UK: 'The demonisation of lads mags isn't about equality or respect'

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2013-08-12 02:27

Article here. Excerpt:

'For the past few months Britain's feminist community have taken affront with men's magazines.

According to their Lose The Lads Mags campaign, publications such as Nuts, Loaded and Zoo objectify women while green-lighting domestic violence in a nation of misogynistic men.

In a bid to have these titles banned, activists are using equality legislation to scare retailers into submission, arguing they'll face legal action if they disobey their orders.
...
Despite the fact we live in a post-sexual revolution society, where people can enjoy the human body without shame, here we have women taking a moral standpoint on men's free choice as adults.

Yes people, it may be 2013, but we've swapped the repression of women for the repression of men.
...
Apparently, female sexuality is sacred and not up for discussion - especially by men. After all, that would be patriarchal oppression.

Yet, in a blatant example of hypocrisy and double-standards, here we have women telling men how and when they should consume their own sexual pleasures.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

If one bothers to read the whole article, the author addresses a lot of topics MRAs would be glad to see brought up.

While I agree with his general and most specific points, I do understand the concerns parents may have (and I say parents, not feminists-- unless they have small kids themselves) around the magazine covers. UK standards are a lot more lax re these things than, say, US standards. A lot of the covers of these magazines do routinely display nearly-naked women, sometimes in homoerotic poses with other women. So allowing these images to be displayed publicly in places parents are likely to bring their small children is cause for reasonable parental concern. But feminist ideologues don't have a leg to stand on. Their double-standards when faced with magazine covers displaying scantily-clad men are obvious. And as for parents objecting to lads' magazines covers, they really ought to be insisting that *all* magazines showing off that much skin need modesty sleeves. Otherwise, they must suffer to be counted among the feminist hypocrite lot. :)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2013-08-13 02:03

Men are more visually stimulated than women; women are more verbally stimulated then men. The science is still out on whether this is nature or nurture, but this is as it is.

Playboy is VISUAL stimulus for MEN that objectifies WOMEN by distorting SEX
Harlequin is VERBAL stimulus for WOMEN that objectifies MEN by distorting LOVE.

Now we take the romance novels, put them at the front of every store and tell the girls they are good when they objectify men and love

But when a boy looks a pictures of nude women, he is slapped. He gets to feel bad about himself. He contorts. His desire gets worse. And we create the perverts in the process.

We are creating the perverts by continuously hounding men on how their desires are made manifest.

But we continue to overlook how women indulge.

I remember walking through a room full of women with romance novels. I felt very uncomfortable. But I am not allowed to say anything. A woman, however, can demand I take down pictures they do not like.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by bronxman on Tue, 2013-08-13 18:48

Yep, just consider the infamous "Fifty Shades" veiled pederastophilic fantasy novel tailor-written for women. How long at the top of the best seller list?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-08-14 01:13