|
Friday, 07 July 2006 |
By Keya Sanvali
 He’s been standing in front of the magazine rack for over twenty minutes now, leafing through the glossy pages, musing over which front page blonde bombshell to take home. From time to time he throws a nervous glance over his shoulder, checking to see if anyone is observing him in his viewing pleasure. Finally, he shuffles over to the counter to pay for his item - this is not 2am at a seedy adult store, but 10am on a Saturday morning in a regular newsagents. The man is not buying pornographic material reserved for eighteen-and-over, but is purchasing what has come to be known as “lads’ mags” - mainstream magazines aimed at twenty-something year-old men that have no age restrictions, although the content has been described as virtually the same as mainstream porn magazines.
The increasingly graphic content of such magazines, and the lack of legislation to regulate who can access them, has recently hit the spotlight in Britain, with Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas’ proposal to make it mandatory to confine magazines of this nature (such as FHM, Loaded and Maxim) to the top shelf, alongside the “authorized” mainstream porn – Penthouse and Playboy. Currently the magazines are allowed to be displayed anywhere in a store, even within children’s reach, despite recommendations from the National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN) that such material ought to be kept out of children’s eye level. The bill will make this top-rack placement legally binding and impose an age restriction on lads’ mags, if successful.
The proposal has been met with criticism as well as support. Claims that the “nanny state” of Britain is seeking to infringe on citizens rights to access material freely have been upheld by publishers and writers of men’s magazines. While it is undoubtedly true that individuals should have the free right to access whatever material they wish, it is also true that there ought to be legislation to protect minors from explicit material. These restrictions exist in film censoring and television, so why not extend them to magazines?
The argument comes down to pedantic quibbles; some claim that as lads’ mags do not contain “hard core” images they should not be labeled pornographic. However, the real issue is not how they are labeled, but how the free exposure of such material impacts on society in general.
We are being desensitized to female sexuality; arguably the perception of women as a mere commodity to sell magazines, advertise products and even mobile phone ring-tones is damaging our emotional and psychological views on sex. While it is fair to say that people should be allowed access to porn should they wish, it must be remembered that many of those accessing “lads’ mags” are underage and have not developed the emotional capacity to understand sex in its entirety. Instead, the whole concept is being reduced to one of mere physicality - sexual gratification by objectifying women. There is little mention of contraception, STDs, unwanted pregnancy or, most worryingly, responsibility for others' feelings.
Frequently critics of lads’ magazines and gratuitous nudity in films and the media are unfairly labeled as prudish or old fashioned, with the argument being made that as violence and profanity are so prevalent in modern society, why should nudity be made a focus? The truth is that often such individuals who argue against this portrayal of nudity have no qualms with nudity, itself, but the way in which it is presented. Reducing the female body to a mere selling incentive detracts from its true beauty, and often the so-called lads’ mags are guilty of perpetrating an objectified perception of women. One magazine ran a notorious "Win a boob job for your girlfriend" competition [censured as irresponsible by the Advertising Standards Authority in October 2005], which only demonstrates the potentially damaging nature of such magazines.
Laughably, the claim is often made that the magazines are not exploitative to women as they are being paid as models - some even state that the practice is liberating to women as it embraces sexuality and enables them to promote their bodies without feeling ashamed. While this may somewhat true, it is perhaps more accurate to state that the biggest benefactors are actually the publishers. Rather than clever advertising campaigns or intelligent market targeting, the job is made far easier by placing a naked woman on the front of a magazine to boost sales. And if it is placed in the middle of the magazine shelf in mainstream stores, all the better.
The biggest concern about the proposed bill is probably that it will reduce sales as a result of lads’ mags venturing from the mainstream shelves, alongside the more widely sold magazines, to the notorious “top shelf,” thus resulting in a drop in sales and profits for publishers. A small price to pay for the preservation of female beauty and sexuality without them being used as a commodity. |
|
|
