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

[w3bbo]

Age rating is key although most likely ignored by the masses.

I just skimmed over the 10 pages in this thread and feel a lot of it is a bit hypocritical. Are we saying it's ok for kids to play violent games, or at least read about them but perish the thought they may catch sight of a half naked lady on the back pages. Was I the only 10 year old who perused the lingerie section in the Gratton catalogue? No harm done imo. Sex education is being taught to kids below 10 year old now so I think it's safe to assume they know more than you give them credit for.

However, whether that is morally correct is a totally different matter.

 

[lasher]

Age rating is key although most likely ignored by the masses.

I just skimmed over the 10 pages in this thread and feel a lot of it is a bit hypocritical. Are we saying it's ok for kids to play violent games, or at least read about them but perish the thought they may catch sight of a half naked lady on the back pages. Was I the only 10 year old who perused the lingerie section in the Gratton catalogue? No harm done imo. Sex education is being taught to kids below 10 year old now so I think it's safe to assume they know more than you give them credit for.

However, whether that is morally correct is a totally different matter.

Aye look out kids! You could end up being a hardware reviewer EEk!

 

[Bungral]

Eurrrggghhh so much reading to catch up on...

I tend to agree with both sides of the argument.. An age rating would be nice but it's just not feasible to do it across all magazines and papers.

I know this article wasn't about all the others, but then if 1 mag is made to do it then their argument will be 'why hasn't ----- gotta do it?'.

 

[w3bbo]

Aye look out kids! You could end up being a hardware reviewer EEk!

Ok, fair one. Maybe not the best example to back up a point of view!

 

[mayhem]

The law is this country is obscure to say the least when it comes to advertising in media. There should be a more stringent law to stop pornographic phone lines, mobile content and sex talk lines being advertised to younger children. Publishers and there agency are allowing Pornographic adverts to be advertised to anyone under the age of 15. There needs to be certification on magazines reference this content whether it be as adverts or material within the magazines. So us as parents can make a more informed decision on whether magazine content is suitable for our children. The publishers are floughting the current law and we need to stop this happening. Seller’s who carry these magazines say they do not want to censor literature yet there own staff do not like their content. Publishers say they are not breaking the law yet there own editors and staff writers despise the adverts. Parents do not know they children are reading magazines that contain direct adverts to pornographic material.

I am going to create a online petition to be put forward to the prime minister to tackle the law in its present form. To start having age marker's on magazines to make it more clear of the content and force publishers to do the right thing. I do not wish to sensor magazines or literature but i do wish them to target there audience more carefully and take responsibility for there actions.

We will how eve need a minimum of 500 signatures for this to be put forward to the prime minister.

What are your thoughts.

To add i got a letter back from the ASA about the complaint i put forward and to say the least they don't care. So it now time to take it even further.

Publishers don't care

Sellers don't care

Government don't care

So time to make them care.

 

[Mr_Jingles]

The publishers are floughting the current law

No, they're not. There is absolutely NO pornographic or adult content in these ads, certainly not in anything you've shown us. There are pictures of women in bikinis - which you could see in any publication in the country including the Women's Institute Gazette - and some vague, ambiguous phrases that young children wouldn't understand anyway. If your 8-year-old daughter understands the sexual connotation of "30-second relief" or whatever, then frankly you've dropped the parenting ball big time, and it's no use pointing the finger at someone else for your own failures.

Since the ads do not contain ANY adult content, they are not subject to any law on age certification, and are therefore not flouting anything. That's why you're wasting your time and everyone else's on this ridiculous Mary Whitehouse crusade. As a gamer I don't like the ads - they're embarrassing - but you're peddling hysterical lies by calling the ads pornographic, and any newspaper editor who's got nothing better to put on his pages than your shock-horror prudery needs sacking.

 

[Mr_Jingles]

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.

I wouldn't call you a totalatist, whatever one of those is. (Do you perhaps mean "totalitarian"?) I'd call you an idiot, because you clearly have no understanding of what an "indecent image" is, either legally or in common-sense terms. Absolutely NONE of the images or language in these magazines is legally indecent, which is why they quite correctly do not carry age certifications. The women pictured would be perfectly legally able to walk down the street wearing their bikinis or miniskirts, visible to all including - EEEEEEKKK!!!! - children.

Out of interest, what would you do with The Sun, which shows naked breasts and nipples in full-page pictures? If you're putting a 15 certificate on inch-high pictures of women in bikinis, then The Sun would have to be an 18 - since exposed breasts and nipples is clearly a step up from bikinis - and kept on the top shelf for adults only. Is that what you propose?

 

[Jeddy]

The issue is that the ad's are advertising pornographic material. You cannot deny that.

