Are You Offended By Scantily-Clad Girls on the Covers of Mags?

By Sam Gibbs on at

The Co-operative has caused a right storm over lads' mags, and whether they should be stashed in "modesty" bags like porn magazines. The retailer reckons they're offensive, and wants the girls gone from the front covers, or at least covered up, or it'll stop selling the likes of Loaded, Front, Nuts and Zoo by September 9th. But do they really offend you or cause you embarrassment when picking up your Cross-Stitch Monthly and a pint of milk?

Personally, I don't have an issue with them, as long as there are boundaries defining what is and isn't porn. It's been a while since I bought a mag like that, but the last time I was in a newsagents I didn't recoil in horror at the legions of scantily-clad women on the front covers. In fact, the mags were so tightly packed that I couldn't even see the front covers, just the logos at the top.

Of course, it's not me that's the subject of concern here -- it's all to protect the kids. But TV is full of barely-dressed models selling things, and then there's the internet, although as we know, David Cameron's trying his best to kill that off at the moment. In fact, there are calls to get Co-op to stop selling them altogether, and given that the retailer is owned by its members and they genuinely have sway on things like this, that could actually happen. Whether you agree with all this, I'll leave up to you, but is this just a stunt for sales, or have we got a much bigger issue here? [BBC]

Image credit: Jonathan Weatherill-Hunt from flickr