I suggest a campaign about ...

Get pornographic magazines age restricted and out of sight from children

Lads mags or not age restricted and are often in full veiw of children in newsagents and supermarkets. There are no effective laws on this. www.thefrontpagecampaign.org.uk are working to get this changed. Please support this campaign and sign the petition. Thank you

360 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Meghan FleetMeghan Fleet shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    30 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • margightmargight commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        If "anonymous" 23 feb had read the title of the campaign properly they could have answered most of their own questions. eg olympic gymnasts dont normally pose on the front of porn mags in pornographic outfits. No one is commenting on the jobs of the models who are over 18 or the "people willing to die in the service of their country". The campaign is "Get pornographic images age restricted and out of sight of children" I think we can safely say that anyopne over 18 is no longer a child.In our "supposedly free country" why cant I take my children to the supermarket without them being exposed to pornographic images? Nigel - below -perhaps if more people had listened to Mary whitehouse x years ago we would now live in a "free country" - where porn wasnt forced on us and our country wouldnt be awash with teenage girls trying to make a living from shoving their plastic tits in everyones faces. As for going to a different shop - Malcolm - that cuts out my local 3 supermarkets and I thought this was a free country. As for anonymous 23 feb - to quote ?? - "people who judge whether or not things are pornographic must have been either corrupted or depraved"?? what a load of bull - if you want to come up with an argument against this issue - please try and make it at least vaguely logical!! FYI pornographic images are defined as "images for the purpose of sexual gratification" Keep up the campaign everyone and we may yet get a free country where children aren't routinely exposed to pornography!!

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Are we discussing the what should or should not be on view in newsagents and supermarkets? A worthwhile topic I might add.

        Or are we discussing pornography, a word I object to.

        Pornographic or obscene as I understand them means that it corrupts or depraves the viewer. Interesting because by definition then the people who judge whether or not things are pornographic must have been either corrupted or depraved and as such are not fit people to making decisions about breaches of the law.

        Also before someone else mentions it what exactly is a sexually suggestive pose? What is an indecent image? Taken out of context many images are open to a variety of interpretations, some of which could be perceived as a sexual image whilst being inthe eyes of some as perfectly innocent.

        As it is so hard to define perhaps we should adopt a more stringebt attitude to imagary and just say that publications for general display may not on their front covers have pictures of people on them at all. That way the 'Care and Breeding of Cockroaches' and 'Feast Your Eyes on this You Pervert' would be both inoffensive and indistinguishable to the non-reader.

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Rland wrote:

        *A wanks a wank, but if you men expect this society to provide paid for sluts on lavish toilet-papered 2d surfaces in respect for stimulating your pathetic fantasy land, you had better wake the fuck up. Rant over."

        Now there is a marketing idea. Porn on toliet rolls or tissue paper. Presumably once used the image would be screwed and discarded and therfore not on view. This would also reduce the viability of Lad's Mags as I imagine many of the people that buy them don't or can't read the 'articles' therein anyway.

        If sold in opaque packaging this would also alleviate the concerns of prents of young children and the easily offended.

        Phil

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Forty years ago there were a few publications readily available from newsagents. These were usually kept under the counter and when sold were often put in a paper bag. These magazines had pictures of women in various states of undress but did not show their genitals.

        It is now possible to get equally revealing pictures on the front page of daily newspapers.

        I am not passing judgement on this topic but simply ask where exactly for the purpose of your plea for legislation are you going to draw the line?

        Let's for one minute take an example. A female Olympic gymnasts leotard. How much or little of what would be normally hidden from view of the female body do wish to, for want of a better term, restrict from the view of children. Would your restriction for example include a naked breast? how muchof that breast? the nipple? would that include the areolae? Let's go one stage further; genitalia. What is your definition of genitalia, does it include the whole of the area normally (what is normal?) covered by pubic hair, what about the anus do yo include that?

        Provided the models are over 18 I believe if the purchaser is old enough to acceptably die in the service their country, again 18, then any image should be available to anyone, this is a supposedly free country.

        From my own point of view I think that there should be limits as to what is visible to someone that is not purchasing such a publication. I feel you have to ask yourself how do you define those limits or indeed which publications.

        Unless you define more precisely your objective I can not see how you can hope to gain support.

      • NigelNigel commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        With so many worthwhile and life changes causes to worry about - this is not one of them

        FFS Mary Whitehouse is alive and being a PITFA again

      • DeeDubyaElDeeDubyaEl commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        To "L": Banning "lad mags" is not equality - the equivalent is not banned, there just isn't much of a market for them.

        I'd rather these mags weren't there but would rather see them wrapped up and put on the top shelf than banned. Censorship rarely ends well and they'd disappear soon enough if people stopped buying them.

      • DeeDubyaElDeeDubyaEl commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Of course people will always be able to obtain this stuff but what is important is not to normalise it. If people are so used to seeing it every time they walk in to very normal shops, on a subconscious level the messages of the magazine are just accepted. There is a world of difference between teenagers developing and exploring (in an age appropriate way) their sexuality and having these issues forced upon them as 5 year olds looking for comic books.

