these feminists

[Poverty]

So not that I buy them, well I used to as a teen, but the likes of nuts and zoo forced to cover up. Really?

Lots of womens mags out there with celebs in swimwear, underwear etc

I just cant stand the PC police tree hugger type people.

If anything they should get rid of page 3 in the sun. A pair of titties smack bang on he third page doesnt really fit in with the rest of the paper.

These campaigning women have issues IMO.

[benj1989]

I agree jusT another reason for people to moan. Fact if men see boobs once a day our life span is longer it gets the chemicals in brain. If you don't like sexy stuff then don't buy it. I don't like some religions but I don't try to ban it. I don't like mushrooms but I don't try to ban it I just stay f*cking clear of them.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

[stealthwolf]

It's not that these girls should cover up but the front covers should be more discreet. Do a search for the magazine covers - some of them rival porn mags. Even you have to agree that there's a big difference between this: NSFW and this:NSFW

Page 3 isn't on the front cover. No one is saying you can't have lads mags. The issue is that little kids are being exposed to these things unnecessarily.

[Poverty]

So what about mens health magazine! Shouldnt they then also be covered up?

Or how about CD album covers, some risque ones out there with exposed nipples etc

I dont get the issue, as lads mags are usually stacked towards the back, meaning you can only see the headline title anyway!

[rich83]

I cant get my knickers in a twist over this to be honest.... If they are forced to have opaque covers, does it matter?

[stealthwolf]

I dont get the issue, as lads mags are usually stacked towards the back, meaning you can only see the headline title anyway!

Actually a lot of the time, they're not. Not all shops have a "top shelf" row or even stock porn mags. Here's a cover of Penthouse magazine that would have a cover/sleeve on it: NSFW. See the difference? That mag is required to have a cover sleeve so people can't see it except the title.

Feck knows why but it basically boils down to breasts being sexualised and hence musn't be seen. This is why there's a huge public outcry about breastfeeding. A man being topless has been pretty much always been acceptable; a woman being topless has not.

[stealthwolf]

I cant get my knickers in a twist over this to be honest.... If they are forced to have opaque covers, does it matter?

Nope.

[rich83]

 

[Poverty]

Personally I dont care either about covers, its more the principle in that its a step backwards IMO, hell lets throw burkhas over all our women whilst we are it and live in caves like the taliban.

I dont see why the will of a few should override the will of many. Nudity has never hurt anyone and I think the excuse of young children being exposed and affected by it is a load of rubbish.

Its more a case of some looney women with too much time on their hands, better things to be campaigning against. Especially considering these lads mags are dying a slow death anyway

[Scottymon]

Just more nannying by the 'think of the children police' I couldn't give a monkeys about the lads mags, but it's getting worse, I think we're just becoming numb to it all now... Next they will be filtering the same content on the Internet... Oh wait...