Men's magazines: it's a zoo out there

Janice Turner - The Times

 

No wonder mothers are incensed at the mysogynist material in the newsagent. It’s worse than ever before

 

WHAT IS pornography? My dictionary says “literature treating obscene subjects†but since definitions of obscenity are in perpetual flux, it is probably more helpful to bring you bang up to date with one given this week by Phil Hilton, editor of Nuts: “Pornography is about pictures of vaginas, penises, anuses, oral and group sex.â€

 

So now we know. Unless a magazine is bursting with orifices and persons/animals/vegetables penetrating them in a variety of formations, a magazine is not pornographic. It therefore does not belong on the top shelf to be bought discreetly by adults and enjoyed as bedroom aid or solitary pleasure. It should be classified as entertainment, can sit on newsagents counters amid peanut KitKats and lottery tickets, to be bought by any 13-year-old with a few quid pocket money.

 

It was brave of Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas to bring in her (inevitably doomed) ten-minute rule Bill demanding lads mags such as Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Maxim be stacked on the top shelf. Any woman who wades into the porn v censorship debate invites public ridicule as an outmoded, hairy-legged feminist or buttoned-up Mary Whitehouse manque.

 

Or, bizarrely, in Ms Curtis-Thomas’s case, being dubbed (by women commentators in The Guardian) an attention-seeking, ambitious Blairite lickspittle. Which seems a weird criticism since there are no Brownie points to be won here. Indeed, asked about her Bill at a public meeting I attended, the PM was wary of taking any view at all: “I’m a liberal kind of guy . . .†he muttered vaguely.

 

I would bet that the majority of British people are disturbed by how the values and aesthetics of the porn industry have, over the past decade, leeched silently and unchallenged into everyday life, on to TV, the internet, our newsstands.

 

Porn is no longer the domain of male sexual fantasy, but is becoming a female sexual reality. It is the reason the idealised female shape is now a skeleton with grafted-on plastic breasts. Big Brother, a mainstream terrestrial show, this year features mostly women contestants with weird, straining G-cups, those most likely to find favour with the men’s mags upon their eviction.

 

Fashion dictates that young women dress in styles that began in the American porn industry: waxed-off pubic hair, injected trout-pout lips, a sexualised, up-for-it-24/7 style that begins so early, as David Cameron has remarked, that lingerie is now on sale for ten-year-old girls.

 

And yet Ms Curtis-Thomas’s Bill has been regarded with shrugging indifference. Why pick on men’s magazines when the influence of porn is everywhere? Well, why not start there? The birth of the men’s weeklies in 2004 caused a sexual arms race: the new explicit covers of Nuts and Zoo compelled even classier monthlies like Esquire to up their girlie content and the cruder ones like Loaded to resort to giving away porno DVDs.

 

The editorial tone in men’s magazines is now harder and more hateful towards women than ever before. They have ceased to be cheeky or rapturous about the female form. They propagate a state of mind in which the man is the picky, ever-dissatisfied consumer and woman the product or purveyor of a service. Maxim suggests readers compare their girlfriend’s assets against Sexy Gemma’s and “bin her†if she doesn’t measure up. Or if British women won’t perform, try a cheap imported model in Maxim’s human traffic slot: “Fresh off the boat: hot foreign girls looking for love as a way to avoid deportation.â€

 

Or maybe you could upgrade your girl, like your old mobile phone, by winning her a boob-job in a Zoo competition. Or persuade her to agree to anal sex — a Nuts obsession — even though it won’t give her pleasure (according to Esquire, no less, women rate it 2/10) because girls do it in all the porn movies, so she should bend over and give you your rights.

 

At any rate, there are hundreds of “real girls†willing to flash their norks for the Nuts Street Challenge or the Assess My Breasts website if that is what it takes these days to win male approval.

 

So does any of this matter? Many women I know — none prudes either — having raised their sons to respect women, are furious that just as their teenagers are on the cusp of sexual maturity, they can so easily buy such misogynist material. And psychologists have found that while habitual users of porn are not more likely to rape, they do become deadened to sexual imagery. Date rape cases seldom get to trial because women say police and prosecutors are sceptical about their testimonies. And is there any wonder, if the notion that they are always sexually available, happy-to-oblige even virtual strangers, pervades mainstream culture.

