Lads' mags 'should have age restrictions' - Yahoo! News UK

Sex is bad for you!

I actually agree with this.

Whenever I read a "lads mag" I just come away either depressed or horny. Or both...

Talk about aspirational reading: unrealistically (photoshopped) woman, Cars and gadgets you cant afford, clothes that you SHOULD be wearing and interviews with extremely rich (usually talentless) people.

You got a valid point there Jaz,

But I don't agree with the sex is bad or sex is dirty message we're giving to our youngsters. It's the whole prohibition thing that I don't agree with. I hate it when MPs say youngsters are being too "sexualised"...fetuses wank in the womb for heavens sake!

As if it matters.

Any young lad worth his salt has access to an immense amount of porn anyway.

Indeed... god bless the internet

I agree. It really makes me angry. Pictures of perfect people to make you feel inadequate, and on the next page adverts for teeth whitening, cosmetic surgery, fragrances, and designer clothes to fix yourself. Television is the same. I've even seen my Dad who is quite a man's man, start feeling shit about what he owns because of watching the endless programs about houses like Escape to the Country. The Blueprint Decoded really made me aware of it all. Being aware of what is going on is half the battle I think.

Touching yourself, randomly feeling something, then repeating that touch is not the same as being sexualised. When we talk about the sexualisation of children we mean rather their conscious understanding of sexuality and more specifically the child's understanding of themselves as a sexual being. Mark, you're a parent. Did you fix your pre-pubescent kid up with porn, lube and a bag of assorted masturbation aids? I think not.

The issue here isn't whether sex is bad, sex education starts very young now and they certainly don't teach that it is bad, it is more about whether sexually immature beings should be exposed to sexually explicit material without guidance. I don't think these proposed age restrictions will make any difference because of the internet. Essentially it is each parent's duty to monitor and guide their child's development.


Peace,

kowalski

Agreed, and enough of the nanny state already!

That is what PUA is tabout to me dude - improving myself and making myself more aware in general

Every kid will get to see sexually explicit stuff one way or another. I well remember being 12 years old and one of my mates in the playground managing to get his hands on soft core pornography.

Another of my mates used to nick Page 3 out of his Grandad's copy of The Sun every day and lock it in a little tin under his bed, to proudly show me every time I came round.

Diesel show adverts involving scantily clad men and women, with the words 'Sex sells - unfortunately we sell jeans' pasted over the top (adverts which, might I add, I think are quite good).

MTV regularly features pop star girls not wearing very much.

But no, lets make FHM a top shelf mag. That'll solve it.

As so often happens, its another 'silver bullet' solution proposed by MPs who can't see the wood for the trees. If they want to make lads mags top shelf then fine - but what about any other newspaper or magazine that dares expose flesh?