"Lads Mags"... Taboo Territory?

Well it's been a while since I bothered you all with a blog post, especially one concerning my personal viewpoint! I'm sorry to say the headlines are irritating me again, this time its the elitist sensitivities of complainers.

Supermarkets have issued an ultimatum on 'Lad's Mag's' telling them to cover up or force being banned from the shelves. As far back as I can remember the top shelf of any magazine rack was dedicated to the perversion that is the human body, and supermarkets only stocked the more modest of these ranges. Yet it seems that the female human form is offensive to women and children.

This entire fiasco deals with women objecting to the female form being put on display. For myself the irony is inescapable and frankly inexcusable. In an age where supermodels are too thin and the obese dangerously unhealthy, women everywhere have campaigned for the female form to be revered in all shapes and sizes. Yet at the same time it is offensive and disgusting. Male 'hunks' can be oiled and posed on a beach for female viewing, but do that to a woman and the women are up in arms? It is little wonder women are considered confusing by men.

Lets take away from the fact that health magazines are still entitled to show scantily-clad, well formed bodies, guaranteed to produce massive feelings of inadequacy as you impulse buy 3 bars of chocolate. Some supermarkets won't stock Tattoo magazines as they are deeply offensive, despite the fact that a few million people have at least one of them. Yet the overly expensive women's monthly magazines can tout the latest hot actress posing seductively, because double standards obviously don't apply when a woman wants to buy something.

As it seems to be primarily the weekly/ fortnightly issues that are making a stand against this piffle (great word, highly underused!), I thought I'd show a small comparison.

Both Nuts and ZOO Magazine appear to be very visual and glorifying the female form. Having read both of these magazines I know there's a fair bit of 'totty' inside along with random articles, but the complaints were over the covers. With the key words jumping out from both covers, it's obvious what sells these magazines to the public. That's right the same thing that's been used to sell everything from chewing gum to cars. I can't really be up in arms about a bunch of guys desperate enough to believe these are the kind of women that might want them. Men find women attractive, this isn't really the shock of the century.

Now as a direct comparison with similar styles of magazine: Take a Break , That's Life and Chat. The women are all warmly clothed for the British weather, but there is a lot more text on the cover. This is the female empowering type of thing women want to read, and further more have no interest in banning. Paedophiles, tarts, abuse, murder and these are all on lower shelves of magazine racks. Plainly visible to prim feminists and innocent children, most of these are topics I would prefer to avoid discussing with curious children. I can't see how these horror stories are less offensive than human bodies and yet the act of nudity is 'disgusting'.

Considering men are being forced to buy in secret are they expected to hide the magazines as well, because fairs fair make women hide theirs as well. I think little 'Tyler' might be more traumatised reading what Uncle could do to him, or how 'Mummy could kill him: Rather than seeing some cleavage, which in many cases is less than he could see at a swimming pool, beach or on a music video. The hiding or even banning of these magazines makes them more illicit and will have adverse effects on how young men view women. Whereas the female equivalent will destroy woman's self respect and expectations and more importantly a child's innocent faith in humanity.

We have left behind the public strictures of the 18th century and yet the female for is still being forcibly pigeon holed into secrecy, by the strong will of a few ill thought out ideals. Further more the freedom of speech and even human rights is being disgraced by naive resentful picketers.

Perhaps I've never burnt enough bras in my life, because I simply do not see why two lumps of fat strapped to a woman's chest are worth so much complaining. Every woman (and a good few men!) have them therefore they aren't as rare and wondrous as we would like to believe. Further to that point I don't understand why female's chests are deemed worth censorship, if men are allowed to bare all at the first sign of sun or a camera why does it lessen a woman to do the same?


As a side note I really struggled to avoid the excessive use of capitals and extra large writing. I hope you appreciate the effort, and I really hope that you appreciate my viewpoint without me shouting about it.