Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A BRITISH RETAILER has told the publishers of so-called ‘lads’ mags’ to put the magazines in modesty bags – or it won’t sell them.
In a statement, the Co-operative Retail Trading Group has requested that the publishers put the magazines in sealed modesty bags or they will be withdrawn from sale in over 4,000 of the Co-operative Group’s stores.
The company introduced opaque screens on its own supermarket magazine shelves this month as an interim measure, which it says it will use until the modesty bags obscuring the front cover are used.
Deadline
It made the appeal to the publishers of Front, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, giving them until 9 September to deliver the magazines to them in the sealed bags.
The Sport newspaper has already agreed to deliver all of its editions to Co-operative stores in the bags from 9 September, following pressure from the retailer.
The retail store said:
The Co-operative is taking the action in response to growing concerns by its members, customers and colleagues over exposure of children to the overt sexual images on these front covers which, despite the retailer’s best efforts, are still sometimes visible in-store.
Steve Murrells, Chief Executive Retail for the Co-operative Group, said they had listened to the concerns of their customers and members, “many of whom say they object to their children being able to see overt sexual images in our stores”.
He said that while they have tried to mitigate the likelihood of young children seeing the images with a number of measures in-store, “the most effective way of doing this is for these magazines to be put in individual, sealed modesty bags”.
The UK’s Minister for Women and Equalities, Jo Swinson MP, said:
Exposing children to lewd pictures that portray women as sex objects is not appropriate. That’s why the Co-operative’s decision to implement the Bailey review recommendation for publications with overtly sexual images on the cover to be displayed and sold in modesty bags is very welcome.
She said that while adults should be “left to make their own decisions about what legal sexual images they look at”, the place for lads’ mags “is not next to the sweets at children’s eye-level”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Can they please extend that to Nicki Minaj music videos??
Nicki Minaj sounds like a cure for athletes foot.
Or a dish in an Indian restaurant
I think she covers herself in glue, rolls around and that’s her dressed.
any more photos of this vile outrage?
Hahahahahaha
What I would rather see is half the cover taken up by a warning that this magazine contains photoshopped images that do not represent reality.
Im over in the UK now and this is just getting stupid. I havint met one person over here that agrees with any of these bans, cover-ups or opt-in services. What I also find funny about the whole thing is the feminists behind this movement dont realize that their making it more acceptable for women to be told they need to cover up, something which these same feminists complain about going on in the middle-east.
That’s because your friends are likely modern, urban dwelling, well educated, progressive thinking young people with busy lives too full of their own interests and goals to bother with trying to push a self righteous moral agenda on strangers.
That’s not what they’re saying at all Aaron.
And I doubt it’s ‘feminists’ that are behind this move by The Cooperative.
I think the point you’re missing is that these images are not just uncovered flesh. I am the very last person to want anyone to cover up or be told to cover up myself. But these are unrealistic images that show women as nothing but sexual objects.
Nudity is fine sexualised nudity isn’t – when we’re talking about exposure to kids who have yet to figure it out.
No one’s looking to ban the magazines. What’s the big deal with an extra bit of plastic?
Andrew it could be equally argued that your pushing your self righteous immoral agenda on others.
I fail to see how a ‘pro-choice’ let people do as they wish without interference… Stance forms part of an agenda.
I also fail to see how it’s self righteous, I have no position on the issue to ‘claim to be right about’ I’m supporting personal liberty, to do as an individual wishes themselves.
You clearly have no grasp of the concept of personal morality as to suggest I’m pushing an immoral agenda. Clearly I don’t find it immoral
Cover up that chest Andrew or we will have you removed from the journal , it’s way to explicit for this time of day . After 10 pm only , please
Don’t blame women for this as the mags have been on display for more than 50 years, it’s pressure from [censored]
@andrew and aaron…..you have completely missed the point of the cover up.
I’m curious though….if every time you went to do your food shopping with your young daughters (if you have/had some) would you be fine if it was random multiple mens penises and testicles being put on display for them to see?? As i said…just curious!
For you to make that comment Stephen is the most hypocritical thin I’ve heard in a long time!!! All you do on these pages is push your religious BS on others
Sam…. If I ever had kids.
