Not much left to the Imagine'ation - Magazine publisher serves up porno to minors
- Thread starter JN
- Start date
Excellent article Mayhem,
I do feel the Publishers point of view must be heard and congratulations on raising this article.
I have three children myself, all girls, aged 13,12,and 3. The older two are into computer games and i would not expect them to be looking at a harry potter review , flipping the page and then being confronted with pornographic advertising ( offering services to either sex i might add )
Having not read console mags, only PC publications i know Denis and Future publications behave them selves. ( CustomPC and PCZone contain little or no pornographic reference other than the software titles the are reviewing .. PCZone can get a little close to the knuckle when reviewing titles )
So I definitely think this should be one to follow up and will be very interested to see what Imagine have to say for them selves. .. If its a case of "we would go bust ( excuse the pun!) if we didn't advertise smut" , then I'm sorry but they should , morally, carry a age restriction logo.
( P.S. have you two daughters? as she is 8 in one part and 6 in the other? she wont mind if shes eight but would she want two years worth of birthday pressies again! )
I do feel the Publishers point of view must be heard and congratulations on raising this article.
I have three children myself, all girls, aged 13,12,and 3. The older two are into computer games and i would not expect them to be looking at a harry potter review , flipping the page and then being confronted with pornographic advertising ( offering services to either sex i might add )
Having not read console mags, only PC publications i know Denis and Future publications behave them selves. ( CustomPC and PCZone contain little or no pornographic reference other than the software titles the are reviewing .. PCZone can get a little close to the knuckle when reviewing titles )
So I definitely think this should be one to follow up and will be very interested to see what Imagine have to say for them selves. .. If its a case of "we would go bust ( excuse the pun!) if we didn't advertise smut" , then I'm sorry but they should , morally, carry a age restriction logo.
( P.S. have you two daughters? as she is 8 in one part and 6 in the other? she wont mind if shes eight but would she want two years worth of birthday pressies again! )
i still stand my ground and see no problem with this? You can just choose to ignore it, the internet has porn on doesnt mean u have to go on it, if putting them adds means they can publish there magazine and make some money why the hell not
. dont like it dont buy it simple, just stop the bad banter and move on.......................:yumyum::yumyum:
. dont like it dont buy it simple, just stop the bad banter and move on.......................:yumyum::yumyum:
mayhem
New member
name='ToeJam' said:i still stand my ground and see no problem with this? You can just choose to ignore it, the internet has porn on doesnt mean u have to go on it, if putting them adds means they can publish there magazine and make some money why the hell not
that is you opinion which you are allowed. so why is it then tescos are re branding it to a different certification. In that one store anyway.
I think this article raises a good point. I remember buying this sort of magazine back when I was about 12 or 13. Sure there is porn on the internet, but a parent is able to restrict access to that and there are guidelines about that. On the otherhand, a games magazine is targetted at a younger audience (often teenagers), parents cannot control this.
The advertising in the magazines is likely to let a kid phone one of these premium rate sex lines or be exposed to images which are clearly not appropraite.
Even for an adult consumer, these visual landmines are a problem. For instance, on public transport this could be quite emabrasing to turn over a page and to find all of these adverts.
Good article mayhem!
The advertising in the magazines is likely to let a kid phone one of these premium rate sex lines or be exposed to images which are clearly not appropraite.
Even for an adult consumer, these visual landmines are a problem. For instance, on public transport this could be quite emabrasing to turn over a page and to find all of these adverts.
Good article mayhem!
Rastalovich
New member
name='ToeJam' said:o yeah good article, and you say the magazines are targeted at teenages, i bet 80% of porn is watched/seen by teenages lol
In fairness, this equally adds to the opinion I have about unsupervised internet access for those not of-age.
I also understand that I, like yourself I would imagine, saw all this from the very dawn of the internet. Perhaps even being one of the things that was immediately in your face in terms of ads of particular sites I would frequent (those not being pr0n related, but maybe not 100% legal) - it's THE revenue maker of the internet and the world, it does infact fashion the expansion of the internet and variations of media including bluray over hddvd, cheap terrabyte harddrives.
I do believe I have the mind that would take these sort of things for what they are. I'm not someone who'd see something like this and immediately reach for the credit card - like many still do, otherwize such ads would have died a long time ago. These days they identify the area u live and immediately have the same girl available to meet up with u for... u know.. that was immediately available when ur on the 'net in london ! lol
Still, my point is, even tho being of a young age at the time, I'm fully aware of what a minor with an ounce of computer knowledge can access on the internet, and personally - even tho I see it as not an issue for the minority - I very strongly believe that the majority shouldn't be seeing these things.
This is more a, what's good for the majority and not just yourself or the minority.
This for me, more so these days, is a parental thing. Mayhem in this case has intervened, and rightly so. With a pc, in the bedroom, with full internet access and no supervision - how do they intend to intervene ? Do they care ? Are they aware ?
For similar reasons, I don't believe mobile phones should be used by those under 16. I would say 18, but u can get married etc at 16, which I may not believe in either, but it's law so u have to massage the limits to suit. Especially internet accessing phones.
