Not much left to the Imagine'ation - Magazine publisher serves up porno to minors

[Diablo]

Exactly my feelings. These magazines are not targeted at an exclusively adult population. In fact, many refrain from swearing which suggests that they are not prepared to target an adult population. The ads make the magazine look grotty, which isn't great if you're on public transport.

I get the feeling the vast majority of people complaining at Mayhem are below 15 and therefore believe that their rights are being threatened or something. It is fairly obvious from their vocabulary and lack of structured arguments.

I might point out that this sort of thing often can make a difference, although it may risk upsetting some children who shouldn't be allowed on the internet (or perhaps outside) without supervision.

"NotanIdiot"...oh the irony, although it will probably be lost on him

 

[mayhem]

There are so many valid points being brought up here and all are relevant except for the ones which just try to slander the nature of the article..

rorkimaru Yes you are correct that this is not put of out place by the news papers. Im hoping that is formed in manner that is representative of what I am after. e.g not to sensor but just give an appropriate age at which the buy the magazines.

i am how ever aware that this may cause some hate to wards me but then again that is a risk im going to have to take to get my point of view forward. after all with every thing in life risk is a factor. If risks were not taken life would be pretty lame and boring.

When my children are at a mature enough age then they can do as they please. But until that time i have to decide for them what is rite and what is wrong and i have to stand up for my child's rights. I believe in my own mind what i am doing is the right thing.

I must add now.

I know Image publishing is now going to withdraw the adds over the next 3 months. This may have some thing to do with the fact that i complained not only to them but all so there editors and there suppliers and there staff and all so every were else i could think off but all so it may be some thing else that has brought them to this decision. Just wish for the next 3 months that they add a 15 cert to the front of the mag until its completely gone. (no doubt 3 months due to contractual agreement with Kiss Tell the one who placed the adds in the first place).

As for Violence in video games as far as i am concerned there are rating in place enough for the parent to decide on weather a game is suitable enough. I don't believe in censoring content just aiming it at the correct level and age group that it is intended for.

E.g my son is 12 and is not allowed to play GTA yet i know his friends are allowed but that is up to there parents not me. I will not get involved in a argument over this i think there are enough measures in place for a caring parent to make up there own mind.

 

[llwyd]

Again, good on you mayhem. People will always moan for the sake of moaning - unfortunately it tends to be the people who arent any good at making an argument that speak up first.

Anyone who has a problem with certs being added or the adverts being removed is frankly a fool. It has no affect on them whatsoever unless they are A. too young to buy the magazines without their parents or B. people who make use of the adverts and have no other means of getting to chat to lovely ladies for £1 a minute

 

[rorkimaru]

When my children are at a mature enough age then they can do as they please. But until that time i have to decide for them what is rite and what is wrong and i have to stand up for my child's rights. I believe in my own mind what i am doing is the right thing.

Well I'm glad that you feel this is the right thing to do. I hope that you are going to use a more realistic judgement of when they are mature enough to learn about sex and sexuality. I can tell you that your 12yo son is, in all honesty, aware of the basic, pardon the phrase, ins and outs of sex. Kids of that age are aware of sex and that they shouldn't let adults know that they are.

This so called standing up for your children's rights is actually a perversion of justice, just because you are not prepared to screen and edit the magazines before you hand it over. This, like many others, is a publication aimed at a large demographic. Young readers have their parents to censor what they feel is inappropriate but by censoring the entire population you liken yourself to the hyperactive censorship boards of Australia or China.

The fact is that the ads are being removed because of your threatened defamation by misleading headlining. You are bullying the publishers into submission.

As for Violence in video games as far as i am concerned there are rating in place enough for the parent to decide on weather a game is suitable enough. I don't believe in censoring content just aiming it at the correct level and age group that it is intended for.

E.g my son is 12 and is not allowed to play GTA yet i know his friends are allowed but that is up to there parents not me. I will not get involved in a argument over this i think there are enough measures in place for a caring parent to make up there own mind.

My point is not that the parent can decide if it's appropriate its that these games are being advertised in the middle of this [we shall call hypothetically for arguments sake] magazine aimed at children.

Your problem with the ads, which show no nudity, is that they advertise porn to children. Well these ads for violent video games advertise the games to children. Most violent games can be bought for about €15 to €20 a short while after being released and it's as easy to hide a video game as it is to hide porn. You can bet that if a 12yo wants to get Grand Theft Auto he can. That and you can bet that he has played it at his friends houses.

You seem to have a very naive view of what a 12yo knows. When I was that age I had seen softcore pornography and knew enough about sex to scare the pope. I've even met 12yolds who could drink me (about 17 at the time) under the table. No I never gave them drink or even drank with them but their fondness for spirits was widely known.

 

[mayhem]

I think you would have to ask my son that.

