[HRH Gold Joinee Sheli]

This.

How utterly terrifying... I just tried to identify the statements myself, and did okay... but I still got some wrong and thought quotes from lads mags were said by rapists.

I don't have kids yet, but when I do I won't be pleased if my sons read mags like this!

[Lethal Biddle]

Pretty dark. Although I guessed all the sources right, except for 13. People tend to use "you" & "I" more when they talk about things they've done rather than hypotheticals. Guessed moot correctly based on that.

Lad's mags are completely shit though, always have been. 50% adverts & I've never heard of anyone buying them for the writing anyway. We bought them when we were 13 because we couldn't buy porn & the internet was a bit more locked down back then. A bit worrying that some people think those are good things to publish though.

[Gaz]

Dunno if it's because I read all manner of stuff all day for a living, but I got them all right. There was definitely something intangibly more sinister about the rapist ones, whereas the lad mag ones (though still awful) had something about them that just came over as "I might write this, but you know and I know this is cobblers and doesn't actually happen".

Which makes it all the more stupid they write like that in the first place.

[PJ Hannah B-R]

Pretty much what Gaz said.

Mind you, the way women's magazines talk about men is almost as sickening!!

[Joinee Varwell]

I struggled to tell them apart really. Very sinister article. Makes you think.

[Mr Phil]

Got 12 of them right. Rather disturbing.

[Rachel Rose]

I only got seven answers right. Sometimes people talk for the sake of being heard and sometimes to impress their mates. I think if Thomas used some of those phrases to describe me/our love life, it would upset me. Mostly I think it's second-hand babble. The media as a whole has created a vortex of repugnance and unaccountabilty when it comes to sex crimes. There's a dark, filthy under belly in every major city and more often than not criminals walk free. Brutality is romanticized.


Still, I find myself laughing at sex jokes. Not if they're violent. Just when they seem playfully nasty. Other people might find me strange for doing so.


Most of the responses seemed off-the-cuff. And much of it is true. Some women like it rough. Some like role play. I can understand young men being confused by all the shit that is broadcast on radio and tv.

At least none of them said that sex was okay no matter how vehemently the woman protested.

This post has been edited by GJ Rachel Rose: 12 December 2011 - 05:41 PM

[Lady Alexandra of Herts]

That is very scarey really!!!! I believe rape is a lot more common than what people realize and I find whole subject very stressful and upsetting. I got 4 wrong in that list. I got 1, 3, 13, and 16 wrong. Xxxx

[joinee_doug]

It seems like the rapist quotes are more direct and angry, while the lad mag quotes are kind of speculative, like “Yeah, girls really like it when you…” or “There’s something about a woman that (does whatever)…”. Like Gaz says, it’s like both reader and writer know it’s bollocks, except the lad mag reader lives in hope that at least part of it is true, and it could be the one key thing that teaches him “How To Get Girls”. That doesn’t make it any less creepy – in fact, you then have to realize that a certain part of the readership takes it as gospel and expects women to all respond the same way to different factors. Anyway, not to lump all rapists together, but I’d be surprised if one used words like ‘frisson’ in an interview (unless he’s an English Lit professor or an aspiring, pretentious lad mag writer).

[Joinee Varwell]

GJ Rachel Rose, on 12 December 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

I can understand young men being confused by all the shit that is broadcast on radio and tv.

Yes, this is a very good point. When the pervasive culture among a certain generation is for a raw approach to sex and sexuality, and is propogated (excuse the choice of phrase) seemingly by women too, it's understandable. Though - and perhaps I'm straying off-topic slightly - how often do women adhere to this culture, how often is it done voluntarily (rather than sheeplike doing "what girls do"), and should it be (and is it) easy for anyone to tell the difference?

It's a scary minefield for anyone bringing up children today. I would be interested to read more perspectives from parents.

[Gaz]

Joinee Varwell, on 13 December 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

It's a scary minefield for anyone bringing up children today. I would be interested to read more perspectives from parents.

Without pre-empting anything, I fully intend to do may absolute best to make sure Juno knows she's never a second class citizen and she can be whatever she wants to be - and hopefully that'll make her not want to be some footballer's wife type anyway.

That said, the sheer amount of pink "princess" crap for little girls is shocking - it's an uphill battle from birth.

