blonde poker forum

I think all blokes are gonna have to be neutered within 10 years by the PC crew at this rate  :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027

I don't think any magazine front cover should have a scantily clad, sexual image on full display.

If you buy Nuts, you know what's going to be inside, just as if you buy Fwoops, Open Minded Ladies or Phwoaaaarrr Magazine. Don't see the harm in having a blander image on the front, so that those people who don't want to see Jenny 19 from Southend in a napkin - or who shouldn't have to - are protected, while those who do are still buying them and getting their thrills.

GQ are just as bad. Half of their front covers feature a naughty-looking lady. (The other half feature a sportsman, celeb or politician in a suit). Attitude and GT are no different.

Sex sells, as we all know. I don't think these magazines need to be demonised and the suggestion they are "dangerous" is utter poppycock. They are no more dangerous than alcohol, 1970s comedy or the internet for creating misogynistic stereotypes.

I also think having the magazines in folders is excessive. Arguably, forcing people who want to get their rocks off on Zoo to become part of the 'brown paper bag, full length overcoat and dark glasses group' is much more dangerous in that it both stigmatises the act of buying the magazine and forces some of the buyers to seek their thrills elsewhere.

I'd like to see a solution where front covers spelled out what a reader could expect inside but without it being graphically explicit or without it being so in your face. I can buy a Dairy Milk without needing to be told what the chocolate looks like inside.

At the risk of appearing sycophantic, I have to say, that's another great post.

Remind me to insult you again soon, for balance like.

Booked.

I don't care too much about this individual issue, for me it's the broader issue of others trying to control what people can and can't do, and there is a gradual creep of this sort of stuff which really gets on my tits.

On here in particular we should care too as gambling is on the radar of those that seek to control what others do, maybe not any time soon but the creep will get there eventually unless we stand up to this sort of stuff.

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

Stewart Lee is likely left of most people's tastes, but his satirising of the PC Gone Mad expression is first class.

(Please be aware that the first clip particularly features some expressions that might offend)

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHLnf5H4soU

I do understand where you're coming from, as much as this seems like I'm not taking you seriously. There's a much bigger debate than over magazine covers but that's for another day.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

It matters not where it's coming from, it's all the same PC bullshit irrespective of who is pushing it. Nailed on its some opinionated individual high up in the co-op who has pushed for this and his/her colleagues are too weak to say GTFO and concentrate on more important stuff.

Think it's important stuff for the anti-PC brigade to get really upset about.

when did tit's become offensive?

it's about 50x easier to find porn online now than when I was at school and it doesn't seem like its having much of a negative impact on the nation, so why DAVID CAMERON WANNA TAKE TIT'S AWAY FROM US?

People like tits.

Actually I think it's important for us to point out all the small stuff also, as that in particular is the BS that might go unnoticed and so the creep towards PC'ness continues....

Indignation about the changes to the covers of lad's mags will definitely halt this oppressive and taliban-like censorship we're experiencing in this country. 

It's the principle, many small steps over a period of time = one large step.

Maybe it'd be a step forward?

So pathetic. Exactly who is this protecting from what? When I was 12/13 I used to walk very slowly past these mags, usually wearing sunglasses and pretend I was looking at the PC GAMER magazine in the hope to get a glimpse of a half naked woman.

On a similar note I've had many conversations with my Dutch girlfriends family at the dinner table about censorship and it is just them making funny of the British way we do things. We censor everything it's pathetic!

Not for me I'm afraid.

My Mrs used my i-pad the other day to look for leather fireside chairs. What a fail that was! Lesbian lovers in the jacuzzi popped up on search first pick. Hehe.

I felt exactly the same 30 years ago when my mum found my porn mag stash.

However if boobs offend some people then cover the mags up. Slavery was considered the norm not so long ago and smoking on a plane. Great debate this because some people find the burkha offensive so it's difficult to please one group and not the other.

Because being moderately offended is a disgrace to our human rights. It's just a British thing I guess and it'll never change. The BBC can't say shit without 40,000 people writing in letter of complaints.

The PC crew won't be happy until we are all completely asexual. Many of them already have their nuts in pickling jars on the mantle piece above the fireplace.  ;D

Of course, none of them are women ;)

It was the women that did the slicing and pickling  ;D

Love Stewart Lee. Super sharp mind.
2nd favourite stand up of all time (after Tim Minchin)

I would not consider a footballer a role model for children so would you then have to wrap a football mag in plastic ? To what level do you take this once you start ?

