I think it's just socialism John. This is what it looks like from within. It's always some "moral" cause.
In the case of the magazine I suspect it's to do with someone feeling challenged by the girls in the pictures. Jealous perhaps. She really want's the boys to look at her in that way. So in keeping with the "whatever it takes" mindset instilled by the progressivist indoctrination centres that once were schools the obvious answer is to feign distress and outrage. And naturally out of fear of pack attack from the grand moral army the store acquiesces.
Worst part is the sordid victory feeds the socialist beast.

It's childlike thought really. "Please daddy make the nasty go away".
Of course it carries into other aspects of life. It becomes your objection to your neighbor planting a tall tree that might block your view or even removing a tree you liked so he can put up a shed. Then it's please daddy make him stop I want his place that way I like it to be.
When it gets to that stage, and it well and truly is, then everyone's everything is subject to everyone elses whim. Socialism.
Indeed Coles supermarkets are private properties and the Zoo magazines are too.

Little wonder so many now only invest in shares. Whith the socialist nanny state so unrestrained it's just to risky to invest in our ideas and dreams by building a family business. Nanny will want to walk in and start taking over, at our cost.

This subject you're touching on John goes to the core problems we're having that're destroying our economy. The question is how to get childlike minds to understand their attempts to do good are actually doing great harm. Saying it's socialism doesn't seem to register.

I don't have a problem with full frontal nudity, replete with a luxurious beaver, always providing the model is of an age where informed consent is possible, and given!

That the publication is covered in a plain wrapper, and that there are age restrictions relating to its purchase.

Even so, I mean how many times have you walked into the local newsagent and seen immature (giggling gerties) kids treating the place as some sort of public library!?

Besides, I'm sure these things could be viewed and bought online as E books, which as with all such publication, can't be policed by the thought police?

I believe we can be a little too precious about public nudity/immodesty, which in some cultures even something as innocuous/inoffensive as a bared ankle is taken as implied permission, (she was asking for it) to rape?

However in Polynesia, where the body has never been seen as a symbol of shame, the baring of flesh is not so extraordinary; nor is Ho Hum, naked dating!

We enter this world wearing nothing and nothing is all we can't take from it when we leave it
Rhrosty.

Secularism/feminism wants to promote women as sex objects and then compalin when viewed that way. With no moral compass it is full of inconsistencies. Strangley enough the national broadcasters luv to sprout free speach but then manifest like devils when any counter view to their hardline feminist/homosexual doctrines are sprouted.

So John Slater blames the "nanny state" for the decisions of a corporation, and jamo thinks it's socialism despite it having nothing whatsoever to do with the redistribution of wealth (and nor the nationalisation of anything).

Why, when the facts contradict their prejudices, do so many people still choose to go with the latter?

"Lingerie Model" is just as valid a career choice as "Checkout Chick" or "Feminist Blogger' and given the discrimination faced by stereotypically attractive, body positive women in a job market controlled by ugly, body negative Feminists we can't begrudge these women an income. Many people make a living using their physical attributes and posing in your undies strikes me as considerably less demeaning than a tradie jumping into a trench half filled with sewerage to do his work.
Physically attractive or athletically gifted women realistically only really have the time between their mid teens and their mid thirties to make the bulk of their life's income and there's considerable crossover between the two income streams as the women who are blessed with both qualities often do glamour photography as well as other endorsements.

It is the very act of covering, that makes tits titivating.

When I spent some years working around plantations & villages in the islands, I was completely immune to brown boobs. I truly just did not see them. Sometimes young ladies who had been off to school, or worked in larger towns would be embarrassed by a white stranger, & cover their top.

This usually only lasted a few days, then you were subsequently ignored, & normality returned. I don't know if the same happened with local strangers.

I was a little surprised by my reaction, when I spent some time at a plantation, where the owners Australian wife had adopted going topless like the villagers. It was quite amusing to see my own reaction to a couple of white, [well quite tanned actually], boobs among a sea of invisible brown boobs. Even more amusing was my reaction to sitting across a dinner table from a pair of white boobs, where I did notice the brown. I just didn't know where to look, particularly when I detected in the ladies eyes, that she was laughing at my predicament.

I did have a suspicion that this lady rather enjoyed the confusion she caused to white male visitors, & toyed with us where she could.

With these things we are controlled by our conditioning, & expectations. I wonder if such magazines have much market in nudist colonies?

If the aim of such activism is to stem the tide of sexual or domestic violence in the community where are the activists demanding that all the magazines promoting domestic relationships be also banned? This is where the majority of such violence tales place but no one is willing to promote a culture where domestic relationships are shown for what we are told they really are by these same activists.