I know two people who gre up in familys of nudists, three separate people in poly amorous relationships (people with more than one husband/wife), two pairs of swingers that live together with all of their kids, a doctor that regularly changes his/her gender identity, a good few people in submissive dominant/relationships, A bondage master, A sexual life coach, A professor of sexual litrature who writes erotic poetry and three guys who have made their living in adult films….
By the time I get done putting all in perspective, I some how don’t think my daughter would be questioning ‘magazines for grown ups’
This is ridiculous. By these standards they will also need a black cover for the magazines 3 rows down from the top shelf – the rows with Heat & New magazines etc who have bikini clad “too fat, too thin” celebs on the cover every week or the drunk celeb stumbling out of the club with her boob falling out and they put a little star covering the nipple. The magazines with the latest reality tv starlet boasting about their sex life. The magazines filled with these women who young girls idolise giving interviews where the moan about their home movies being ‘leaked’ onto the internet. I hold my hand up I buy all these mags but never once while I was standing picking one out did I notice anything on the top shelf that I found shocking or offensive – I just don’t notice them at all and I doubt younger kids do either.
Naked flesh isn’t the problem, overtly sexualised and objectified naked flesh is.
There’s a huge difference.
But Abbi what you’ve described there is the exact content of some magazines which is aimed at young girls and women. The celeb mags with boob job obsessions filled with pages of analysis of female bodies – these women who young girls idolise with their boobs done, their lips done, their ‘vajazzles’, giving intimate interviews where absolutely nothing is off limits. As I said in a comment above I buy these, and I also have bought auto-biographies by the likes of Jordan or Jodie Marsh where their is explicit details of sexual encounters. These are the things influential young girls are buying and this is the issue that should be looked at in response to over-sexualisation of young girls, not these lads mags that have been around for decades, tucked up out of sight.
Excuse the spelling & grammar mistakes, that was hurriedly typed out on my phone!
Explain that one again Abby?
What’s overtly sexualised and objectified? Is that not a matter of opinion. I always found tall men like my husband sexually attractive, I find myself objectifying him from time to time.
What’s the difference?
Don’t get me wrong these magazines were born out of “lad culture” and they don’t appeal to me at all and would rather they weren’t on the shelves in the first place, but they are nothing more sinister than Cosmopolitan http://coolmaterial.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cm-mag-cosmo-cover-cm.jpg or any other magazine focused on women. I bring my kids to the doctors and in the waiting room there is all sorts of womens magazines which we ladies are addicted to reading all the goss, yet my kids can look at covers like these and presume that women constantly objectify themselves anyway.
What about Gay magazines? Ban them too?
You’ll have to have a stronger argument than objectification to go down the road towards censorship.
They’re not being banned – they have a label on them. That’s not quite the same thing.
Yes! I was only thinking that exact thing in the shop the other day sarah sue. Theres nearly more on display on those magazine covers than the lads mags. To say nothing of the aforementioned ropey-as-hell content.
I wouldn’t mind if they put a cover on lads mags to protect kids. But also, if I ever have a daughter there’s no way I’m letting her buy girl mags, they’re just as bad if not worse.
You hit the nail on the head – ‘women objectify themselves’. Exactly, in an age when Rihanna sings ‘sex in the air, I don’t care I love the smell of it’, Amy Childs taught us how to ‘vajazzle’, and Kim Kardashian has become the most famous female on the planet thanks to a home made movie its not the lads mags that we need to worry about having a poor influence on impressionable youngsters.
I think there are certain parts of lad’s magazines that I would worry about as a parent more than tabloids:: http://jezebel.com/5866602/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-mens-magazine-and-a-rapist
Regardless, that’s up for parents to evaluate, but keeping them with a cover on the top shelf seems to be a reasonable compromise.
Nick, a burka covers up the female form. How’s that for showing respect for the female and non-sexual objectification of women?
Would you say the same for LGBTQ magazines and pride marches? That people displaying flesh in homosexually or hetrosexually provocative ways should cover up?
I was under the impression that you considered yourself an activist for personal freedoms and social justice, not a censorship advocate.
I think there should be notices for pride marches and if parents feel uncomfortable, then they don’t have to bring their children there. Not a workable solution in a grocery store – and a modesty cover isn’t censorship. I don’t think you actually know what censorship means. Censorship would be refusing to allow them to publish.
I don’t think celeb mags are blameless.
I find them depressing and they also promote an unhealthy view of life and how to succeed at it. From my perspective.