We frown heavily these days on people grooming kids on the internet, but don't seem to care about the potential for grooming via a mobile phone.
To clarify ToeJam - I understand completely, and would myself be in the same boat all those years ago. Was I effected - well I'd have to be in some fashion, but luckily, maybe, not for the worse - who knows. What I think I would be saying in your case is that I agree 100% in the reasons against, even tho I see these things myself and am not seemingly effected.
Imo, it's a great article, and as well as a follow up, I'd keep in my arsenal contacting local media in both paper form and tv.
PeterStoba
New member
Thing is, you might write to them and explain your points, but they won't do anything. They only want the money, and this "porn" is what gets them it.
I wouldn't call it porn though, there is nothing on show, bit of clevage, same as tv. You'd see more on a beach. If you are worried about the children reading the magazines and then texting to get the content, they shouldn't have a mobile phone if they are at an age where it isn't acceptable to watch such material. If the child wants to watch it, they'll find a way.
I wouldn't call it porn though, there is nothing on show, bit of clevage, same as tv. You'd see more on a beach. If you are worried about the children reading the magazines and then texting to get the content, they shouldn't have a mobile phone if they are at an age where it isn't acceptable to watch such material. If the child wants to watch it, they'll find a way.
Rastalovich
New member
Similarly u can watch tv after 9 oclock (or whatever it is) - every other advert is for "Girls are waiting for you to text them..." - u aint gonna see this between ur mid-day shows for a specific reason. So why doesn't this reasoning apply here ?
Most notably on those channels away from the mainstream. i.e. ITV4 - not ITV1 perhaps.
It aint porn, but it's definitely directed at a similar audience.
Most notably on those channels away from the mainstream. i.e. ITV4 - not ITV1 perhaps.
It aint porn, but it's definitely directed at a similar audience.
This might not be porn so to speak, but at the same time, its something that if I had kids, I would not want them to see. I know of someone whose son spent over £200 on these phone sex lines in one night while his parents were out. Ideally you don't want this sort of temptation in a magazine.
I might also point out that while you might be able to see this sort of thing at the beach, its not as overtly sexualised.
I might also point out that while you might be able to see this sort of thing at the beach, its not as overtly sexualised.
PeterStoba
New member
name='Diablo' said:
Personally I'd say that's down to the type of child and how they have been brought up, because to be honest, i wouldn't spend £200 on any sort of phone bill, never mind to some woman in a magazine who isnt what she looks like in real life...
Shponglefan
New member
Saw this editorial linked from another site and I wanted to comment, so I registered here.
What is remarkable to me about this isn't the ads, but the reaction to the ads. It just seems ironic to me that ads for sexual things (i.e. porn videos and what have you) draw such a reaction from parents, but I'm assuming that ads for violent video games don't. Do any parents here thinks that an ad for GTA IV or Manhunt or some other violent video game should also result in an 18+ sticker?
And on another tagent, lots of things have ads for adult services. My local Yellow Pages has full page ads for escort services, the newspaper has ads for phone sex lines, etc. Should those also be kept out of children's hands?
What is remarkable to me about this isn't the ads, but the reaction to the ads. It just seems ironic to me that ads for sexual things (i.e. porn videos and what have you) draw such a reaction from parents, but I'm assuming that ads for violent video games don't. Do any parents here thinks that an ad for GTA IV or Manhunt or some other violent video game should also result in an 18+ sticker?
And on another tagent, lots of things have ads for adult services. My local Yellow Pages has full page ads for escort services, the newspaper has ads for phone sex lines, etc. Should those also be kept out of children's hands?
Rastalovich
New member
Yes, tbh.
And I'd also add that it'd be extremely rare for an 8 year old to be on the look-out for a local plumber, or be interested in what's happening in the middle-east.
The ads themselves for GTA IV, I'd not personally hold in any contempt, but the purchasing of the game itself I would hold the parent responsible & the shops selling them.
And I'd also add that it'd be extremely rare for an 8 year old to be on the look-out for a local plumber, or be interested in what's happening in the middle-east.
The ads themselves for GTA IV, I'd not personally hold in any contempt, but the purchasing of the game itself I would hold the parent responsible & the shops selling them.
name='Shponglefan' said:
I think its the combination of things here that add up to this being bad news. For example, if the ads for the games you mentioned were available for 10p and could be delivered to any mobile phone regardless of the owners age, then YES it should definitely have a certification.
mayhem
New member
First off Shponglefan welcome to the forum
what your saying is true but when you direct the adds "Directly" at kids this is another matter..
The article is there to be debated over but i strongly believe this tyope of "add" is mags aimed at the younger audience is just a total violation against our young kids.
Can i ask were you saw the link please. thks.
what your saying is true but when you direct the adds "Directly" at kids this is another matter..
The article is there to be debated over but i strongly believe this tyope of "add" is mags aimed at the younger audience is just a total violation against our young kids.
Can i ask were you saw the link please. thks.