Hes actually pritty honest with me and im very upfront with him to. And yes ive done the birds and bees bit with him and yup he new all about before i even talked to him.

I do have good reasoning behind my action wich hasn't been talked about on here. But this is not the place i would discuss such matters.

 

[Diablo]

If a game that has an 18 certificate is advertised in a magazine, it is done so with a clear age certificate on it. In addition a game needs ID to be bought, whereas phone sex lines and dirty pic texts don't. One is easily (whether it is done or not)enforcable to restrict children, the other isn't.

 

[Ratter's Highway]

The whole situation is utterly retarded. Moving away from the porn issue, can anyone explain to me why games magazines that not only carry 18-rated advertising but also covermount 16+-rated DVDs can be sold to children?

It would appear that such magazines are clearly geared towards older readers (advertising and DVDs suggest as such), but the retailers don't realise this. Personally, I believe that parents should take responsibility for what their children are exposed to (porn ads, violence, etc), but where is it stated on the bags that these magazines come in that the material is unsuitable for younger gamers?

Clearer messaging or warnings on the bags/covers would make it easier for parents and retailers alike to make informed decisions as to what to buy/sell/stock etc…

Just a thought…

 

[Pogman]

Maybe I'm a little behind the moral outrage curve here, but aren't ads like these printed in the back of almost every single national tabloid, lots of local papers and national freesheets like the Metro? Publications that can be bought, or picked up and read by children?

Sorry for stating the obvious, but these ads 'get away with it' by covering up the rude bits of the images concerned. Nothing is on display that you wouldn't see at a beach or a swimming pool, and the fact the word "Filth" is printed next to it does not change this fact - the only porn here is in the mind of the reader. Your children are not actually looking at porn, which is why there is no age check when buying the magazine.

There's a simple answer to this problem: take an interest what your children are reading (good work here, Mayhem) and stop them doing so if you think it's unsuitable. Let's face it, most thinking adults would see magazines with pictures of assassins ancient and modern, or a shot of Megan Fox with the words 'Jennifer's Body' underneath as not something for the pre-teens.

I'm not saying these images are suitable for young kids, but the publishers are aiming their ads at the core demographic of their readership, who are not eigh-year-old girls. Annoying every single newsagent on the high street with your moral outrage is not going to change this fact. Doing this is simply a poor substitute for expanding your knowledge of the media and taking responsibility for what your own kids read.

 

[lasher]

Good points and well made Pogman and Ratters.

Nice to see some constructive posts from new members.

 

[FarFarAway]

A lot of good points and I am glad that we've had enough of the idiots who post rubbish for no reason.

IMO if one person/parent/publisher/store reads this and realises that they should do something to protect their children/their readership (or whoever), then it's a worthwhile exercise.

 

[UncleJaysus]

Maybe I'm a little behind the moral outrage curve here, but aren't ads like these printed in the back of almost every single national tabloid, lots of local papers and national freesheets like the Metro? Publications that can be bought, or picked up and read by children?

Most magazines can be picked up by kids, but we're not really debating that - we're talking about videogames mags. Kids aren't really interested in the types of publications you describe.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but these ads 'get away with it' by covering up the rude bits of the images concerned. Nothing is on display that you wouldn't see at a beach or a swimming pool, and the fact the word "Filth" is printed next to it does not change this fact - the only porn here is in the mind of the reader. Your children are not actually looking at porn, which is why there is no age check when buying the magazine.

You're missing the point. Firstly, there's plenty in the ads you wouldn't see on the beach. Actually go and have a look, you'd be surprised. There's also more than the word "filth". Again, go and have a look. While kids are not looking at porn, they are being given inappropriate imagery and text, along with the phone numbers that will give them access to a lot more.

There's a simple answer to this problem: take an interest what your children are reading (good work here, Mayhem) and stop them doing so if you think it's unsuitable. Let's face it, most thinking adults would see magazines with pictures of assassins ancient and modern, or a shot of Megan Fox with the words 'Jennifer's Body' underneath as not something for the pre-teens.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here, but while parents should of course pay attention to what their kids are doing, it is easy to understand why some parents may not feel the need to inspect a magazine about videogames.

I'm not saying these images are suitable for young kids, but the publishers are aiming their ads at the core demographic of their readership, who are not eigh-year-old girls. Annoying every single newsagent on the high street with your moral outrage is not going to change this fact. Doing this is simply a poor substitute for expanding your knowledge of the media and taking responsibility for what your own kids read.

Publishers have to accept that with videogames magazines, readers tend to be of all ages, even if you're only trying to cater to over 18s. A bagged up copy of X360 with Halo on the cover doesn't look like something 'not for kids' in the same way Maxim does.

 

[lex-man]

I've just signed up to say that the article is rubbish. That woman's daughter would not have had a problem buying a copy of the Sun or FHM which have far more raunchy content. When I was in high school it was common for kids to bring in FHM and the Sun. Also the Metro which is given away free has a couple of pages of these types of ads in. If you have a problem with Children seeing this sort of stuff gaming magazines are the least of your problems.