      • LL commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        women are not sex objects and i for one am fed up of being treated this way, lad magazines are not needed they disrespect women are only there for men to wank over !!!

      • Malcolm WilsonMalcolm Wilson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think censorship is bad. If you do not like what you see in a shop complain to the management and don't buy anything there.

      • Meghan FleetMeghan Fleet commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hi everyone, please can you all share this page on your facebook profiles and encourage your friends to vote for us and sign our petition on the website, it would be much appreciated.
        Thank you :-)

      • Cheryl Collins-KingCheryl Collins-King commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        the lads mags are just soft porn and whilst I dont care if the women in those mags have no self respect and want to prostitute themselves for fame or money I do care what my children see. Not ban but certainly move them up... the same with so called photographic and camera mags,,, women with boobs on just to sell the mags,,, nothing to do with the content inside. Alas as a women photographer, they dont get my money... one day the very sexist industry will wake up... or not.. their loss really

      • margightmargight commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        It is truly disgusting when I take my 2 young sons to the supermarket or newsagent and they and I are forced to see pornographic images of women on the front of these magazines. Chris - your comment below. These are not just images of ladies breasts - they are images of women with so much silicone stuffed into their breasts - they look like cartoon characters - usually in sexually degrading outfits and poses. "Front" magazine a few months ago had 2 girls in thongs with their cartoon sized breasts pushed into each others,pulling each others thongs off whilst biting each others faces. These are not normal images and I dont want my sons to think they are.My sons see my undressed body probably every day, when I doing everyday normal things like changing and showering but they dont see me in mail fantasy inspired lesbian poses. Also children don't have to be unescorted to see these images -Chris your other comment below- they are displayed at the height of my 9 year old. Bruce D- your comment below - No we dont want to wrap our children in cotton wool - why should we - they and I have human rights and that right is not to see pornography if we dont want to. A huge well done to all those people who are bringing attention to the fact that we are slowly and surely getting surrounded by pornography in our everyday lives and it needs to stop. Get these magazines age restricted and on the top shelf.

      • Marcia Simpson-JamesMarcia Simpson-James commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        What is former porn-watching Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith dealing with? Is she promoting young children being exposed to pornography? This woman is one of the most disgusting, dangerous and idiotic people I have never had the displeasure to meet. If she wants to share her pornography hobby, let her look for willing victims, and not innocent children and members of the public.

      • Meghan FleetMeghan Fleet commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I started working on this issue because I walked into a shop which had a floor to ceiling display of hardcore pornography. I have two children aged 1 and 2 who are still in a pram, they would be able to view these images, I have a nephew aged 7, if I had gone into that shop with him, he would have been confused about the front covers and I would have had to explain it to him. The video of this shop is posted on the blogs section of our website so you can see what I am talking about. We are not trying to stop porn, we just think that children should be protected from adult things. Which is exactly why we have age restrictions on DVDs and video games. It is up to the parent to decide when their child is old enough to see these images, every child is different, and most children under the age of 16 are totally unable to process these images in the way an adult would. May I also add, that these images are not just pictures of boobs. The shop I walked into had a front cover showing two women performing oral sex on a man, another front cover had a granny with her legs open. These images are not only disturbing to young children, but the majority of them are so airbrushed that we will end up with generations of children with an unhealthy view on what women and men should look like and also what they can expect from sex. Children are not sexual from the moment they are born therefore sexual images shouldn't be forced in their faces just because people want convenience porn.If children choose to access porn etc then I'm sure they will find some way around it, but the children who don't should have that choice.

      • Bruce DenneyBruce Denney commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Even if age restricted magazines in shops had to have their covers hidden, our kids will still see pornography, I remember seeing it in the playground at primary school, stolen by some kid from his dad I expect.

        We can not wrap our kids up in cotton wool and protect them from this. The reality is that it is out there. The thing that we have to do is the same as with all the other bad things that threaten our kids, we have to prepare our kids to encounter them. We teach our kids to be aware of cars on roads. We should teach them to be aware of pornography on the internet, (and a lot of other non pornographic and much more disturbing stuff) to be aware that pornography is a distortion of sex, that what is depicted is not everyone cup of tea. As long as our kids are not frightened by it, do not feel deranged by it and understand it. They can cope with it.

        Much higher up the list than porn on my list are things like; if someone asks you to do something you don't want to do; if someone threatens you; if someone does something.. then come and talk about it to me, I am always here for you.

      • ChrisChris commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'm sorry - could someone please explain how a person old enough to come un-escorted into a shop - I would say around 13-14, would need to be protected from images of ladies boobs? I'm not remotely intersted in ladies boobs, but I can see why a lot of teenage boys are, and don't really understand how seeing them is damaging our society....

      ← Previous 1

      Feedback and Knowledge Base