These same do-gooders tell us that one in three women will be victims of domestic violence. We are also told this includes sexual violence. If domestic situations put a woman in danger of being sexually assaulted then why are these ‘crusaders’ not doing something about the constant glamorising of domestic relationships? Girls and young women are force fed such values from a very young age. Their wedding day is the greatest day of their life, ‘true love’ is the most important thing to have, romance is the best of feelings. All this propaganda goes on to the point of saturation and no one does anything to educate young women about the realities.

Why are they not using their moral outrage to demand the removal of magazines which promote romance as a basis for a relationship? Could it be that they drug themselves with these delusions and do not want anyone to take away their ‘opium’?

They are very selective in their targets. They obviously do not have the well-being of young women at heart or they would be doing everything in their power to protect them from the possibility of being victims in their own homes.

Nothing is more important than your own safety – not even the most blissful of domestic relationships. The values these outraged activists show are mostly self-serving. To promote the fairytale at the expense of being sexually abused can only come from someone truly devoid of care and compassion.

I did some modeling back in about 1996, granted I was modeling suits and casual wear, not underwear but it's a tedious occupation, hours of sitting about doing not much and the money wasn't fantastic, I did get to keep some of the clothes though which was a bonus.

Phanto,
The ready availability of pornography has been credited in some studies with the reduction in sex crimes over the last 25 years, it's important to understand that misogynists are almost all pathological narcissists and narcissists will almost always prefer autoerotic stimulation over interaction with women.

In my days among the hippies on the NSW north coast nudity became natural on the beach and most women went topless most of the time, but not usually at night when the mossies came out.

The first couple of days I did a bit of 'togling' [breast ogling] but it all became common place and I once found myself strolling along the beach with a very attractive young lady, both of us starkers, discussing philosophy and ancient history.

I might add that the attitudes of the children were healthy and they seemed not to notice although I did hear two boys of seven or eight, discussing the impressive lengths of a couple of very good surf boarders (one of whom later became a prominent member of the NSW Parliament).

Oh, here we go (again ... still).

It's all about women exercising their right to make their own 'democratic' sexual choices - wahoo! You go, grrrl!

And it's all about freedom of something or other ... whatever. Democracy is all about women getting their gear off and posing with all kinds of sexually provocative calysthenics to give men an opportunity to ... well ... ahem ... do things with those ever so democratic images in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Don't, whatever you do, question the underlying gender politics - that's just for ugly, hairy feminists who can't get a man. The dubious premise that these magazines are ever so innocently meeting an ever so natural demand for men to view women's bodies as objects for their own entertainment is what it's all about.

'Posing in revealing attire for movies, TV and print has been more or less the norm for both sexes for decades.'

Rubbish! About 99% of that 'posing in revealing attire' is done by females in front of male photographers, hired by male editors whose job is to create a product for sale to men, which is designed to promote men's belief in their god-given right to view women's bodies as something they can use for their own benefit.

Boys will be boys; men will be men; and 'wise' women know that pleasing men by making their bodies commercially or otherwise viable is what women were put on this earth to do.

This rhetoric has been done to death. Get over it, boys. Fewer and fewer women are listening to it anymore. Women are getting sick and tired of all this. They are organising and mobilising to change an entrenched status quo that dictates this very nasty, male dominating version of human sexuality.

How it will end ... the jury is still out. The male establishment will continue to put up one hell of a fight. But don't kid yourselves that it has anything to do with democratic choice.

I think Id make an interesting PM.
I'd call all the press and make an official announcement.
"It's come to our attention that the display and sale of magazines such as Zoo promotes a rape culture. We've discussed this issue long and hard in the policy room, and we've decided that the only way to stamp out this form of disgraceful discrimination against women is to decree that by law all women must completely cover themselves with 'hijab' like articles of clothing at all times".

Then I would sit back and watch Australian women go absolutely nuts amongst themselves to point out how stupid it all is.

Feminism is hypocritical as previously pointed out..
They want the freedom to look young and sexy but then chastise us if we look at them as sex objects.

We can fix this problem and plenty more of these other 'Issues for Idiots' with a new campaign called 'Ban Stupid'
- With website, hashtag and social media campaign.
Anywhere we see 'Stupid' we should just call it out and expose it...

But what this is really about is catering for peoples insecurities.
Should we cater for everyone's insecurities like a collective bunch of emotionally unstable people who all lend our shoulders for everyone else to cry on or have the "Eat Some Concrete and Harden Up" attitude?

Is their a balance or are we supposed to be different in different situations?

And how does a person not be insensitive and have understanding and compassion for someone else experiencing some emotional hardship if they've never been in that situation before?

And even if they did why should they be forced to change the way they choose to live to accommodate someone else's dislikes or insecurities?