We talking about a couple of small ad's in the back of a magazine. Not some kind of full page pornographic spread.

 

[FarFarAway]

I've just signed up to say that the article is rubbish. That woman's daughter would not have had a problem buying a copy of the Sun or FHM which have far more raunchy content. When I was in high school it was common for kids to bring in FHM and the Sun. Also the Metro which is given away free has a couple of pages of these types of ads in. If you have a problem with Children seeing this sort of stuff gaming magazines are the least of your problems.

We talking about a couple of small ad's in the back of a magazine. Not some kind of full page pornographic spread.

Actually I think the young lady should have a problem buying a copy of FHM or the Sun, which is the point of the article. Again, you've not read properley and missed the point.

Should the Metro have these kind of ads in it if it's freely available? Another point to debate but I would say no.

 

[UncleJaysus]

We talking about a couple of small ad's in the back of a magazine. Not some kind of full page pornographic spread.

Heh. Couple of small ads... if only you knew.

 

[Diablo]

It might only be small ads, but I think there were four or five pages containing only these adverts.

 

[lex-man]

It might only be small ads, but I think there were four or five pages containing only these adverts.

I read these magazines back 1998 when there were only a couple along with the PC kit ads and sweets competition stuff, it looks like there is far more now.

But I still don't think it's that much of a problem, when I read them I knew they were there but just skipped them for the rubbish they were, after all I bought the mags for games not porn.

This warping of children's mind's at such a early age is not something I wish to happen, so I have set myself the task of finding out why this is happening and what we as parents can do about it.

Stuff like this is rubbish that shouldn't be printed outside of the Daily Mail. I would like the writer to back this claim up with some evidence, of course he would need some to exist first.

What are the effect of a child mind being wapped anyway?

 

[Jeddy]

The issue here is not the porno ads being there, nor is it the "mind warping".

They are there, great and wonderful. However the issue is the lack of certification on the magazine. If there is to be no certification on the magazine (which reviews 16+ games etc- certification worthy in its own regard imo) then there should be none of these kind of advertisements. If the magazine carries a 18+ rating then they can have as many of them as they wish.

However the legal age for viewing pornography in this country is 18, the age of consent is 16. These magazines (and thus the pornography) can be viewed by a 2 year old or a 40 year old. The latter is acceptable but there needs to be a minimum age cap for viewing such magazines if they continue to advertise this.

Call me a totalatist. I am pure right-libertarian however I draw the line at this "loopholeing" of the law. The law is there to protect children from indecent images such as these. If they wish to find them they will however they should not be "served" on a plate to these children.

I agree the claims of "mind warping" are a bit extreme but I certainly can say that there is plenty of evidence of it having an effect on a grown child's perceptions of the world and what is normal. I'm willing to bet alot of domestic abusers are high viewers of pornography. Same with child abusers (such as Baby Peter's father and mother).

The issue is not it being there. The issue is what is missing from the magazine, i.e an age rating.

 

[FarFarAway]

The issue is not it being there. The issue is what is missing from the magazine, i.e an age rating.

yep

 

[Hassan]

tut tut tut *in disgust*

 

[lex-man]

The issue here is not the porno ads being there, nor is it the "mind warping".

They are there, great and wonderful. However the issue is the lack of certification on the magazine. If there is to be no certification on the magazine (which reviews 16+ games etc- certification worthy in its own regard imo) then there should be none of these kind of advertisements. If the magazine carries a 18+ rating then they can have as many of them as they wish.

However the legal age for viewing pornography in this country is 18, the age of consent is 16. These magazines (and thus the pornography) can be viewed by a 2 year old or a 40 year old. The latter is acceptable but there needs to be a minimum age cap for viewing such magazines if they continue to advertise this.

Call me a totalatist. I am pure right-libertarian however I draw the line at this "loopholeing" of the law. The law is there to protect children from indecent images such as these. If they wish to find them they will however they should not be "served" on a plate to these children.

I agree the claims of "mind warping" are a bit extreme but I certainly can say that there is plenty of evidence of it having an effect on a grown child's perceptions of the world and what is normal. I'm willing to bet alot of domestic abusers are high viewers of pornography. Same with child abusers (such as Baby Peter's father and mother).

The issue is not it being there. The issue is what is missing from the magazine, i.e an age rating.

I'm guessing you would say that any magazine that showed these phone line ads should have an age rating, i.e FHM, the Sun. Although I would love to see news corps defence if such a law was ever considered.

I have a problem with your domestic abusers comment, I'm sure domestic abusers do look at pornography but I very much doubt that they are domestic abusers because they look at porn. I'm sure that there are a number of people who look at porn and make perfectly good boyfriends/ girlfriends.