But there’s a bit of a difference between someone snapped walking along a beach in a bikini and someone deliberately posing, on their knees with theirs legs spread for the purpose of gratification?
Neither are empowering to women.
I just don’t see what the big deal is to put a bit of plastic around it. It’s not a particularly onerous request?
Yea as you show off your naked legs and your leopard print skirt with a split up the front ….
My last post seems to have no loaded.
Typing on a phone.
The gist of it was that I don’t think celeb magazines are a great bastion of how to live a healthy life either. They depress me for how they hound not just women but men also.
But I don’t want them banned. I don’t want lads mags banned either I don’t see what the big deal is with putting a bit of plastic on them, it’s hardly an onerous request.
But there is a difference between someone being snapped walking along in a bikini and someone deliberately posing provocatively.
I think of you ask most men of they want to look at a pic from a celeb mag while they knock one out or a pic from a lads mag and you’ll understand what I’m trying to say.
Nick – Censorship is the full or partial redaction of any information or media. We are all being marketed to anyway, it’s not about gender or rape culture, it’s about selling products.
Abby – (I’ll assume you are heterosexual for the example but correct me if I’m wrong) If you see a picture of a sexy semi-naked male with a sixpack and a bulge in his underwear, or his fine bare arse on a magazine cover or in an advertisement do you think this empowers men? Do you see that as gratifying for you? I’ll hold my hand up and say from time to time I’ll might have a gawk, sure why not, I don’t see it as disempowering men nor causing any great harm. Likewise it is wrong to assume that men who look at these crappy magazines are doing it for the sole purpose of disempowering women. They may have an ideal, a fantasy woman, the unattainable, but ultimately its none of our business if they find it gratifying or not.
I’d rather men went for the DIY magazines rather than the Booby mag, but then I’d be guilty of stereotyping them for my own gratification of getting some of this broken stuff fixed around the house and living up to my ideal fantasies.
Peace for all,
I think I answered that in my response to Sarah Sue, I think it might be below here.
I’m the defender of all publications here and I didn’t nominate myself for that position.
It’s a bit of plastic, what’s the big deal.
Also, the difference between your objectification of tall men, as you put it, and this, is that in your case its not objectification at all. I presume if you married a tall man you simply find that trait attractive? I’m sure you married him for more reasons than just that. Or I hope so anyway. So you obviously see him as more than ‘just’ tall.
Again Abbi, pick up any celeb magazine aimed at women and you will likely find a female celeb in one of those exact poses. Usually under the title ‘X has lost those extra pounds and unveils all in her steamiest photoshoot ever!’ In other words X has lost weight and now conforms to this porn star image that we as women have somehow accepted as the modern day standard to determine beauty by.
Also Abby , those celeb mags are published probably by the same companies who publish the lads mags. There is no difference really , only in what is deemed objectification.
I think it’s up to men to decide what empowers men. I know my fiance sees me as more than just a body and it’s sad that you’d want to ignore your husband’s personality and feelings sometimes to turn him into a mere object.
And no, if you think censorship means that a store doesn’t stock a magazine front and centre, then Tescos is censoring Fishing Weekly by not showing it front and centre. A shop has to pick and choose what to stock, that’s really not censorship.
I married him for his money, but don’t tell anyone ;-) Also he’s a big tall manly man , great personality and sense of humour(he’d need it to put up with me), he also has a fine arse and I slap it almost daily which is very gratifying, but I also love him. So yeah plenty of reasons and plenty of objectifying, I’m sure he does the same with me, well I’d bloody hope so!
I’d go so far as to say that the vile ‘too fat/too thin’ magazines are just as offensive, destructive and exploitative as the tacky lads’ mags. What’s worse is that they regularly fall into the hands of impressionable kids far more often than the soft porn.
I think you’re confusing attraction and objectification. Unless you genuinely don’t want him to care about your thoughts and desires.
With all due respect Nick, your life sounds very dull indeed. Wait till you hit your 30′s and stop feeling insecure, stop giving too much of a damn about “feelings” and rights and choice and emotional control over your understanding partner. It gets better if you just live life and take the good with the bad. That’s how a woman really empowers herself. You don’t have to have power or control over anyone else to feel empowered yourself.
And for jaysis sake give up reading that jezebel smut. It’s brainless nonsense that talks in circles about something that isn’t really there. It’s a website for insecure women, not empowered women.
