Wednesday, June 28, 2006
'Lad mag' Bill is a tall order
I don't particularly wish to come down on one side or the other, I am sure you all have your opinion, or more than likely are not at all fussed. The point that such publications are demeaning to women is arguable. Yes, it does not show women in the greatest light, although ironically it does show women in their best (airbrushed) light but similarly the models are prepared to get their kit off, be pictured with various readers etc at the drop of a hat. I do not think it is the same as the plight suffered by prostitutes.
Measures to remove these mags to the top shelf offers two dilemmas: firstly, what about adult dwarves? And secondly; poor newsagents are so laden with porn (proper porn) that it already flows beyond the top shelf. Newsagents must be sweating trying to extend their top shelf.
Curtis-Thomas continues that what she objects to is that "...this literature is open to children and it’s being bought by minors." Well, to be frank, after what Thatcher did to the miners a few watered down bongo mags is scant recompense and the least they deserve.
But as we all know, we live in a world dictated by the market and not by social morality. I do not envisage Zoo, FHM, Maxim, Nuts, Loaded and all the others taking a potential massive loss of profit kindly and I expect charges ranging from puritanism to even witchcraft (possibly) being unfairly levelled at the proponents of the Bill.
Links to this post: