Loaded, Nuts, etc.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 1:41pm

This post has been deleted.

Gauge · 06-01-2009 1:43pm

hippiechickie, perhaps in future you could state clearly in the OP that you are looking for people to agree with you, rather than to debate with you. It'd make things much simpler.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 1:46pm

This post has been deleted.

John Mason · 06-01-2009 1:46pm

Hippiechick take a look at any mag aimed at women, it is full of naked men and how to seduce men etc. Double standards methinks

personally, i wouldnt either type of magazine

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 1:49pm

This post has been deleted.

pinder · 06-01-2009 1:51pm

arent you saying that women dont have minds of their own when you say lads mags have such an impact on women,any woman i know knows its a bit a harmless fun and have been well aware of these magazines for years and yet they dont want to pose nude .weird that,people having the ability to think and act how they want to

John Mason · 06-01-2009 1:52pm

Well why just complain about lads mags? why no complain about womens mags and in total fairness to the 13 year olds, i am pretty sure they see much worse on the TV and or computer games

and if the state of education system is to be believe sure none of them will be able to read the title anyway

g'em · 06-01-2009 1:54pm

It's not exclusively for females but it is a place to discuss issues relating to women. If the guys want to join in with the debate then let them, surely in a discussion of magazines aimed at men the voice of the target audience is of great value?

I don't post on these threads because I think it's a whole lot of fuss over nothing. Sex sells and this has always been the case. We, as a society, by our inherent nature, will continue to push against boundaries thrust upon us by a variety of sociological and biological factors. Pushing boundaries relating to sexuality and the perception of sexuality is an old favorite and as I said, it makes a lot of people a lot of money. My parents' generation got up in arms about these issues, as did their parents and their parents before them.

I've yet to see anything in the thread to give me cause to believe that young women (and men) today are in any way at risk from the presence of such magazine covers.

Stheno · 06-01-2009 1:54pm

Ah if the issue is them being on display for 13 yo children, then the Parenting forum might be of more help

Gauge · 06-01-2009 1:54pm

And I was under the impression that a woman should be able to disagree with you without being accused of not being "willing to going against the male dominated grain", but I guess I was wrong.

partyguinness · 06-01-2009 1:56pm

To be honest 13 yr old girls have prob seen far worse already..I have a 14 yrd old sister and you should see the sexualisation of teen girls in the 'tweeny' progs she watches on so called kids tv.

Kya1976 · 06-01-2009 1:56pm

dont seem to be able to open the link...

LolaLuv · 06-01-2009 1:56pm

Oh right, so the men aren't allowed to have an opinion here and the women who post in agreement with the men are bowing down to peer pressure? Sure, it's the rest of the world with the problem, not you. You are definitely the sole moral judge for the rest of us, thanks for the enlightenment.

Fwiw, I'm a female, I disagree with you, and I don't care what the men here think of me. :eek:

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 1:57pm

This post has been deleted.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 1:59pm

This post has been deleted.

omb0wyn5ehpij9 · 06-01-2009 1:59pm

Works for me...

LolaLuv · 06-01-2009 2:02pm

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Fair play to you for finding a way to dismiss everyone with an opinion counter to yours.

Dudess · 06-01-2009 2:02pm

I cannot stand page 3 - I think it's crass, vulgar and tacky. I hate that it exists in the first place ("I've an idea! Let's put a picture of a different woman - often a teenage girl - wearing nothing but barely-there knickers and a dumb, vacant, passive, kinda innocent and naive expression on her face every day in our mainstream, morning newspaper.")
But tits sell things - so at the end of the day, it's a smart business move. It's not exactly sexually explicit stuff/obscene hardcore pornography - or even softcore pornography. In fact it's very un-erotic really. I can understand you not liking your daughters seeing such crassness but it WON'T lead to promiscuity. It does objectify and package and idealise and commoditise a particular notion of the female body - that's what would bother me far more than any sexual overtones. You should educate your girls on such matters though instead of getting cross about the selling of such magazines when you don't have much control over it.
But I do see the commercial sense to it, and nobody's putting a gun to the girls' heads.