Tits don't offend me in the slightest, but I don't like having to explain why they are on the front of a magazine to my 5yo granddaughters when we pop into Co-op for sweets.

Lads Mags are just porn for cowards anyway, perhaps this will force consumers to just buy razzle instead and have done with it.

Or better yet, go on the internet.

I don't really see the issue when Page 3 is about. Are they going to put Daily Sport etc into folders? Same thing.

Read the article.

You buy a 5yo sweets! I am morally outraged! How can you be so irresponsible and introduced a young and impressionable mind to the warped attraction of sugar! She has plenty time to find out for herself whether she wants sugar to affect her life rather than you pushing it down her throat!

Infact, lets wrap all sugary treats in black wrappers too. I mean surely that would stop the worlds obesity problems

edit (just in case)  ;whistle;

I hope David Cameron and the rest of them do ban us from seeing tits. Would do himself out of a job though.  ;D

(http://www.womansday.com/cm/womansday/images/ci/Does-Sugar-Really-Make-Kids-Hyper-mdn.jpg)

Seems such a pointless thing to get het up about on both sides.

People that wish to buy this tat know what is inside so why is it an issue if the cover is hidden because it offends some people.

A much bolder stop would be for the Co-op to stop selling the Sun until they stop printing naked women on page 3.

It's part of the same argument.

http://nomorepage3.org/news/why-no-more-page-3/

An even better thing would be to stop selling fags.

So many women made so much money out of page 3. It can never be a bad thing.

& salt & butter & alcohol...

They did stop selling fags to kids a while back.

Boobs remain free. I hear.

Free boobs FTW.

Tal, a bar of Dairy Milk has two jugs of milk on the wrapper so isn't dissimilar to Zoo.

Only to a linguist

Is that not a tiny bit like throwing litter on the floor and saying "it gives people jobs to sweep the streets"?

I don't have a daughter but seeing my son and his friends and the way they look at things I honestly can't see the next generation putting up with boobs and stuff on display. They all seem über sensitive and thoughtful of people's feelings.

Does anyone else think this? Like 17 to 20 year olds now?

Maybe the Internet generation coming through now can bring moral standards to this wonderful world of ours.

 What a day off I have had by the way . 4 ball 0830 with my 3 best buds and cold thatchers. Nice. Lunch then on the train to Windsor races. Proper fun. Now for pha. I love it.

Meh, with the availability of Internet porn these days I would have said the opposite tbh. They are probably less curious about the relatively inane stuff in the lads mags because they have basically seen just about everything there is to see online

When I was in my late teens I didn't come across too much hard core porn, so the milder stuff that was available was still relatively interesting.

its a bad thing for the magazine, who is gonna wanna buy a copy of NUTS or ZOO when it is in a blacked out cover. I was buying FHM and esquire at 12 years old. When we wanted a porno mag we just used to slide it inside a newspaper, fold it and buy the paper. People will be doing this with nuts and zoo soon.

Just popped into Tescos. Had a quick shifty at the mags and in all honesty there was as much flesh showing in the slimming mag section as there was in the lads mags. Also the lads mags were top shelf and the slimming mags were eye level for young kids.

Not sure it's about the amount of flesh showing, more so the way the women are being portrayed.  Don't think there's a problem showing women (or men) in swimwear if it's relevant and done correctly.  There's an argument to say that there's far too much photoshopping done of magazine covers that show the models and celebs with 'perfect' bodies, when in fact they're actually far from that. 

I think it's disgusting that there was some bloke with a six pack with his top off on the front of fitness magazine. How dare they depict him like that, I've now lost all my self esteem and feel like a fatter bastard than I really am  compared to him ;whistle;

Maybe I should have a little cry and then go tell somebody  :'(  :D

joking aside there is clearly no difference

I also expect the gratuitous airbrushing on Vogue/Company et al to also be covered with a  black screen. Infact these magazines do an awful lot more damage than FHM etc

A fit and healthy man or woman on the front of a fitness magazine isn't a problem.  I bet you aren't too keen on seeing the front cover of Gay Times or Attitude, with a man in a purposely 'provocative' pose.  In fact, a lot of people complain about such covers.  It's really no different to the lad's mags, is it (the same amount of flesh is on show)?

