they want. And accusations such as these - that we see scarcely clad women and then think omg, i need to go around abusing and raping women - is extremely offensive.

    then you might as well ban any sort of violent film. in particular any violent game because games are much much much closer to reality than pictures. and then you might as well ban everything.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    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.
    You know what I hate? When people do critical thinking or something for a level then go around misusing the term ad hominem. Sigh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    I am glad you are at least consistent in your ideas, it is more than can be said for most feminists. Unfortunately it doesn't make you any less wrong.Would you rather we went back to the Victorian period where sex was considered taboo? That way you would never have to look at any sexualised images. On the other hand I think women have a lot more freedom nowadays. The correlation between sexual liberation and womens rights is a positive one, what you would like is a step backwards, both in terms of personal freedoms and womens rights. Rather ironic.
    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. 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. 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    I would agree with you if I thought this was a solely private matter, but in my opinion, it's not; this sort of material has become so tied to our society that it's inseparable from public life. If you wanted to order it online and have it delivered, I certainly wouldn't object but I do feel that when it's smacked across billboards, played continuously on television, forms a central part of advertising etc etc, it's generally harmful to society. Of course, here I'm speaking more generally to all overtly-sexual imagery. I think that a decent step forward would be to cover all publications which contain overtly-sexual material and ban its use within advertising.

    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.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Why does porn make up a substantial part of these publications then?
    Porn? :toofunny:
    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.
    Thats what I was going on about but not in as much detail as you lol.
 
 
 
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
Do you like carrot cake?
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.