It is. You're getting the wrong impression. Any such behaviour from male posters would be firmly clamped down upon by the moderators.

That's nonsense. You're obviously not familiar with the Ladies' Lounge. There's no male "agenda" being facilitated by this forum - you make it sound like the Ladies' Lounge is a place where girls act all silly and passive for the boys, and the boys virtually slap our arses and tell us we're good girls.

Believe me, it's FAR from it...

The females here don't have as much of a problem with the magazines as you have, that's simply their view, not a ploy for male approval.
A lot of people disagreeing with you is not the same as bullying or cluster****ing.

John Mason · 06-01-2009 2:02pm

Well maybe you should have just said it was a view point and not a debate and that you didnt want anyone posting in your thread unless they agreed with your viewpoint.

WOO HOO, I am one of the popular kids YEAH GO ME

LolaLuv · 06-01-2009 2:04pm

(I can only click thanks once, but it's a start! :pac:)

John Mason · 06-01-2009 2:04pm

Jaysis, how did we go from talking about lads mags to children watching hard core porn:eek::eek:

Hippiechickie, stop moving the goal posts. are we talking about lads mags, hard core porn, all gender related mags.

You are making my head hurt

Snowie · 06-01-2009 2:12pm

its ok think of tropical islands

pass's * the Codean*

Dudess · 06-01-2009 2:17pm

Oh totally. I'd be more concerned by stuff actually aimed at early teens/pre-teens than the likes of Nuts, Zoo etc, which, while they're on the shelf for all to see, are actually marketed at adults.
Whereas Pussycat Dolls, Christina Aguilera (back during her "durrrty" phase), Britney (back during her "Slave 4 U" phase), Bratz... these are actually what young girls are into and seem to be far more relevant to the normalisation of sexy behaviour among that age group.

Oh that nonsense again - it's NOT a popularity contest! Honestly! And it's not "rubbish" just because you disagree with it.

What on earth did she say to make you think that?!

Who but a sick fuk would think 13-year-olds "should" be watching hardcore porn?

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 2:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Dragan · 06-01-2009 2:21pm

No, right now we are a sexually CONFUSED society. Too many voices, too many opinions, too many vested interests. We went from not being allowed to use the word "shift" ( oh the wailing when this appeared in a play by one Mr Yeats! ) to turning on the tv and seeing Christina Aguilera holding a room full of men captive by simply gyrating her hips.

Whatever way people want to look at it there are a couple of leading factors that got us from starched colours to edible knickers. They include a huge range of things from Wars, to drugs making the mainstream, to moments in cinema history to works of literature. They all landed and they all had an impact one way or another.

The real problem for me is that the message went out that sex was power. It started as being the "womanly influence" back in the day, people seemed to develop this romantic notion that trodden down women throughout history excercised a secret level of control in the bedroom and if you go tot he right sources you will be led to believe that men were nothing more than puppets for the women who controlled them.

I hate to break it to the sex is power crowd but the only think sex grants you power over is weak people and weak people can be controlled through any one of a dozen other ways. Strong women throughout history have always been strong and by and large were strong for exactly the same reason as strong men in history have been strong. Emotional intelligence, high willpower and the drive to get **** done.

However, those don't sell. No sir. The reason being that not everyone can have them and if these are the standards by which we judge who is special then a whole lot of the population is being left out in the cold, and that doesn't work out. Not enough hands get held and too many feelings get hurt.

So, what can everyone have? Stuff, random stuff and ****ing garbage. Everyone can have it. And that is why we have the "mens interests" sections that Donegalfella mentioned. I can get a car, i can get some expensive golf clubs and a Gillette whatever the ****. I can buy that house, those shoes, those speakers that look like Laurel and Hardy for my MP3 player. I can holiday whereever i want. All i need is money.