Coles is just as hypocritical selling Cosmo which "discriminates" against men in exactly the same way Zoo does against women.
https://www.facebook.com/CullCosmoAtColes
But I doubt many blokes would support this campaign, mostly because its not 'manly' to do so.

It is typical of today's feminist though to whinge and whine about any issue that might hurt their feelings.

BAN STUPID

Women’s’ bodies are objects – everything that is discernible by the senses is an object. You cannot control how people perceive objects but you can take those objects out of view so they are not discernible.

The objects in question are not women’s’ bodies but pictures of women’s’ bodies. You cannot do any harm to a picture. The claim is that these magazines lead to men ‘entertaining’ themselves. Where is the harm in all of that? What is the harm in being aroused by the sight of what nature intended men to by aroused by in the first place? What is the harm of ‘entertaining’ oneself when nature has given us all that capacity? The homosexual culture now creates pornography which many women are taking advantage of. If there was an ‘establishment’ bold enough to produce images of scantily clad men for the enjoyment of women they might do very well.

There is no one bold enough to admit that women also enjoy looking at the bodies of men and being aroused by them but this is changing for a few reasons. Young women are becoming more accepting of their own sexual feelings and feel freer than previous generations to act upon those feelings. ZOO magazine is an anachronism in modern media and will eventually die out. Most people who want images obtain them online in the privacy of their own homes. They do not have to suffer the awkwardness of admitting to the check-out attendant at Coles or the newsagent that they have perfectly natural desires.

This awkwardness affects women so much more than men and so men are an easy target for blame. Women would be equally to ‘blame’ if they were not so repressive of their own feelings. They would establish their own publishers and produce magazines or ezines which cater to the very same instincts that men have.

This inequality becomes just another peg to hang the feminist hat on and another example of the evil empire controlled by men.

The idea that you can ban men from ogling at women is the equivalent of trying to ban womens' periods

phanto

'Women would be equally to ‘blame’ if they were not so repressive of their own feelings. They would establish their own publishers and produce magazines or ezines which cater to the very same instincts that men have.'

Therein lies the problem. The social mechanisms for women to do this are simply not there. This is because of what those pesky feminists keep referring to as 'the patriarchy'. Under a patriarchy, men ogling at pictures of scantily clad, sexually provocative women is an important function of keeping men in control of what it means to be a woman in this society.

Rather than assuming that women should go down the same sleazy path in order to achieve some dubious equality with men, perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy.

Many people of both genders neither need nor want to exploit other human beings in this way. These are the people who are fighting this exploitation, because they know that they are fighting an industry that is corrupting and perverting the natural human need for connection and intimacy

Killarney:

You seem to be saying that it is not an experience for either sex to enjoy and the only reason for producing such magazines is to exploit women. Men do not buy those magazines to exploit women they buy them to enjoy their content. Some men sit on a park bench and watch the women walk by simply because they enjoy the beauty of women in the same way they enjoy the flowers or the sunset. Enjoying what nature has created is not exploitation of any kind but simply enjoying life.

They are not trying to tell the women who walk by what their status in society should be – that is totally up to women to define for themselves. Just because magazines exist where the women have fewer clothes than on the street does not make their viewing any more exploitative – they are simply enjoying another aspect of women’s beauty. Publishers cater to this desire for men to appreciate and enjoy the beauty of women. That is not exploitative either but just common business sense.

Nobody ‘needs’ this experience anymore than they need to see the sunset but that does not mean it cannot be enjoyed when it happens. If there were no such magazines then there are plenty of other great things to enjoy. Even if there were no women there are still millions of other natural beauties to enjoy.

It has nothing to do with intimacy and connection. A man who is not in harmony with his own human nature and feelings is a poor candidate for intimacy and a woman who thinks such enjoyment is only available to men and not women would also be such a poor candidate.

Hey John,

How about you come and spend a week, even a day, working in a domestic violence refuge or a rape crisis centre and then come back and re-tell us so confidently about your loathing for "confected, professional" outrage?

Geoff

This discussion seems go be based on the assumption that the alleged problem with Zoo Magazine is because of the pictures in it. Has anyone considered the possiility that it's actualy the articles in it that people object to?

Killarney "perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy."

Outline a practical solution to your problem.

//Has anyone considered the possiility that it's actualy the articles in it that people object to?//

Since when has Zoo had articles? A paragraph describing Saucy Suzie's turn-ons, turn-offs and favoured positions doth not an article make.

//Killarney "perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy."

Outline a practical solution to your problem.//

Now this I would like to see :)

Please show all working for the hard-of-thinking.

Tony Lavis

//'Killarney "perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy."