Let’s just put every magazine in a bag and continue the shameful act of semi nudity. The catholic handcuffs are still firmly on society suggesting that the body is dirty and sex is dirty.
I don’t think a modesty bag is necessary, but I do think that magazines such as these and “women’s” magazines that obsess over the size of women’s bodies and “fat” shame fairly normal looking celebrities should be placed on a slightly higher shelf that does not correspond with the eye level of children. It is not much to ask and it is no a neo-draconian form of censorship We already have soft censorship laws as we rate films according to age suitability. A child of seven will not be allowed to view certain films in the cinema and will be prevented from doing so in the home by concerned parents. So, we seem to already generally agree as a society that certain visual images are not suitable for children.
Children are affected by some of these images, just as they can be frightened by certain visual images depicting violence. That is common sense and any parent knows this already.
When my son was younger and we went to our local Spar, he used to get upset seeing these magazines and they were right on his eye level. You couldn’t avoid them when queuing at the till. We are open about issues concerning the body and sexuality in our home. But my son simply didn’t feel comfortable seeing these images when he was about 9 or 10 years old as, I think, his own sexual feelings where developing and he was finding that aspect of his self a little confusing. Now he is an older teenager and I trust him to decide for himself what he looks at. The fact is that there is no avoiding these images in shops and this deprives children of their choice not to view them.
Why does everyone start crying censorship when basic measures are being taken to protect children from overtly sexualised images? The magazines are still there, readily available, its just not in your face, or innocent kids faces for that matter.
That is exactly the point Coco Fox. So many people get borderline hysterical at the mere mention of anything that is considered an infringement on their freedom. These are basic measures. I’d say simply moving the magazines up to a slightly higher shelf would be enough. People are just over-reacting.
Then its they must be in a opaque bag,then a black bag,then they can only be sold to people over 21 with ID and a written reason as to why they want them and then eventually a total ban. Dont think that happens look at the smokeing ban[a bit of a polar opposite I know] but the principle is the same.first it was pubs and resturants,now its a personal crusade of Dr Fatso O Reiley to ban all smoking by 2025 in Ireland.
Whats to say some anally retentative politican doesnt get into power and decides all sex mags and the rest of that filth will be banned in 2035 “for the good of the children”
Heres a thing,your children will be adults more or less within 18 years.They are free to choose ,do ,and read whatever they want then..would it behove you to start preparing them for a world that does not consist of sunshine ansd lollypops and rainbows? You cant keep them little darling innocents forever.
Who is Kim kardassian , is she is Star Trek ?
Who is Kim kardassian , is she is Star Trek ?
How come nobody complains about men’s health with some guy with a six pack on show.
Because it’s aimed at men for health purposes not at women for pornographic purposes. Same with runner’s world or and other health and fitness magazines. It’s not a sexual image, per se.
Look at the cover next time there’s usually a header that states “dress for sex” “sex on tap” or something about advice from sexperts.
Britain is a cesspit of political correctness.
Spent a few years working there. Unbelievable society. Too afraid to stick up for what is right for fear of being un PC (is that even a word? It is now) . The minority’s really have the upper hand and get away with a lot. Great baps though in the co-op. I’m a fan of the whole grain.
I object to this blatant cover-up.
That Veritas shop has gone to hell
HAHAHAHAHA Put a cover on it for protection
Won’t somebody please think of the children!?
Its a great idea.. someone has to stand up for decency.. let the men who want to read the rags but protect self respecting women and innocent children from having to see them.
Should society not protect women who don’t respect themselves as well?
While we’re at it then, let’s stop indoctrinating children with any religion and other fairy tales.
Who are you to decide such a law while ignoring more harmful one’s?
Who the hell looks at porn in a magazine these days anyway? That’s like admitting you still rent vhs tapes from extra vision.
And the guilty children of course…
Along the same vein could they not ban women’s mags that ridicule women for being overweight and discuss a woman’s shape who had a baby 24 hours beforehand! They are probably far more damaging or at least as damaging to young people!
Its our attitude to a bit of skin thats the problem. When in Finland every store i went into had xxx mags and dvds alongside the local papers.its no big deal as they were brought up to see the naked body is nothing to be ashamed of…”would someone please think of the children!?”
What about MTV and the sun newspaper .
of course society should. goes without saying … I am talking about women who respect themselves enough to be bothered by seeing women portrayed as sex objects.
