The Co-op has ordered the publishers of lads’ mags to cover up or not be sold on its shelves. Okay, on the one hand, their gaff their rules apply. However, why are they issuing this edict? it’s the usual one, of course.
The 4,000-outlet retailer said it was responding to concerns by its members, customers and colleagues about images of scantily-clad women on covers.
This is reminiscent of the Victorian prudery that eschewed any display of flesh. It is somehow dirty and unseemly, it is “exploitation” despite the women involved being paid volunteers (no one is forcing them, after all). We have relapsed into a previous prudish era, where some folk think that they know best what the lumpen proletariat should be allowed to see. And of course, it is all for the children who must not see any display of flesh – even the little bits seen on the covers of lads’ mags.
Steve Murrells, retail chief executive for the Co-operative Group, said: “As a community-based retailer, we have listened to the concerns of our customers and members, many of whom say they object to their children being able to see overt sexual images in our stores.
When this was on the BBC news this morning, I had to think long and hard about just when, exactly, I last saw an example of a cover of a lads’ mag. Then it came to me. The last time I can recall seeing a cover of a lads’ mag was, er, on the BBC this morning – repeatedly as the news item was rolled out time and again, just so as I knew what it was I was missing… I am disinterested in them, so don’t bother to seek them out, so, er don’t see them. There’s a moral here, of course. Those who are offended, are seeking out the offence and using the excuse of children to do so. And I am heartily sick of the child-centric, weak-minded attitude that the world must change its ways because some parents are too feeble to do their own parenting.
When I was growing up images of semi-nude women were readily seen on the top shelves of newsagents shops and stands. As a child I did not become “sexualised” indeed, I was entirely unaffected by it. Probably because my parents took an adult approach to parenting and were open should I ask any questions about such matters. I and my siblings managed to grow up with this imagery on display yet remained perfectly well balanced. There is no evidence whatsoever that children are adversely affected by the sight of scantily clad women on the front covers of magazines.
This is, of course another attempt by the militant feminists to impose their ideals on the rest of us. Look, it is really, really straightforward. If you don’t like lads’ mags or any other publication that you believe “exploits” women, then don’t buy them. And let other adults who have a different opinion do as they please. And if it really, really offends your delicate sensibilities to see such images on the shelves of a newsagents or supermarkets, avert your eyes – and grow up, for crying out loud.
If I had the cash, and the logisitics, I would publish “Burqua Babes”, A men’s magazine full of seductive, sexy, ladies clad head to foot in burquas, with only their eyes showing – not too sexy eyes, as we don’t want to inflame the passions of men so they go out of control. Not only would this meet with the agreement of those fun-hating females, but it would be an equal opportunity employer. No one would know, if “Yasmin from Youll” or “Sadie from Staines” was a curvy 38-20-36 or a more voluptuous 47-42-49, or was 18 or 57. Or, in fact whether “Beverley from Bolton” was even a female! Then, when the magazine goes out of business due to lack of sales, I can sue a shed-load of femininists groups!
Will the Co-op also tell the Sun to remove page 3?