[Rachel Rose]

Gaz, on 13 December 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

That said, the sheer amount of pink "princess" crap for little girls is shocking - it's an uphill battle from birth.

That is too true. I was reading the paper a few weeks ago and came across an add for cheese. At first glance all I thought was "Yeah. Blah, blah, blah. " Until I noticed the braids. A GIRL! A girl in pilot gear.

I had to cut it out and hang it in my art room.

Girls can be ANYTHING they want to be. We aren't all created to be wives, mothers or housekeepers.




And we aren't all victims either. My daughter is going to start kick-boxing.

It's a different world. People should act like they know that.

[HJCotW Spacemonkey]

GJ Rachel Rose, on 13 December 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Girls can be ANYTHING they want to be. We aren't all created to be wives, mothers or housekeepers.

I hate to say this, and it may be a conversation for another thread, but yes, yes you were created to be mothers and housekeepers, at least in human society, the same way that men are created to be fathers and to bring home the mammoth. If we were lions, where the lioness does the vast majority of the hunter-gathering, it'd probably be the other way round, but we're not, we're humans, and that is just the role that our culture has for the sexes.

You can be ANYTHING ELSE you want as well - there's no problem there. But let's not pretend that the primary human purpose isn't to procreate - and the primary female purpose is to raise those children.

MoT
HJCotW

This post has been edited by HJCotW Spacemonkey: 13 December 2011 - 11:16 PM

[PJ Hannah B-R]

HJCotW Spacemonkey, on 13 December 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

I hate to say this, and it may be a conversation for another thread, but yes, yes you were created to be mothers and housekeepers, at least in human society, the same way that men are created to be fathers and to bring home the mammoth. If we were lions, where the lioness does the vast majority of the hunter-gathering, it'd probably be the other way round, but we're not, we're humans, and that is just the role that our culture has for the sexes.

You can be ANYTHING ELSE you want as well - there's no problem there. But let's not pretend that the primary human purpose isn't to procreate - and the primary female purpose is to raise those children.

MoT
HJCotW

Umm, no Sean. We may have once upon a time been created for that, but that's not what she said.

[Joinee Varwell]

HJCotW Spacemonkey, on 13 December 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

I hate to say this, and it may be a conversation for another thread, but yes, yes you were created to be mothers and housekeepers, at least in human society, the same way that men are created to be fathers and to bring home the mammoth. If we were lions, where the lioness does the vast majority of the hunter-gathering, it'd probably be the other way round, but we're not, we're humans, and that is just the role that our culture has for the sexes.

You can be ANYTHING ELSE you want as well - there's no problem there. But let's not pretend that the primary human purpose isn't to procreate - and the primary female purpose is to raise those children.

MoT
HJCotW

You seem to be confusing procreation with raising, Sean. The physical act of being pregnant and giving birth is something women tend to be more suited to. But the raising can be done by either. Or both. Or others as well (it takes a village to raise a child, after all).

[HJCotW Spacemonkey]

Okey-doke, let's go.

Hannah: Rachel Rose said 'We aren't all created to be wives, mothers or housekeepers.' That's what I addressed, so, yes, it is what she said. Historically, evolutionarily, culturally, women were created to be mothers, wives and housekeepers. We as a society may have started to break down those rules and roles, but what we are driven and created to be doesn't change because we say it does.

Evolutionarily, men are created and driven to spread their DNA as far and wide as possible. Thouands, millions of years of evolution have begun to break that down, to create a scenario where men are now created and driven to be the breadwinners for their family, as opposed to loving and leaving, but we still have those primal urges. I say that as part of a partnership in which I am not the primary breadwinner, and it causes me some issues on a deep level. Although I am fully aware that we are fine as we are, it irks me no end that I am not able to provide more for our 'nest,' and so pretty much every penny I get goes either towards the house, or towards Laura. I spend very, very little on myself, and I suspect this has a great deal to do with these deep seated instincts. Although, therefore, I am very aware that our traditional roles can, have and do change, I'm also acutely aware that it is unsettling at some level.