129 thumbs down….. sad era for children when adults dont want to protect them from filth.
I doubt your red thumbs are from different people. The journal app on apple iOS allows manipulation of the thumbs on this site as do old versions of the android app. Also the journal website can be manipulated via chrome browser very easily.
I’ve proved it before and things still remain the same.
The lads mags tend be be on the top shelves , what’s more harmful is the amount of mags aimed at Women / teenagers that has Images of emaciated z celebrities on the covers within eyeshot of kids.
Agreed. If anything the magazines aimed at women should be stored up higher as well, often they come with freebies and are in a bag anyway – just make the bag opaque. Or frosted so that the image is not as clear and easily identified by kids.
The magazines aimed at women are just as bad if not worse for affirming a negative body image than any lads mag.
How are children damaged by viewing semi naked women? What next? A law requiring babies to be blind-folded during breast feeding.
Its not the fact that they are ‘semi-naked’ its the fact that the image is sexualised. Your remark re breastfeeding is irrelevant. Breastfeeding is not sexualised is it??
Depends on what your into, I’m partial to the odd shake.
Haha, Barry I think you might be on your own on that one :p
- A sexualised image – - does this mean that most of celeb mags – and TV ads for certain soft drinks and breakfast foods will be banned .
How times have changed – Society is regressing .
Don’t we all want to be sexualised to some extent? Breast feeding comment was sarcasm.
There is actually a fetish for lactating women.
Giggdy!
Censorship and restriction of the Internet shall arrive like a Trojan Horse under the guise of “Child Protection” when it is in actual fact the moral contrivances of the few being thrusted on to the many.
Churchill, 1943, right?
The female body is an evil and corrupting form, sent by the devil to ruin mankind.I say we have a full and frank disclosure of all these disgusting,offensive photographs immediately! Its time to see exactly what we are up against.
Id say this is more to stop lads flicking through the mags and not buying them. This is a way of forcing them to buy.
That’s very likely the answer and try to look good to Middle England and the Mail and Sun (no hypocrisy from them with page 3!) at the same time. Mind you a large number will still be opened by people in the store.
It’s interesting but so true that the feminists that want these magazines covered up are just jealous and in all honesty the tide wouldn’t take them out they are just bitter green eyed kill joys.. Get a life
ha you are to immutre to no what a feminist is it means equilty i dont mind the mags that much but put the behind the counter coz im not a lesbian abd dont want to have tits in me face when i go shops
and jeleous there all fake in the mags fake tits mine are real airbushed photos mine are not botox etc i am 100% real so no im not jeleous i am real and im also beauitful and have confidance in my life and also a brain
if you are slagging of my spelling you should no i am dslexic
Thank you, Steven for observing the incredibly proven link between feminists and singledom. It all becomes clear now!
What a lot of crap so you can’t see who is on the cover!! People who buy magazines buy them because of who is on the front cover, if they are gonna do it might as well do it to all magazines! So it will be pot luck thinking they are gonna see some half naked woman and when they get them home it could be a pic of a half naked Margaret Thatcher? Will the lads get a refund??? What ever about a cover that is open so that the men or women can take it out to see what they are buying???
Hmmmmm half naked Maggie thatcher .
Please Ballsanall I am trying to eat my dinner here
Port and storm ,
Always one ;)
they should be all you see in shops are mags with girls tits out its diagusting you dont see mags with naked fellas out coz there is no need for them go and get a real girl in your life
Have you never seen Gay Times? Attitude? Men’s Health? Men’s Fitness? Or the Australian mag DNA which leaves next to nothing to the imagination. The models, often famous sports stars or actors dont have a problem doing them, it’s not like they need the money. I’ve yet to hear a complaint about them or the ladies mags. The objectification or “think of the children” arguments are nothing more than excuses to impose a dated moral view on everyone else. If you don’t want to see it then don’t go near that section of the newsagent, simple. If you don’t want your kids to see them then start controlling your kids better, don’t try to impose your morals on others because you cant keep control of your kids.
It is really not that simple. If you see my post above. You don’t go out of your way to see these magazines, They are on children’s eye level in most of our local shops. This has got nothing to do with shame about the body or nudity. It is about semi naked, deliberately titillating pictures being on view directly in front of children. Just move them to a slightly higher shelf, that is all. I agree with Quinn Bronagh, when I am queuing in my local Spar, I don’t really want to be staring directly at two women with their breasts pressed up against each other or two men with their groins pressed against each other or men and women naked pressed against each other. It is just not really the place for it in my opinion. But, I am an adult and it doesn’t really affect me at all. However, placing these images at the eye level of children leaves them with no choice.
