A new Victorianism creeping in?

[LONDONER]

In the UK the so called "lad's mags" that are always on the top shelves because their front cover always picture scantily clad females, are being asked to "cover up" or, in other words, to make their front pages less explicit because some parents don't want their children to see them. Some sellers are threatening to refuse to sell the magazines unless they do so and some are covering everything but the name so that the images can't be seen.

Do you think that this is the beginning of a new age of censorship? Will it spread further to other media? Do you approve of this measure?

I personally don't believe in censorship per se but on the other hand I do believe in a measure of self restraint. Were I a parent of young children, I would not want them to see porn.

[Genersis]

I don't think a new age of censorship is upon us.
I think it more down to a conservative government being in power that has lead to this subject of lad's mags coming up.
Porn being detrimental to children and women seeming to be a big talking point right now for the right.

Can't wait till that new net filter blocks this site though. *sigh*:frown:

I personally do think some of these measures go a little too far, like completely covering the the front of these mags for example.
Most stores that I've been in that stock them tend to do a good job of placing them on high shelves out of the visual range of children.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Another Victorian era? I barely survived the last one!

Honestly, I don't think that this is asking too much. In the states Penthouse, Playboy and other such magazines where on the regular magazine shelves when I was in my teens. then they moved to the back of the counter in my twenties. Somewhere in my thirties they started sheathing the magazines in black and clear plastic. The clear bits at the top and the bottom of the magazine (top for the title, bottom for pricing and computer bar).

This really isn't 'censorship' this is more being respectful to those who do not want to be forced to view scantily clad bodies. I think it is very reasonable.

[Pix]

Not sure what I think of it. I know I don't approve of a lot of messages sent to kids, and it's not about "protecting them from nudity/sex" but on the roles it encourages in boys and girls both while growing up...however, I feel exactly the same way about many issues of Cosmo I've seen at the store (granted, it's more the titles that keep popping up, though looking through them is about as bad "message wise" as a lot of soft porn), and for that matter I think many of the cartoons I grew up with subtly promoted those messages, too (a lot of kids shows today, even on Nick, seem a lot better to me).

And I wouldn't even mind if it was "just another aspect of life" but they shape--possibly even warp--kids into roles that aren't respectful of one's self and others at the expense of other character traits. They sure did the kids I grew up with, boys and girls looking through those magazines to see "what was normal" and acting on them, though even many kids shows and commercials nudge kids that way, too. And again, IT'S NOT THE SEX or nudity, it's the roles they tend to inflame (while discouraging other roles) on kids trying to figure out how to be adults by not only observing adults but by getting hold of (even in defiance of rules and laws) adult media (I mean to include some women's magazines like Cosmo, too, and btw I believe it was Cosmo that got my mom to start smoking Virginia Slims as an underage teen as she wanted to be "sophisticated" as the women in Cosmo).

Granted, it doesn't always work...like one 14-year-old boy gave his then girlfriend a porno book "to show what guys want" that we (all about 14) found hilarious (and laughing AT, not with, as we took turns reading passages to each other), though when it got to a hardcore anal scene that was very explicit and literally fecal in nature we were literally stunned, she put the book down and we had an emergency meeting on "setting limits with boys." (Unfortunately, that boy expected it because he read of it happening, one reason I'd like a Reality 101 class early on in school as too many believe porn and romances among other things, even utterly absurd things, just because fiction portrays it that way).

So overall I appreciate the move. And I don't consider it censorship until it can no longer be acquired at all, anymore than I consider making movies rated R (17+ without an adult, though kids typically ignore these with impunity) and NC17 (kids not allowed, and you're not getting in without some proof of age) being similarly restrictive about kids seeing them. I would be against actual prohibition, however.

[MisterTinkles]

I remember, not so very long ago, when magazines such as those were sold BEHIND the cashiers stand.
You had to ask for them. Then after some flack....I guess because guys didnt want to have to VERBALLY ask for this kind of magazine, the publishers started putting them in black plastic bags, just with the name of the mag showing.

Now its just "all up in your face", on the front rack and top shelf.

There is such thing as decency. Well, there USED to be.

[Geminize]

I'm fine with the covers being exposed (in more ways than one) if the magazines are on sale at an adult bookstore. As a parent, I would not want to see them on the shelf at a convenience store or gas station. I think it's fine for society to set certain standards of what is acceptable where, especially with children in mind. People who scream 'censorship' need to understand that the world is not as simple as black/white, yes/no.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

There is such thing as decency. Well, there USED to be.

What a strange word, is it French or some other exotic word? - Don't think I can find it in an American English Dictionary...:tongue:

[MisterTinkles]

What a strange word, is it French or some other exotic word? - Don't think I can find it in an American English Dictionary...:tongue:

Its in the American English Dictionary....
but its not in the Amerikkkin Angleesh Dickshunerry.

[LONDONER]

Thanks guys for all your replies that I have found very inteesting and not honestly what I expected. In some way I had expected some abuse for even suggesting anything related to censorship but I see that there are a lot more moderate and wise people on this board than I had expected. So, as much as I dislike admitting it, I am in agreement with David Cameron.

[Spellbound]

Reminds me of that Woody Allen scene where he's trying to buy a dirty magazine and he puts it between Time and Newsweek and hands it to the vendor, who holds it up and shouts to his mate, hey, how much for Screw Magazine, while poor Woody dies a thousand deaths. I can't remember which film it was from.