Si: I agree completely that women tend to be 'more suited' than men to being pregnant and giving birth I also agree that raising of children is, ideally, done in a societal setting - hence us trusting our children to teachers and religious leaders for certain areas of their care and upbringing. But let's not pretend that our society is not set up for women to be the primary care-giver. I have heard various stories of men being viewed with suspicion at single parent groups, or when picking up their children from school. It seems that people find it strange for a man to be a in charge of a child's upbringing. Equality mostly only goes one way - women can be mechanics, plumbers and all manner of traditionally male roles without it being remarked upon, but if men take culturally female roles - nurse, or nursery assistant, for example - it can be viewed with a certain level of disquiet.

Again, let it be noted that I say this as a man who is a secondary breadwinner, and one who will, if we ever have children, most likely be the primary care-giver. I know these traditional ideas can be broken down and changed, but I don't pretend that they are not there to begin with. It's worth fighting against them, if that's what you want, but not ignoring them.

MoT
HJCotW

[Joinee Simitebrong]

Anyone else know quite a number of females who would agree with a lot of those statements?

All the 'lads mag' stuff is simply idiotic guys who are too inarticulate to put forward the fact that sexually more women tend towards the submissive roles. And it's all overlaid with bravado and braggadocio. Anyone interviewed who gave a reasoned, balanced opinion on the matter I doubt would have been published.

Essentially, it's saying their opinion is that women actually like to feel they look attractive and also that they like a good seeing-to. Which would make women what? Precisely the same as men. We're all the same.

The rapist quotes are pretty much what you'd expect from a rapist: unnervingly angry and disturbed.

Also, I can completely see Sean's point - that women, evolutionarily speaking, are nurturing in nature. Lords knows I get mothered by my female friends in a way my male friends never do. It's all around us all the time. That's not at all a comment on the fact that, thank heavens we've evolved enough to realise that we can, in a society like ours, outgrow these concepts.

[Gaz]

Only point I'd add is that being "created" to do something and culture leading to something aren't the same thing. Matriarchal societies have existed where the women hold equal or in some cases greater status than men and have been involved in roles that we would assume would be automatically male. Sure, guys are lousy at giving birth, but everything else - housekeeping, being a wife in the sense of subservience/ownership, is cultural and in no way predetermined as a role.

A lot stems from a handful of selfish old men who wanted to keep their power base confined to themselves and people they chose. So they warped religious texts and in turn early society to suit them, and the result of that legacy today is I can go into Tesco and buy all manner of funky t-shirts for boys in a kaleidoscope of colours, but apparently all my little girl needs is pink ones with fairies and kittens on.

[Lethal Biddle]

Gaz, on 14 December 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

I can go into Tesco and buy all manner of funky t-shirts for boys in a kaleidoscope of colours, but apparently all my little girl needs is pink ones with fairies and kittens on.

As a slight aside, does the sex of clothes really matter at that age? For the first handful of years at least children are the same shape regardless of their sex, so aren't (fashion stereotypes aside) all toddlers t-shirts unisex?

[Joinee Varwell]

Gaz, on 14 December 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

Only point I'd add is that being "created" to do something and culture leading to something aren't the same thing. Matriarchal societies have existed where the women hold equal or in some cases greater status than men and have been involved in roles that we would assume would be automatically male. Sure, guys are lousy at giving birth, but everything else - housekeeping, being a wife in the sense of subservience/ownership, is cultural and in no way predetermined as a role.

A lot stems from a handful of selfish old men who wanted to keep their power base confined to themselves and people they chose. So they warped religious texts and in turn early society to suit them, and the result of that legacy today is I can go into Tesco and buy all manner of funky t-shirts for boys in a kaleidoscope of colours, but apparently all my little girl needs is pink ones with fairies and kittens on.

That first bit was what I was going to say to Sean. Sean, I think you're making a valid point but there's a subtle difference between women being created for something and them being conditioned for it. So yes they're created for childbirth (though to nitpick I think I mean they are created such that they can give birth, not that they have to or it should be seen as expected or normal), but not created for domesticity and family-raising: they're conditioned culturally and historically for that. So could men be, if society worked differently.

In an ideal world, nobody would be socially or culturally conditioned for anything (within the realms of science, of course!), and would be free to strive for whatever domestic, creative or vocational role they desire.

[Joinee Simitebrong]

I'm going to add to my points because I really find this an interesting topic.

Firstly, I utterly and completely agree with Gaz. It's always infuriated me, with four nieces, how all the stuff thrown at them is gender biased in a quite horrible way. Toy irons and kitchens! Make-up designed for 6 year olds (that's right, you might be only 6 but you could certainly do with being prettier) Sometimes I find it all so hideous. And boys with guns and soldiers and the other violent things they're taught to think of as exciting.

