Where do we draw the line on legislating sexually provocative material, The reality is that the reason the Rampant Rabbit is as it is atm is that Japanese law made the sale of sex toys virtualy impossible if they were over. It seems to me that the likly result of banning these “lad mags” provocative covers will likely be an increased competition for sexuality within as they try to compete with 50 other brown bag mags. Still UK Feminista are picking up the gauntlet and trying to have these challenged is it right?
A Tired Defense for the Right Position
While most men belt on about sexual freedom, or how these women choose to portray themselves and lash out at UK Feminista for censoring their deeply held right to objectify women they are actually defending – at least in my opinion – the right side.
Women are already Ill placed in terms of the sexual struggle, take it from someone in the know toys like those available here seem to be almost exclusively bought online, men are much bolder about buying such magazines but the legislation being used presents even bigger problems.
Are these magazines a problem?
Yes no one’s going to deny that these magazines promote the objectification of women, that they treat younger men to a world where women are nothing more than objects for gratification and the volume of porn consumed today is probably directly related to this.
Still the argument could equally be made about the 100s of weekly female orientated publications dishing the latest dirt on this celeb or that, the billboards and magazine adds for everything from vibrators to coffee which use the female form as the eye catching component. These should equally be challenged and yet we’re focusing on lads mags an area likely to polarise both camps at best – who knows it’s entirely possible that’s the aim. None of this gets to my real objection to this however.
Should we be legislating this?
Lets take the position that these magazines are dangerous and ignore the myriad of issues with the cosmetics, fashion etc industries for the moment because lets be honest you have to start somewhere and changing mens minds might be easier than changing womens and mens on such topics.
However imagine if this sets a legal precedent – after all the issue is that this overt display on the cover- rather than the content, makes some people uncomfortable. Imagine turning largely positive places such as Ann Summers (home of the expanding Rampant Rabbit and a wide range of womens lingerie) into a black windowed sex shops of the kind promoted by ‘deviants’.
You could argue that Ann Summers is a sex shop and has no place on our high streets – I’ve heard that line before too but when you enshrine something like this in law it cannot simply be ignored you create the opportunity for anti-women and or religious groups to take the same objection to shops showing lingerie, as this offends some religious sensibility.
Driving Sex Back in to the Closet
The truth is that while mens sexuality – read sexual dominance – is hardly going to be set back by a piece of ill thought poorly worded legislation insisting that mens mags go for fewer scantily clad women on the front it will be publications discussing the legitimate issues of women which ultimately take the hit. Running a site like this I Know for a fact how difficult women find it to visit shops and pick up sex toys and the like, this isn’t going to make it any easier.
You wont prevent cinema posters of barely dressed women, you wont slow the unrelenting digital spread of pornography from reaching younger and younger men so is this really the best way to spend our time?