Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nuts magazine is a victim of our porn-saturated culture ( NSFW)
Apparently a 'lad" magazine in England is going under because showing breasts just isn't enough anymore.
On receiving the news of the demise of something, or someone, you dislike, it is important, I have learned, to retain one's composure. You may not miss the fine programming on BBC3, or the News of the World, but others will, especially those whose jobs are involved. I once made the stupid mistake of tackily expressing joy at the fact that ladette bible More! magazine was to be, ironically, no more, without accounting for the fact that the journalists there had just lost their jobs. Which is why you will get no victory dance from me at the news that Nuts magazine, purveyor of topless girls, is now facing closure. I'm sympathetic that the employees of Nuts (which, let's not forget, includes the models too) will now be worrying about their rent or mortgages in light of the recent announcement. And it does not make sense for the feminists amongst us to rejoice in Nuts' closure.
As I wrote last year, the magazine's dwindling circulation has nothing to do with the Co-op modesty bags it has been (mud)wrestling with for nearly a year now, and everything to do with the fact that Nuts, sadly, only has tits, and sometimes only partially visible ones, while internet porn generator Red Tube has "big tits fuck a horny dick" and "hairy French brunette double anal plugged". Hardly a victory really, is it ladies?
At a debate about Page 3 last month at the Southbank Centre, even Katie Price (formerly Jordan) admitted that she wasn't sure what function glamour modelling served in this porn-saturated modern climate of ours. She had risen to fame before the advent of the internet, and things were different now. I like Katie Price and always have done, for a variety of reasons, some personal (she fiercely defends her autistic son and I have an autistic brother), some professional (she is a formidable businesswoman). At the debate, she admitted she was nervous, saying (ironically, I thought) that there was rarely much call for her to engage in public speaking. I felt mild concern that vocally middle-class liberals in the audience might be cruel or rude to her, and it's a tribute to fourth wave feminism that none of them were. Instead, they listened to Price's testimony of how glamour modelling gave her what, for a girl of her background, amounted to rare success.
There are many rules of journalism, but my personal one is "don't slag off the people you went to school with in print". Don't mock the teenage pregnancies, or call the working class lads who grew up with gym addictions "douchebags", as one Vice writer did recently. It's not just because you might want to return to your home town one day and have a pint without the risk of serious injury, but because it makes you look unpleasant, and most of us are better than that. There were girls in my class who expressed a desire to become footballers' wives, and glamour models. The reasons for this are tied up in questions of class and capitalism and yes, patriarchy, and I will not condemn them for it, in the same way that the audience at that debate refused to condemn Katie Price.
As I wrote last year, the magazine's dwindling circulation has nothing to do with the Co-op modesty bags it has been (mud)wrestling with for nearly a year now, and everything to do with the fact that Nuts, sadly, only has tits, and sometimes only partially visible ones, while internet porn generator Red Tube has "big tits fuck a horny dick" and "hairy French brunette double anal plugged". Hardly a victory really, is it ladies?
At a debate about Page 3 last month at the Southbank Centre, even Katie Price (formerly Jordan) admitted that she wasn't sure what function glamour modelling served in this porn-saturated modern climate of ours. She had risen to fame before the advent of the internet, and things were different now. I like Katie Price and always have done, for a variety of reasons, some personal (she fiercely defends her autistic son and I have an autistic brother), some professional (she is a formidable businesswoman). At the debate, she admitted she was nervous, saying (ironically, I thought) that there was rarely much call for her to engage in public speaking. I felt mild concern that vocally middle-class liberals in the audience might be cruel or rude to her, and it's a tribute to fourth wave feminism that none of them were. Instead, they listened to Price's testimony of how glamour modelling gave her what, for a girl of her background, amounted to rare success.
There are many rules of journalism, but my personal one is "don't slag off the people you went to school with in print". Don't mock the teenage pregnancies, or call the working class lads who grew up with gym addictions "douchebags", as one Vice writer did recently. It's not just because you might want to return to your home town one day and have a pint without the risk of serious injury, but because it makes you look unpleasant, and most of us are better than that. There were girls in my class who expressed a desire to become footballers' wives, and glamour models. The reasons for this are tied up in questions of class and capitalism and yes, patriarchy, and I will not condemn them for it, in the same way that the audience at that debate refused to condemn Katie Price.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/01/nuts-magazine-victim-porn-culture
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