Back to the sexuality stuff though; I feel I should clarify what I was saying. A lot of this women 'like to feel like a slut/whore' stuff. From my own experience with my sexual partners, and from talking to my close female friends about sex I can only say I think this is absolutely spot on. I also think I know where it stems from. When I was a child I basically grew up with the general notions that a) boys want to have sex all the time and with every girl they possibly can and b) girls don't like sex. They only want to have it when they're married and it's just so they can have a little baby to look after. Any girl that actually wants to have sex for the physical pleasure of it is 'dirty' and there must be something wrong with them.

I believe it's why the 'slut/whore' roleplay is so prevelant and exciting. I think it also explains the common "rape fantasy" (which is really a seduction fantasy and not rape at all) I think it's about transferring the subconcious guilt associated with wanting and enjoying sex that a lot of women feel. 'It's not my fault i'm having sex and liking it because this man is "making" me do it'. I would also suggest that guilt and shame is one of the reasons women find it more difficult to climax (it's honestly far more mental than physical) Has anyone else how many girls have a habit of covering their eyes with their hand and/or self-soothing by touching the back of their necks when approaching climax?

Right, I've babbled on far too much now but hopefully I've explained myself properly. Not that any of its was particularly insightful!

[Chez]

Lethal Biddle, on 14 December 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

As a slight aside, does the sex of clothes really matter at that age? For the first handful of years at least children are the same shape regardless of their sex, so aren't (fashion stereotypes aside) all toddlers t-shirts unisex?

Pretty much, if I like a t-shirt with dinosaurs on then I'll buy it for E regardless of the specific gender it was made for. There are a lot of pink girls clothes out there but there is also a huge number of shops that have realised people don't just want pink or blue. I tend to buy most of her things from charity shops or NCTM sales anyway so my child is not fashionable at all. As they get older the range of clothes gets bigger, I found newborn stuff to be the worst.. Anyway completely off topic!

[joinee_doug]

Boy, leave it to the gals to take a nice little thread about rape and misogyny and turn it into a chat about shopping and clothes, eh?

[Gaz]

Joinee Simitebrong, on 14 December 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

Back to the sexuality stuff though; I feel I should clarify what I was saying. A lot of this women 'like to feel like a slut/whore' stuff. From my own experience with my sexual partners, and from talking to my close female friends about sex I can only say I think this is absolutely spot on. I also think I know where it stems from. When I was a child I basically grew up with the general notions that a) boys want to have sex all the time and with every girl they possibly can and b) girls don't like sex. They only want to have it when they're married and it's just so they can have a little baby to look after. Any girl that actually wants to have sex for the physical pleasure of it is 'dirty' and there must be something wrong with them.

I would say that the women in question are all perfectly normal, and it's just the same small c conservative elements of society that would like them (and everyone else) to think that women wanting/enjoying sex is wrong because it suits their own needs, and again comes down to control. What better way to suppress someone than to make them think they're abnormal when they're perfectly normal, and better still make it taboo to even risk talking about it?

Joinee Simitebrong, on 14 December 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

I would also suggest that guilt and shame is one of the reasons women find it more difficult to climax (it's honestly far more mental than physical) Has anyone else how many girls have a habit of covering their eyes with their hand and/or self-soothing by touching the back of their necks when approaching climax?

I have never heard of this at all, ever!

[PJ Hannah B-R]

GJ Rachel Rose, on 13 December 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Girls can be ANYTHING they want to be. We aren't all created to be wives, mothers or housekeepers.

HJCotW Spacemonkey, on 13 December 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

I hate to say this, and it may be a conversation for another thread, but yes, yes you were created to be mothers and housekeepers, at least in human society, the same way that men are created to be fathers and to bring home the mammoth.

PJ Hannah B-R, on 14 December 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

Umm, no Sean. We may have once upon a time been created for that, but that's not what she said.

HJCotW Spacemonkey, on 14 December 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

Okey-doke, let's go.

Hannah: Rachel Rose said 'We aren't all created to be wives, mothers or housekeepers.' That's what I addressed, so, yes, it is what she said.