The definition of pornography is (try googling "DEFINE pornography):

"creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire "

Thus you sir are the idiot. These advertisements are pornography. There does not need to be any "parts" on show. The fact that these advertisements are advertising things that would carry an age rating and are simply using a loophole in the law to advertise them to younger people is unacceptable. So before you start calling people "idiots" perhaps you should do the 0.24 seconds of research called googling the definition of pornography.

I would say that the sun etc deserve a certificate, yes. As for "adult" content not being present, indeed there is none. However these are offering adult content with no way of ratifying the age of the viewer. This is providing easy and anonymous access to this content. Now People can view pornography on the internet at any age, however parents can easily control that with net-nanny or similar if they are concerned. However these magazines are being read by 8+ year olds who have not got an entirely balanced view of the world yet, they see these images and they are sure to have an effect on said persons perception of women during later life.

I am totally against "Ban-It Planet" that we live on, however I 100% agree that there needs to be clearer restrictions and guidelines on this type of advertising, as in a "children's" magazine (as in, can be purchased by ANYONE) this kind of content is unacceptable. Now some will say that the free Newspapers have such adverts, i'm sure they do, however they are aimed at a more mature audience. How many 8 year olds read the paper?

However you see it the fact is that these advertisements are completely unacceptable in a magazine which is aimed at young teens.

 

[Youngie1337]

I wouldn't call you a totalatist, whatever one of those is. (Do you perhaps mean "totalitarian"?) I'd call you an idiot, because you clearly have no understanding of what an "indecent image" is, either legally or in common-sense terms. Absolutely NONE of the images or language in these magazines is legally indecent, which is why they quite correctly do not carry age certifications. The women pictured would be perfectly legally able to walk down the street wearing their bikinis or miniskirts, visible to all including - EEEEEEKKK!!!! - children.

Out of interest, what would you do with The Sun, which shows naked breasts and nipples in full-page pictures? If you're putting a 15 certificate on inch-high pictures of women in bikinis, then The Sun would have to be an 18 - since exposed breasts and nipples is clearly a step up from bikinis - and kept on the top shelf for adults only. Is that what you propose?

The 12 certificate in the UK can show full top male and female nudity. I totally agree with the non-pornographic but the guy is just concerned, like I said you see more walking through town. Over protection of a woman's body will only make him want to see it more.

 

[Mr_Jingles]

These advertisements are pornography.

No, they're not. They're advertisements FOR pornography. It's not the same thing, unless you're really stupid. If the ads had no pictures at all, just the words "Adult magazines and video for sale", they'd still be ads FOR pornography, but I don't think there's anyone - even on this thread - dumb enough to claim they would BE pornography.

However you see it the fact is that these advertisements are completely unacceptable in a magazine which is aimed at young teens.

Two points:

1. These magazines are quite clearly NOT "aimed" at young teens. It may be the fact that a small percentage of their audience is young teens (how many young teens can afford magazines costing £5 and £6 a time?), but they're certainly not who the magazine is AIMED at, as is obvious from the most cursory glance. And hang on - young teens? I thought we were talking about 8-year-olds? Most "young teens" have seen vast amounts of pornography a million times worse than these ads. I certainly had when I was a young teen, and there wasn't even the internet in those days.

2. You can say "however you see it, X is true" as much as you want, but in fact a great many people do NOT see it like that and do NOT find it unacceptable, which is why there aren't mobs in the streets of Bournemouth burning down Imagine's offices.

You're the minority here. That doesn't automatically make you wrong, but in this case you ARE wrong as well. Not in my opinion, but in the absolutely clear view of the law, which does not hold any of the content of these ads to be pornographic, which is why Imagine is allowed to run them in magazines without certification. I mean, duh. Magazine publishers ARE aware of the obscenity laws, you know.

 

[mayhem]

1. These magazines are quite clearly NOT "aimed" at young teens. It may be the fact that a small percentage of their audience is young teens (how many young teens can afford magazines costing £5 and £6 a time?), but they're certainly not who the magazine is AIMED at, as is obvious from the most cursory glance. And hang on - young teens?

30% of there audience is under 15. so your incorrect. please read

posts ..

You're the minority here. That doesn't automatically make you wrong, but in this case you ARE wrong as well.

Little do you know.

ive stopped reading lol. ive heard it all before but put in much better wording.

 

[Mr_Jingles]

30% of there audience is under 15. so your incorrect. please read

posts ..

Your evidence for that claim is laughable - a vague third-hand anecdote originating from management fobbing off an employee. I've worked in the videogames magazine business for 19 years and the actual figure is more like 5%.

And once again, "under 15"? Where did under-15s suddenly come from in this argument? There's a big, big difference between a 14-year-old and an 8-year-old. For one thing, a 14-year-old can legally see naked breasts 10 feet high at the cinema in a 12-certificate movie, never mind covered-up ones in a tiny advert.

 

[mayhem]

please go to there web site and look up there demographic and please look at there sales reports witch to be honest aint that good. and employee's arnt good sources of info .....

