See, that's kind of fitting to this story, the reference to Loaded magazine, as it seems Lawyers are actually arguing, on behalf of feminists, that selling Loaded and it's similar lads mag titles in a newsagents however big or small could, apparently, amount to sexual harassment, and said shopkeeper should be sued for such.
I speak, as a woman and as a some time reader of Loaded magazine to suggest that:
a) feminists seriously have too much money
b) feminists seriously have too much time on their hands and
c) that this is the stupidest, daftest thing I have ever heard in my life when there are actual real shitty problems we should all be concerned about that should be taking precedent over this.
The thing is, I fail to see what is so wrong with these magazines? They don't encourage rape, they don't suggest you go out and commit crimes against women. They are, in my view, the modern day equivalent of the seaside postcard, or the Carry On film. They are a bit of fun. Simple.
|Lads Mag, or a sex guide for girls in Cosmo?|
I read both. I will happily pick up a copy of Red or FHM. I find both have funny, insightful articles (as long as you don't mind Helen Flannagan and her massive boobies in a bra on the opposite page in FHM. Or Helen Flannagan and her massive boobies falling out of her dress on the opposite page of Red).
In fact, Heat is much worse to women than Nuts or Zoo could ever be.
In Nuts, Zoo, FHM, Loaded and the others, they show women in all their glory. They show them in soft lighting, with slinky undercrackers on and a come hither stare. They have lists of High Street Honeys and the 100 Sexiest Women in the World.
What, by comparison does Heat offer?
What Where You Thinking, where celebs are ridiculed for their poor fashion tastes. Hoop of Horror, where they point and laugh at celebs with no make up, or visible nipples, or spots. Or Weird Crush, where they subject guys who readers vote as being a slightly less then gorgeous to a list to vote the weirdest of these "unconventional looking" men. Like Russell Howard, on the list, apparently for his "wonky eyes". Or Richard Hammond for being "short and wearing bad shirts".
Surely, surely, you'd rather the Lads Mag option than the Heat version?
Yes, some people don't like girls on the fronts of magazines. Some may even say its offensive. But why? The only thing that pisses me off is that, when they have Holly Willoughby on the cover, she has had two babies just like me and is built like a goddess. But I am clever enough to know that that's because Holly doesn't eat as much cake and digestives as me, and she gets exercise. Which I don't do. That is not going to make me go all mental and sue my poor newsagent. That is going to make me put my packet of Hob Nobs back on the shelf and reconsider my idea about buying Pringles.
Not only that, but how many times has Rhianna been on the cover of women's magazines in nothing but a skimpy bra top and barely there dresses? Why is it such a big issue when she does the same on a Lads mag?
So, I say enough of this daft idea. I'd happily write for any of these publications, whether they have Gemma off Hollyoaks with the massive knockers on the front or they have a scantily clad "proper" actress like Keira Knightely on the front, with a "sensible" glossy article. There are bigger issues in the world than men's mags, and I say stop being so pathetic and if you don't like them, don't look.
What's your view?
Image courtesy of YaiSirichai/ FreeDigitalPhotos.net