Money = stuff and stuff = special, right?

And the joy of money is ANYONE can make money right? Wrong. More bull**** to feed to morons because morons need a lie. The easiest ( and really the ONLY ) way to make money is to show that you can make someone else money. Thats about it. The only reason any of us have a job is because somewhere along the chain is a person that profits from us working. Thats it.

So , you can have the mental capacity of knat but hold a tune, jump around with your dick hanging out and tour 300 days a year without falling over in public or getting addicted to crack. Awesome, have a ****ing record deal.

And it's the same message being fed to ladies. There is EASY money to be made because you are SPECIAL!

Chanelle Hayes? ****ing special? Forgive me. I was unfortunate enough to have to sit through an episode of her season and there could not be a more annoying, empty, pointless creature on the face of the planet. She is not even all that good looking. She looks normal. Having seen the pics and met a few of the ladies here i can happily say we have FAR better looking women, more deserving of the attention, right here among us.

She was on BB, left and you didn't here a thing about here until she relented to the pressure to get her git off.

And why was there so much pressure? Because she on TV, and if you don't like a bird on tv then your ghey. Simple as. So if you have a few hundred thousands blokes who are being told this chick is hot, their girlfriends are being told the same thing and all of a sudden if you look like her it's a compliment?

Please, get ****ed.

Don't get me wrong, i am all about chicks, especially naked ones. The female form is a beautiful thing but the sheer implication the someone who looks like any of the chicks on any of the covers is somehow special, or even close to that incredibly rare 1% of the population who are genuinely, down to a very special level, beautiful, if a ****ing joke.

They don't. They range from horrible to good looking and that's about it. But the simple fact is they are naked. And naked sells. So we are back to money.

How much many issues of Nuts would sell if they could get Angelina Jolie naked? ****ing millions. She is considered a good looking lass, is a world wide celeb and people know her. Who the hell knows Lucy Pinder, or Chanelle Hayes, or any of them? No one. They are like battery hens, people the same as you and me, giving opportuinity to get famous and then **** all opportuinity afterwards. You left your job to do the show, but the show sank and now you are the countries most famous unemployment line jockey. You had a taste of celeb and it tasted good but the bills pile up and the offers stop coming in except from mags like Nuts and Loaded and all that ****e.

Do i have any issue with the covers? No, not really. If i have to walk into a shop and see all the ****e lined up against my better sensibilities then so can you, and your kids and you dog. I have issue with the mags, and Channel Four and all those X-Factor shows who make huge money off the fact that the right message to give to your kids is that you are special, when really, in the grand scheme of things, you are most likely mediocre at
best. But they hammer the message home until you will happily sell that part of yourself that you need to sell in order to FEEL like you are special and you will ignore the fact that in the waiting room behind you is the next person with a decent pair of tits, or a Jeff Buckley cover, or a ****e idea for a ****e tv show.

And thats why i hate lads Mags, they perpetuate a cycle of jumped up little talentless ****ers being paraded around as if they have acheived anything.

You won Big Brother? Wow, you were the least annoying cnut out of a bunch of total cnuts. Well done.

Now **** off.

Off topic rant over.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 2:25pm

This post has been deleted.

LolaLuv · 06-01-2009 2:25pm

Here's what I wrote:

Quite clearly the same as saying that all 13-year-olds should be strapped down and forced to watch porn until they can never have a normal view of sexuality. :rolleyes:

1) Who gave me a slap on the back? 2) Do you really think that watching porn is such a bad thing? 3) Why are you so concerned with what I did at 13?

Nerin · 06-01-2009 2:26pm

And?

LolaLuv · 06-01-2009 2:26pm

Natural to be curious. And I stand by that. Frankly, I'd probably be more concerned if I had teenagers who weren't exploring their sexuality.

brianthebard · 06-01-2009 2:27pm

*cough* literary nerd- play was by Synge, D *cough*

I like the rest of your rant though sir.

Loaded, Nuts, etc.

Comments