In women's magazines a lot of times women celebrities are either being slated for being too fat, or too thin and even when they're simply being portrayed they're very heavily photoshopped into an unachievable ideal.

I think the internet is doing more harm to boys than the lads mags, and the womens magazines are doing at least as much damage to girls.

That's not to say I don't think there's a problem with lads mags - but I don't think it's a particularly big problem.

Have anybody slating lads mags itt ever seen one?

There's nothing in there you can't see on a beach!

It's not about what's IN the magazines. It's about the covers.

Bollocks there is little to no difference just because you say it isn't a problem doesn't make it any different, they are all trying to depict hot sexy flesh in one form or another, and all your nit picking in the world won't change my opinion on that. In fact the fitness mags often have similar pics of girls to lads mags on the front, holding a dumbell does not change that.

With the gay mags, it's just a different group of PC wankers trying to stick their oar in where its not wanted again, they should all GTFO.

This was the first pic that google showed FFS. That could easily be the front cover pic of a lads mag.

(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/Andr4w/6097a582f7f488da714d269c41e36e9c_zps8728b965.jpg)

subscribing to this now..

Why do so many people have to be so fucking gay about everything?

It's absolutely harmless ffs!!

Woodsey loves a row :D

 :D

Its a funny old thing, I was never like this when I was younger, but my tolerance for bullshit has got less and less as the years have gone bye. Combine that with a strong opinion and a big gob and there you have it!  :D

I sail pretty close to the wind at work sometimes too, but my boss appreciates it mostly because he needs to know what the real situation is, rather that listening to a bunch of nodding dogs who are scared to stick their neck on the line.

Haha, it's strange really because I have gone completely the other way... Worse things happen at sea, as they say ;D

Well done. That IS a lad's mag.

The rest of your post lacks any logic or reason, other than calling me a PC wanker.

Rather be that than a misogynistic tosser.

quite ironic that.

I used to presume your posts were just trolling rather than the actual opinions of a man in the 21st century, but am starting to think otherwise!

The man who could call a spade a spade should be compelled to use one. It is the only thing he is fit for.

I'm all for freedom of expression and, regardless of my own political or religious views, I think I'm capable of seeing things from the other side, however strongly I disagree.

If your argument is a broad 'society isn't what it used to be', part of me thinks...thank God for that! Every generation moans about how liberal the new lot are and how it's damaging the fabric of what they believe is right. My poor grandparents must have had kittens when their children were growing up in the sixties.

There will always be folk who want to take it too far and right-minded people will exist to rein them back in. This is just how shit gets done. Some people declare their opinion as being the only logical one. Actually, we all do that, but with different levels of frequency. That's where things go wrong. Persuasive arguments recognise the views of others and present a better alternative. The far right and the far left suggest an alternative view is to be held only by an idiot, a queerosexual or a skinhead. The world doesn't work like that.

Don't know why I'm yammering on tbh. I said what I wanted on the lads' mags in my first response ITT. I even think I agreed with you, in part.

Been 20 years since Bill and Ted and we still haven't learned to be excellent to one another.

At least Woodsey hasn't seen this yet.......

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/30/liverpool-unacceptable-words-discrimination (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/30/liverpool-unacceptable-words-discrimination)


d'oh

Rubbish, you are only saying that because it disagrees with your opinion. You will notice that a fair few on here agree with me, so don't make it sound like its my opinion that is out of kilter. Your opinion is different to mine, no more or less, it is not better or worse either just different and from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Also please don't take the 'PC wanker' stuff personally Dan it not directed at you, just more of a generic phrase for the guys wanting to stick their noses into others business and influence what they can and can't do. I am obviously winding you up a little bit, but I kind of thought we'd had enough banter on these sorts of thread for you to know that by now. And of course I fully expect jabs back in my direction, I wouldn't be saying it if I couldn't take it back, that's all part of the banter  :P

er no, you really have got the end of the stick if you think I think any of that is ok.  ::)

Bit of fun as well as my opinion in part if truth be told.  :)

You deserve a reply for writing all that, but I think we'll be here for days if we get into it.  :D

Wisest thing you've said ;)

I'll say no more on this topic.

Okay so you think calling a female "princess", saying "man up" or suggesting someone is "handicapped" is offensive but you think that putting sexually provocative pictures on the front page of magazines is just fine......I'm more than a bit confused as to where this "PC wanker" line is drawn.....

No idea, but this doesn't come close to it imo, we have bigger things we should be worrying about than this.