Without wanting to get into a "yes she did" "no she didn't" argument she said "AREN'T" not "WEREN'T" thus talking about the everyday creation of woman kind by people getting pregnant.

And thus Rachel was completely right to say we aren't all created to be wives and mothers and housekeepers. That may have been our primary purpose in a society once upon a time, but it isn't NOW and that is what her sentence referred to.

Or at least I assume it did. I'm not Rachel. I'm Hannah. Yo.

[joinee_doug]

Joinee Simitebrong, on 14 December 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

Has anyone else how many girls have a habit of covering their eyes with their hand and/or self-soothing by touching the back of their necks when approaching climax?

If it's what I think you're describing, it may just be physical reaction centered around the head and neck with the hands and arms, which aren't really involved in anything else at the moment. Besides, she's gotta do something with her hands - lighting one up before the end of the festivities is looked upon as somewhat bad form.

[Lethal Biddle]

joinee_doug, on 14 December 2011 - 03:50 PM, said:

If it's what I think you're describing, it may just be physical reaction centered around the head and neck with the hands and arms, which aren't really involved in anything else at the moment. Besides, she's gotta do something with her hands - lighting one up before the end of the festivities is looked upon as somewhat bad form.

This.
Although I've never noticed it as a particular commonality anyway.

Women may be created to be mothers in the sense that the primary biological purpose of any organism is to reproduce. Equally then, men are created to be fathers. But the size & scope of our society makes these purposes less relevant. The human race won't die out because some people decided they don't want to be parents. In fact, the human race would be better off, from a resources standpoint, if a few more people decided not to be parents, particularly the stupid people. And that fact does influence society greatly, more & more so as time goes on. There have been a number of studies into "Group selection"; the fact that, while selfless people might seem to put themselves at a more immediate disadvantage in life (jumping in front of buses to save people, donating all their money to charity etc), they are more actively looked after & encouraged by the rest of the group as 'benefits' & that in the long run, in any large social group, those who demonstrate more group-centric urges are those that propagate most genetically. Though of course there are exceptions that prove the rule & our society is complicated enough to muddy the waters so much that such correlation might be hard to find. But supposedly it is there & the concept is a sound one.
So women (& ergo men) being created solely to breed is arguably an initial driving imperative left in our genetic makeup that is gradually being lessened or superseded as a result of a continual increase in the scale of our social networks. Whether or not it has already ceased to be our core purpose is one for debate, personal opinion really. Though it's definitely still a key part of our makeup, hence all the sexy urges.

This post has been edited by Lethal Biddle: 14 December 2011 - 04:32 PM

[Worm]

I have no kids and my wife is an engineer. I rock!

(how to miss the point of a discussion....)

[Silver Joinee Johnd]

And perhaps also

http://video.yandex....allajah/view/22

Just because it's in Russian

[Gold Joinee Cooke]

Gaz, on 14 December 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

Only point I'd add is that being "created" to do something and culture leading to something aren't the same thing. Matriarchal societies have existed where the women hold equal or in some cases greater status than men and have been involved in roles that we would assume would be automatically male. Sure, guys are lousy at giving birth, but everything else - housekeeping, being a wife in the sense of subservience/ownership, is cultural and in no way predetermined as a role.

A lot stems from a handful of selfish old men who wanted to keep their power base confined to themselves and people they chose. So they warped religious texts and in turn early society to suit them, and the result of that legacy today is I can go into Tesco and buy all manner of funky t-shirts for boys in a kaleidoscope of colours, but apparently all my little girl needs is pink ones with fairies and kittens on.

Just out of curiosity (cos I've heard others say this before as well) - what matriarchal societies are you talking about? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

GJC
CTID

[Gaz]

Well off of the top of my head, in around 1000-1400 the native Americans had a council of tribes where women sat and made decisions as to go to war and had power of veto over any rules made. Children joined their mother's clan, and in the Iroquois tribe the women were taught the vital knowledge of how to farm and plant rather than the men (who were more or less in the role of heavy lifting/security guards). And many western pacific island nations had and still do have female-based inheritance and tribal council controlled government, and some have agreement where on marriage the man has a lifelong agreement to work for the woman.

Further back, it's widely considered fact that neolithic era communities were more or less equal because the roles were seen as of equal importance.

[Platinum Joinee West]

I can't remember where I heard/read/saw/imagined it, but I do remember hearing that there's evidence that prehistoric man worshipped women as life givers, they thought pregnancy occurred spontaneously and women were basically creators.

