Modesty bags

[amcdonald]

Surely this is the free market in action. A business is responding to customer demand and placing conditions on its supplier.

I don't want my five and two year old girls exposed to lads mag front covers when we're out shopping.

But womens magazines with anorexic models on the cover are just as harmful to children, and they're not asking for them to be covered up

What about the Daily Star promoting communism should that be covered up lest children think it's acceptable ?

[Mich the Tester]

Magazines targeted at teens are filled with sexual tidbits or reasons for them to feel a failure.

What's all this about feeling a failure?

Are there really lots of people feeling that they're a sexual failure?

[Mich the Tester]

But womens magazines with anorexic models on the cover are just as harmful to children, and they're not asking for them to be covered up

WHS



Arguably even more harmful. As least porn models are allowed to eat.

[TheFaQQer]

What about the Daily Star promoting communism should that be covered up lest children think it's acceptable ?

I don't think that's what the Daily Star promotes, to be honest. I thought it's role was to promote Big Brother and other Channel 5 programmes.

[Old Greg]

umm, difficult, but given an entirely false choice of all censorship or zero censorship, I'm inclined toward zero. Which won't happen. Thankfully, perhaps.

And I won't insult you by saying that you must therefore be in favour o fallowing Necrophile Today to display a graphic photo from their Jimmy Savile Hospital Morgue Special Edition on an advertising hoarding outside a primary school.

So... you're in favour of a balance, as am I. But having young kids (especially daughters) has skewed my view, not of what should be on sale, but of what should be visible in a public place. It's fine to say things can be explained to them, but it is nice to try to preserve some innocence until they have the emotional capacity to process difficult issues.

[Old Greg]

I don't think that's what the Daily Star promotes, to be honest. I thought it's role was to promote Big Brother and other Channel 5 programmes.

He meant the Morning Star, but he's a bit you-know-what.

[mudskipper]

No, I think on the whole it's a good thing that sexuality has become more open. It's a good thing that women can now actually talk about what they want instead of having some clueless bloke say 'brace yourself' before stumbling in for his 2 minutes of fun. It's a good thing that gay people and bisexual people can, at least here in NL, be open about their life. It's a good thing that sex can be discussed on the telly and the net, seeing as so many people's marriages seem to break down because of a bad sex life. Of course there's a downside, and yes, the parents of kids in that kind of clothing deserve at least a good talking to, and some young people need to learn to control their desires, but I think the upside is much bigger than the downside and steps toward censorship would be retrograde.

Yep, can't argue with that.

But I don't believe that media images of perfect bodies and magazines (men and women's) pretending to be general interest that sell on sex equates to openness.

I don't know that censorship is the answer either - but I do think that something needs to change. Maybe looking past the calls for censorship (i.e. not dismissing those who call for it as feminist extremists) and debating the wider issue is a starting point.

[Old Greg]

But womens magazines with anorexic models on the cover are just as harmful to children, and they're not asking for them to be covered up

What about the Daily Star promoting communism should that be covered up lest children think it's acceptable ?

Intervention A (modesty bags) does not solve problems that are perceived to be related. That doesn't invalidate Intervention B

I would suggest you boycott Co-op but you probably view it as a Marxist institution threatening the free market fabric of society.

[Old Greg]

Yep, can't argue with that.

But I don't believe that media images of perfect bodies and magazines (men and women's) pretending to be general interest that sell on sex equates to openness.

I don't know that censorship is the answer either - but I do think that something needs to change. Maybe looking past the calls for censorship (i.e. not dismissing those who call for it as feminist extremists) and debating the wider issue is a starting point.

Feminazi!

[Sysman]

In all fairness, I don't want my young kids reading the kind of headlines they have 'Kayley at her sexiest, filthiest ever', 'Amber confronts her addiction to sex', 'Chardonnay and her loveof group sex', etc, etc, etc. I don't necessarily think it's about becoming more and more puritanical, but more about having a bit more decency, for it's not as though the standards haven't changed over the years, more they've definitely slipped. They're as close as you can get to porn mags really; would you like Babestation to be available night and day, for it's the same content, just different media.

So you'd ban the Daily Mail then?