Oky you handed you self the gun now please go next door and shoot your self in the foot.

How ever there have been some "Good" to "Excellent" points raised by other new members of the forum.

 

[Jeddy]

I would ask mr jingles to actually provide evidence to back up his points. I certainly have. I have got the definition of pornography, which clearly covers these advertisements, whereas Mr Jingles is very confidently sweeping aside comments with "assumptions" such as "which teenagers can afford £5 or £6 magazines"- most teenagers actually. I dont know how old you are but teenagers these days are pretty damn well off. Simply stating that you "worked in the buisness" is all very well but you cannot just use that to justify sweeping statements.

As mayhem has said, 30% of the audience is under 15, or "young teens", and I'm sure if you added the 16-18 age bracket (also underage to view pornography) then you would end up with around 50% of the market share. So these magazines are OBVIOUSLY aimed at this age group. Not aiming them at this market would be like tesco's banning single parents shopping.

Great pic mayhem, saved for later use

 

[Youngie1337]

Many good valid points here, but like the guy said Mayhem there is actually no pornographic content, you see more in TV adverts. Parents don't realise what they're doing, you're making them (forcing) not want to pay attention to this. Why not give him a porno mag or video and say here son enjoy. He isn't going to change and his opinion on women isn't going to change. Since my parents were like you, it made me want to find out, and as soon as I got the internet I did so.

I also got tapes from friends, in fact at 12 we had our own porno tape business where we had 2 VCR's hooked up and knocking out the tapes every 2 hours for £2.50, we made a fortune . Now I can officially say, porn helps educate.

These mags are only aiming the adverts at adults, just because they're there doesn't mean they have to look and pay attention to them. If your son and daughter really don't want to see it then they won't look.

 

[generic]

Just a general comment on this whole thing:

Should games magazines have age ratings? Maybe, but not for the "pornography". All the magazine covers Mayhem posted showed games that are 15 or 18 rated (AC2, Splinter Cell, Batman, Max Payne). I think that fact has only been brought up once in this thread.

Also, Mayhem states that his son went to play the demo disc straight away. What was the age rating on the demo disc? Did it have videos on it? If it did, what were the age ratings of said videos? Left 4 Dead 2? Modern Warfare 2? It's incredibly hypocritical to say "BAN THIS SICK FLITH TARGETING OUR KIDS" when there's some sex line adverts in the back of a magazine, yet there's been no mention of letting kids have unrestricted access to violent video content, and presumably violent graphical content in the magazine itself.

To say games magazines are marketed at younger (under 15) readers isn't strictly true. Yes, people under 15 buy games magazines, but people under 15 also buy the Sun and look at porn on the internet, and so on. The primary market of the Sun, porn and games magazines is over 18 - the average age of gamers is 35 (google it), you can't exclude content just because it might be unsuitable for a segment of your readers - if that was the case, there wouldn't be any coverage of 15+ games in any magazines (apart from Edge and GamesTM, which I doubt are bought by youngin's).

This whole furore strikes me as standard for the "BAN THIS SICK FLITH" crowd. Sure you can show an assassin running through Venice, stabbing and murdering people, but jesus don't show any bare breasts while you do it.

Just as a comment on how thought out a lot of this thread is (I'm not picking on Jeddy specifically, everybody's just making up statistics):

I would ask mr jingles to actually provide evidence to back up his points. I certainly have.

And then, a second later.

As mayhem has said, 30% of the audience is under 15, or "young teens", and I'm sure if you added the 16-18 age bracket (also underage to view pornography) then you would end up with around 50% of the market share.

 

[Youngie1337]

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.

In my opinion you parents are just ridiculous, I am an understanding guy but WTF, come on. You're saying now that everything should be banned or age labeled rofl... Let's not make films like Harry Potter, they sure do make him look naked in some scenes, oh no you can't watch that son.

You're ruining their childhood and will make them into sexual predators trying to force them not to look. One day you will get a shock when you find scat porn under their bed with 10 videos of zoophile.

You grew up, remember what it was like, you need to let people LIVE do not run their lives, you will have them leaving before they're 15.

 

[mayhem]

generic - yes age rating should be on mag's as well for violence but that's another issue that would need to be addressed separately.

But taking that fight on is bewildering in my own eyes.

 

[generic]

generic - yes age rating should be on mag's as well for violence but that's another issue that would need to be addressed separately.

But taking that fight on is bewildering in my own eyes.

Why is it more important to protect kids against sex than it is against violence? I know in my youth I was infinitely more disturbed by a graphical walkthrough of the intro sequence for Resident Evil (1, on PS1) than I was by adverts for Lula: The Sexy Empire.

Also, did you check the age ratings of the demo disc before your son viewed it?

Finally, what age is your son? You don't mention it in your original story (and I don't recall you mentioning it in any posts).

 

[mayhem]

my son is 12.