Then they domesticated cats and dogs and were better able to see the correlation between sex and babies...

[Rachel Rose]

Wow. What Hannah said. She can speak for me cuz she's cool like that.


I am not created to clean. Now freaking way. I hate cleaning.


My hunter/gatherer does enjoy my cooking though.

[Joinee Simitebrong]

joinee_doug, on 14 December 2011 - 03:50 PM, said:

If it's what I think you're describing, it may just be physical reaction centered around the head and neck with the hands and arms, which aren't really involved in anything else at the moment.

Do you think it depends on how many people are in the room?

[joinee_doug]

Joinee Simitebrong, on 19 December 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Do you think it depends on how many people are in the room?

I think it depends on how much access she has to herself and how demonstrative she is. Given that she's not tired or drugged or, I don't know, in a dentist's chair, she'll probably do something with her arms, even if it's just from the incessant jostling.

[Silver Joinee Rachel]

Who do you think reads lads mags? Teenage boys who can’t get any action? Old men who want a good perv? Perhaps even rapists who think all woman are easy and up for it? Well, not all readers may fit the stereotype you’re thinking of. What do you think of me? Do I seem like a bad person?

...

I have a subscription to Nuts Magazine. I don’t think women are easy, sexually promiscuous or should shag whenever it’s demanded of them. Hell, I am a woman. Why do I subscribe to nuts? First and foremost, it was originally a present. But then, I maintained the subscription. Why? I like the pictures. I like receiving the magazine through my door on a Tuesday and smiling naughtily at its plain white packaging. I like the mentally unchallenging nature of the writing, because just sometimes I don’t want to have to think too hard.

I think that “lads mags readers think like rapists” is a very glib comment, and the research I’ve seen linked with this is entirely devoid of empirical zeal. If I tried my very darndest to find 7 or so comments from any genre of publication, over an unlimited time period of its publication history, that sounded like it held a certain view point (no matter how controversial the view point), I am certain I could find it.

I could tell the difference between every single one of those comments. In my line of work, I have chatted to a few rapists. And you would be surprised, some of them can hold their own in an intelligent conversation. Fundamentally however, rapists have chosen to dominate a woman in a sexual way against her will. I don’t think any lads mag is approving that. I will stop buying Nuts when I read the article that states “research proves that men were influenced into rape because of lads mags”.

[joinee_doug]

I used to pick up loaded occasionally back in the '90s, the first few years it was out. It was kind of a fresh style; easy-going, and it gave its readers some credit for not being total morons. They had some good recommendations for books and movies and music you might have missed, too, which was kind of cool. They'd feature a couple actresses in swimsuits, and some outing/adventure pieces, and profiles of honored chaps. I think they found out it was a lot more financially viable to do away with decent writers, and so sort of lowered themselves into the lad mag hot-tub and became increasingly indistinguishable from the rest of them.
I don't think however, that the lad mag encourages rape or anything - a rapist doesn't need a magazine to do that. If anything, I would call it a somewhat benign contributing factor to a hostile environment. It kind of sets the mood music for objectification, while providing titillation. They're like the pop songs that appear every now and then that are utterly mindless, devoid of any real musical thought or value, but so aggravatingly catchy that you hate yourself and cannot understand why you find them so fun. They don't add anything to the grand scheme of things, but there they are.

[Gaz]

If we're talking on the basis of what does most harm, I think Nuts is a load of crap but in the end no one believes it because it's sold as, and blatantly is, mindless nonsense. Gossip mags like Heat, however, I find really disturbing. On the surface they portray themselves as the same thing - mindless nonsense. But really they're an extension of the zero-privacy, ultracritical, tattle at any cost rubbish that's being exposed in the Leveson inquiry at the moment.

Someone writing a cobblers magazine article about how to pull and "what birds want" is ultimately not directly harming anyone even if it borders on tasteless at times. Following a person around constantly photographing them and by turns calling them too fat, too thin, badly dressed, tired, obviously drunk (burst mode digital photography catching people mid-blink has a lot to answer for), having an affair, having a breakdown, having a relationship on the rocks, hiding an illness etc. etc. just because that person chose to be an actor, or on tv, or in some way vaguely famous, is absurd.