 

Yet I can see why there is no enthusiasm for the Bill’s provision for setting up a regulatory body to decide which material is sexually explicit and belongs on the top shelf. Who has the stomach for another Labour quango? But we should be grateful for Ms Curtis-Thomas for reopening an important debate about what exactly is obscene, which has been silenced by a wilful conflating by the porn industry of sexual liberation and exploitation. The girls of Nuts and Zoo may keep their pants on but porn is not just about human orifices, it’s about holes in our thinking.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Tera_Patrick.jpg

 

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Why these magazines drive me nuts

'Lads mags' are both sexually explicit and highly sexually denigrating

Published: 28 June 2006

 

I am guessing that because you are reading this in The Independent, you may not be a consumer of such men's magazines as Nuts, Zoo, or indeed the so called newspaper the Daily Sport. If I am correct, then I would encourage you to go to your newsagents today and buy one of these titles. You will, I imagine, be as horrified as I am, not just at how obscene and explicitly pornographic the material they contain is, but that you don't have to reach up to the top shelf to get hold of them. These publications are openly displayed alongside mainstream glossy publications such as Elle Decor, Good Housekeeping andWhat Computer?. There are no restrictions on their sale to children or minors. The Daily Sport, and its appallingly explicit images, sits alongside other newspapers, usually on the bottom shelf.

 

The response I have received to the Bill I presented to the House of Commons on Monday suggests that most people want such material to be accessed only by adults, and their sale controlled by an independent regulator capable of ensuring children are protected.

 

"Lads mags" provide a clear example of the failure of current media regulation. Publications such as FHM, Zoo, Nuts, and the like are sexually explicit and promote a sexually denigrating message. The question is why publications containing images and references so obscene that I was barred by the Speaker of the House of Commons from citing them in debate this week, are not limited to the top shelves. Their content is barely distinguishable from recognised top-shelf pornography.

 

Women in these publications are shown only as cheap, contemptible sexual commodities, fit to be subjected to a range of exploitative, violent and degrading activities. It is this, I believe, that makes these publications dangerous to be viewed by children and minors. Displaying them next to mainstream glossy magazines may help to shift more copies, but what message does it send to boys and young men about the value that society places on women?

 

While these publications are sexually explicit and, in my opinion, exploitative and denigrating, there is no meaningful regulation in place to ensure they are sold as age-restricted and displayed only on the top shelves. As I told the House of Commons, the British media has throughout its history achieved a balance between decency and freedom of expression. Our country has led the world in its ability to combine a freedom of choice for society, while at the same time protecting its most vulnerable members. But the availability and impact of such publications as Zoo, Nuts and the Daily Sport are undermining this reputation. Since regulation has proved an excellent mechanism for protecting children from other media - the TV watershed or film classification, for example - it should be extended to the print media, thereby ending this anomaly.

 

Although publishers are regulated by the Press Complaints Commission, this body has no codes regarding sexually explicit content. The commission has refused to consider introducing guidelines, even over explicit material on the covers of newspapers and magazines.

 

The sale of newspapers and magazines is monitored by a retail regulator, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, but this body issues purely voluntary codes to retailers and has no power to impose fines. Retailers are under no obligation whatsoever to abide by its recommendations.

 

WH Smith is the UK's largest distributor of magazines, yet despite hearing my arguments, they continue to make these publications available to children. When I contacted WH Smith to discuss this issue, the chairman refused to speak to me, presumably because he is very happy with the profits he is generating as a result of his role in promoting and distributing this literature.

 

I believe we have a duty to protect children from harm. Yet it seems the print industry would rather look to profit from the young. I urge you to contact your MP to signal your agreement with me, and to write to the chairman of WH Smith. It is only by taking action that we can safeguard our young ones from deviant and derogatory material.

 

What I am proposing is the establishment of a new, independent, non-partisan regulator for the sale and display of sexually explicit material, with binding codes and transparent guidelines; a regulator that is socially responsible and, crucially, not motivated by profit.

 

I am quite happy for adults who want to access Zoo or Nuts to continue doing so, but I am outraged that anyone should continue to defend their availability to children: it's not free speech they are advocating, merely the freedom to profit.

 

The writer is the Labour MP for Crosby

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Sylvia_Saint_001.jpg

 

so i suppose everybody here reads the Economist and Angling Times then :lol:

Can't say I find the covers over the top or pornographic, but if people complain put them on the top shelf.

Can't say I find the covers over the top or pornographic, but if people complain put them on the top shelf.

 

actually think its just Claire Curtis-Thomas to be honest (not pictured above :lol: )