Richard Keogh, it is not about controlling children better, will you give over. If the image is at their eye level, there is little that any responsible parent can do about it. Unless you are suggesting we bring in a law that requires us to leave our children at home when we shop.
Nanny state right-on claptrap. These people need another hobby.
Between this and the cigarettes it won’t be long before everything in the local shop will be in a plain non-descript bag.
Seems like this kind of nanny state crap is pandering to the religious fundamentalists too.
This week they have to cover up the lads mag…..next week you’ll be getting in trouble for not having a long enough beard….
My thoughts are .. Years ago it was the go to thing for teenage boys to have .. But now it’s everywhere on everything !!!.. Teenagers boys or girls 15/16 nearly all have phones with Internet and therefor have access to all sorts it’s how you bring your children up .. Teach
Girls to have respect for them selfs and their bodies and for boys to give respect .. don’t have a problem with the mags I’m actually surprised people (men and women)still buy them ??
Apparently they don’t actually sell that well.
I say so ,sure .. Who would buy them when they can just turn to the net !!
I’ve never met a smart person who reads these types of magazines.
Blasphemy , im going to bash you perverted souls with my bible :) !
I’d like that.
Any nude pics in your bible , the women were scantily clad when they first started putting that thing together .
Shir wasn’t one of the Mary’s a hooker . Surely there a topless pic of her floating about .
And while you are it, cover up those trashy womens mags with the shocking pics of bare chested men. And Mens Health. Maybe just put a big cardboard cover over the whole magazine section.
I dream of a time I shall never live to see, when the human race sheds it negative, damaging sense of shame about our beautiful bodies, and no longer treats the naked body as anything other than normal… Shame belongs in the same bin as creationist fairytales, tales of Hell and the curses of territorialism and bigotry.
There only using this as an excuse , they really want them covered so that people can’t go in and read them without paying for them
What the men going to read now when the wife is going around doing the shopping!!
Kyle, they are not suggesting removing the mags, just placing a cover on them. It could be much simpler, they could be placed on a slightly higher shelf so they are not directly at the eye level of children. Then everyone could be happy.
Kelly Brook’s boobs <3.
Some women want to be objectified. If less attractive women have a problem with that, then that is their onus.
This is the one that is always rolled out. It is “unattractive” women jealous of attractive women. Can you not be a bit more imaginative than that? This is simply to do with sexual images being at the eye level of children who might find them a little confusing or which might make them feel a bit uncomfortable. Some men just love the opportunity to women bash, get a new record. Just move the mags to a slightly higher shelf where young children aren’t forced to look at them. The rest of us are adults and can look after ourselves.
It would be interesting to see which Co-operative Societies’ actually adopt this. The Co-op is not one single entity; it is lots of local organisations run as separate businesses, although I think the Retail Group do most of the purchasing for all. There are, however, substantial differences in suppliers to each Co-op and some Societies may take badly to being dictated to. A number of Co-ops’ already stock these mags in opaque plastic covers, as do some other resellers.
Sounds like Co-operative Central trying to get some air time………and succeeding. Non-story of the day.
That’s Nuts.
Agree. – woman are not cash cows!
Don’t have any particularly horrifying and damaging memories of catching a glance of those covers when I was young, more just the occasional lol when I went to the shop with my mates if ever noticing them at all…. Women’s magazines are proper disturbing territory though. Especially neon pink at eye level giving kids/young teens 101 more things to feel insecure about
Great Britan and Ireland are becoming increasingly islamic like states. Firstly banning alcohol sponsorship which will inevitably lead to alcohol being banned, secondly wanting to make Ireland a smoking free country, thirdly censoring lad mag covers.
Anymore examples or comebacks welcome
Banning porn on the internet.
I wouldn’t agree, If anything the girls are more empowered in the lads magazines.Men are protrayed in those mags as the weaker sex and there’s a sense of girl power which is the complete opposite to porn.
Middlesex University did a study about how rapists and lad’s mags use the same language: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/aboutus/news-events/news/mags.aspx
Not sure how that’s showing women as being strong…
have your say