[HRH Gold Joinee Sheli]

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 20 December 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

I think that “lads mags readers think like rapists” is a very glib comment,
I could tell the difference between every single one of those comments. In my line of work, I have chatted to a few rapists. And you would be surprised, some of them can hold their own in an intelligent conversation. Fundamentally however, rapists have chosen to dominate a woman in a sexual way against her will. I don’t think any lads mag is approving that. I will stop buying Nuts when I read the article that states “research proves that men were influenced into rape because of lads mags”.

See, I didn't get that viewpoint from the research at all. To me it is not suggesting that people who read lads mags think like rapists (I have read some before myself, and kind of enjoyed them without really thinking about what I was reading) but more saying that the attitudes portrayed in lads mags are helping to normalise these kinds of ideas.
And I'm sorry but 'cut [your] ex's face, so no-one will want here' (from this Guardian articleis frankly foul and disgusting, no? (I don't think that was a quote used in the study... but it is a quote from a lads mag.)

Gaz, on 21 December 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

If we're talking on the basis of what does most harm, I think Nuts is a load of crap but in the end no one believes it because it's sold as, and blatantly is, mindless nonsense. Gossip mags like Heat, however, I find really disturbing. On the surface they portray themselves as the same thing - mindless nonsense. But really they're an extension of the zero-privacy, ultracritical, tattle at any cost rubbish that's being exposed in the Leveson inquiry at the moment.

Someone writing a cobblers magazine article about how to pull and "what birds want" is ultimately not directly harming anyone even if it borders on tasteless at times. Following a person around constantly photographing them and by turns calling them too fat, too thin, badly dressed, tired, obviously drunk (burst mode digital photography catching people mid-blink has a lot to answer for), having an affair, having a breakdown, having a relationship on the rocks, hiding an illness etc. etc. just because that person chose to be an actor, or on tv, or in some way vaguely famous, is absurd.

I disagree. Not everyone who reads these magazines has the intelligence about them to see the mag for what it is - as you rightly said, a load of cobblers. Evidence has shown that domestic violence is increasing in teenage relationships, (have you seen those creepy adverts about it???) amd in my opinion, the attitudes towards women in this kind of magazine is probably a contributing factor. I say this because teenagers are impressionable and if they don't have good role models in their lives then they will only be influenced by this sort of attitude. Obviously I'm not saying that it is the sole cause, but it doesn't bloody help!

Also, I agree with you re 'heat' etc. Some 'sleb' mags are #!$&ing awful!!

[Silver Joinee Rachel]

HRH Gold Joinee Sheli, on 24 December 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

See, I didn't get that viewpoint from the research at all. To me it is not suggesting that people who read lads mags think like rapists (I have read some before myself, and kind of enjoyed them without really thinking about what I was reading) but more saying that the attitudes portrayed in lads mags are helping to normalise these kinds of ideas.
And I'm sorry but 'cut [your] ex's face, so no-one will want here' (from this Guardian articleis frankly foul and disgusting, no? (I don't think that was a quote used in the study... but it is a quote from a lads mag.)


I disagree. Not everyone who reads these magazines has the intelligence about them to see the mag for what it is - as you rightly said, a load of cobblers. Evidence has shown that domestic violence is increasing in teenage relationships, (have you seen those creepy adverts about it???) amd in my opinion, the attitudes towards women in this kind of magazine is probably a contributing factor. I say this because teenagers are impressionable and if they don't have good role models in their lives then they will only be influenced by this sort of attitude. Obviously I'm not saying that it is the sole cause, but it doesn't bloody help!

Also, I agree with you re 'heat' etc. Some 'sleb' mags are #!$&ing awful!!

Yes, that’s a hideous comment you have highlighted. One which was in fact, retracted. I can’t think of a single national publication that hasn’t had cause to write a retraction before.

Like I said before, the 7 or so comments from the original article could have been from any number of publications, published over any number of years, in an unknown context.

I don’t think somebody can say a magazine is bad based on the intelligence level of who reads it. I have met and chatted to a very highly educated, well read rapist. It may be your opinion that lads mags normalise the attitude of rapists, but I don’t see that at all, and I can’t see any evidence to back that up. The fundamental thing that a rapist thinks (or has thought) is that it is ok to sexually dominate a woman without her consent.

None of the comments say rape is ok.

[Platinum Joinee West]

Speaking of things the other way round that are seen as ok, is anyone else slightly sickened by the Christmas boots ad where they're in the car with binoculars and at the end they spy on a naked man? Makes me cringe so much. Imagine if it was two men spying with binoculars on a naked woman? How is either scenario an acceptable humorous situation to put in an advert?! It's sick and disgusting and they should be arrested, not giggled at...

[joinee_doug]

Platinum Joinee West, on 24 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Speaking of things the other way round that are seen as ok, is anyone else slightly sickened by the Christmas boots ad where they're in the car with binoculars and at the end they spy on a naked man? Makes me cringe so much. Imagine if it was two men spying with binoculars on a naked woman? How is either scenario an acceptable humorous situation to put in an advert?! It's sick and disgusting and they should be arrested, not giggled at...

"It's a fine line between clever and stupid..."

Yeah, I can imagine the advert meeting that went on - "Oh, it'll be fine...'cause it's a MAN, see? It's got that little "twist"...so, since it's not a bird, it's alright, right?"

Bobbi Flekman: You put a greased naked woman on all fours with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man's arm extended out up to here, holding onto the leash, and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive? You don't find that sexist?
Ian Faith: This is *1982*, Bobbi, c'mon!
Bobbi Flekman: That's right, it's 1982! Get out of the '60s. We don't have this mentality anymore.
Ian Faith: Well, you should have seen the cover they wanted to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me.

[Silver Joinee Rachel]

Platinum Joinee West, on 24 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Speaking of things the other way round that are seen as ok, is anyone else slightly sickened by the Christmas boots ad where they're in the car with binoculars and at the end they spy on a naked man? Makes me cringe so much. Imagine if it was two men spying with binoculars on a naked woman? How is either scenario an acceptable humorous situation to put in an advert?! It's sick and disgusting and they should be arrested, not giggled at...

I totally agree!! The other one that makes me cringe is the Ariel advert. The way that young girls are essentially perving on that lad, and the ice creams drip.. *shivers*

[joinee_doug]

And the use of centigrade rather than proper Fahrenheit.
I tried and tried to get my washer to run at 30^o; I ended up just dumping a bucketful of ice in with the wash. So of course, everything came out wet when it melted.

[HJCotW Spacemonkey]

HRH Gold Joinee Sheli, on 24 December 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

And I'm sorry but 'cut [your] ex's face, so no-one will want here' (from this Guardian articleis frankly foul and disgusting, no? (I don't think that was a quote used in the study... but it is a quote from a lads mag.)

Sorry Sheli, but it was Danny Dyer that said that, and therefore it doesn't count, as everyone knows he's just a caricature of himself at this point.

MoT
HJCotW

[HRH Gold Joinee Sheli]

Oh, well that's okay then! He can say whatever he likes no matter how foul and offensive because he's just a characature... And the fact it was retracted is by the by, the fact it was printed at all is ridiculous imo.

[DG Joinee NEMESIS]

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 20 December 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

I could tell the difference between every single one of those comments.

Same here - but then this thread got awesome

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 20 December 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

In my line of work, I have chatted to a few rapists

lololol (this made me chuckle greatly)

Gaz, on 21 December 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Someone writing a cobblers magazine article about how to pull and "what birds want" is ultimately not directly harming anyone even if it borders on tasteless at times.

True - a sound education and some family values instilled by parents who should know better, should allow at all times the cobblers to remain in context. i don't, for example, play Grand Theft Auto and then go out and murder 8 orange monks do i? Nor do i read a lads mag and assume that it's remotely accurate about how women think/act - therefore i don't go out into society and treat women in the way i've just read that they "like it"

Platinum Joinee West, on 24 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

It's sick and disgusting and they should be arrested, not giggled at...

Just like that Argos advert where the blue ailen mother covets "Bieber" - that was just flipping wrong!

[Platinum Joinee West]

DG Joinee NEMESIS, on 14 February 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Just like that Argos advert where the blue ailen mother covets "Bieber" - that was just flipping wrong!

YES! Makes me yell at the telly EVERY time! Sick inter-species paedophile is what she is!

[DG Joinee NEMESIS]

Platinum Joinee West, on 14 February 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

YES! Makes me yell at the telly EVERY time! Sick inter-species paedophile is what she is!

I hear you!!!!