Outline a practical solution to your problem.//

The practical solution is already in force. Organisations such as Collective Shout are proactively opposing this with organised intent, and what’s more, achieving success. That’s why articles such as this are being written – to ensure that the consumers of this dubious trade are reminded that their exploitation of the female sexualised form is a normal, natural expression of human sexuality and an appreciation of all that is beautiful in women. They do so by invoking the Western reverence for freedom of speech.

Fewer and fewer people are buying into this. They know that there is something intrinsically wrong with this logic.

If people of either sex are not aroused by images of scantily clad people of the opposite sex then there is something wrong. They are in denial or have repressed all sensitivity to their sexual feelings because it is too painful an area to acknowledge.

In order to help them keep their sexual feelings repressed they have to co-opt society and they do so under cover of claims of ‘exploitation’. Who wouldn’t want to help people who are being exploited? So others hop on the band wagon and cry “how awful” and then we have a ‘movement’ who seem to have the best interests of women at heart.

Stop exploiting women really means take these images away from me because they remind me of a part of my humanity that I do not want to be reminded of. They have become the new puritans of our day. Words like sleazy, perverted and ogling show their real attitudes to sexual feelings. It is the same language used by religions who want do deny the reality of sexual feelings.

It is ironic that the good liberties won by feminism have allowed women the freedom to take off their clothes and be photographed if that is what they want. All they are doing is acknowledging that men have sexual feelings and if they can make money from that well then it’s is a good business transaction. Now some men have cottoned on to this business and it can be quite lucrative because more and more women are acknowledging their own sexual feelings.

This is not what many feminists fought for. They did not expect freedom to go this far and now they are trying to reign in some of these women because they are reminding them of parts of their humanity that they do not want to be reminded of.

//The practical solution is already in force. Organisations such as Collective Shout are proactively opposing this with organised intent, and what’s more, achieving success.//

Cool story, Killa.

Getting one magazine banned from sale in some places is a qualified success at best. It's not going to stop the fans buying their favourite magazine - my favourite magazine (the Phantom) is only stocked by some newsagents: I still manage to get my hands on a copy.

And it's definitely not going to stop heterosexual males and lesbians from enjoying pictures of good-looking girls in minimal attire, for the same reason that 'gay conversion therapy' doesn't work. You can't harangue the heterosexuality away any more than you can pray the gay away.

I had a look at some of covers of the romance novels in my local library this afternoon. There seemed to be a common theme - good-looking men in minimal attire. I was shocked and disturbed to discover that exploitation of the male sexualised form is considered a normal, natural expression of literary appreciation by the matriarchy. Do you think Collective Shout would get behind a campaign to have the covers of romance novels banned? Or at least to have them printed in plain format like Penguin Paperbacks, with no offensive sexual imagery?

And I'm a bit concerned about the wallpaper on my desktop, and my wall calendar. I really like dogs, so I have a cute puppy wall calendar and a picture of a really adorable Boxer puppy as my wallpaper. They aren't sexually exciting but they give me a lot of pleasure to look at. And now you've got me all worried that looking at nice pictures exploits the subjects of those pictures. I'd hate to exploit puppies. Oh sh!t, what about nature documentaries!? All these years I've been enjoying the beautiful footage, and not once did I stop to think that I was complicit in Sir David Attenborough's horrific exploitation of wildlife.

phanto

What you're doing is confusing sexualisation with sexuality. The former is about power, exploitation and dominance - not sex. If you're going to criticise feminism within this context, then make an effort to learn what feminists mean when they refer to sexualisation.

Tony Lavis

If you take another look at those 'good-looking men in minimal attire' on romance novel covers, you'll find that, virtually without exception, those men are in a dominant position and exercising full control over the minimally attired woman. The man is intently focused, whereas the woman is in a state of helpless ecstasy. The men also have abnormally massive physiques, which heightens the sense of male power and dominance, whereas the women are usually of normal build (albeit suitably curvy).

Killarney:

"make an effort to learn what feminists mean when they refer to sexualisation."

Yesum.

phanto

'Yesum.'

Are you being ironic? Or have you automatically defaulted to inverse dominator/dominated sarcasm in order to put me in my place?

If so, then you have accidentally proved the very point I've been making my previous comments.

Killarney:

I was simply reflecting back your patronising behaviour.

What are more interesting points is how feminists came to believe that ogling equals exploitation and how ogling could be banned through legislation or social media campaigns. I am sure this has something to do with the blank slate and social construction theories, coupled with some odd sense of justice or non-oppression, that dominates the Humanities and "progressive" circles.

Feminists just don't get it. No matter how much money, time, effort, or propaganda is put into banning ogling, it isn't going to happen. As I stated before, banning ogling is the equivalent of banning womens' periods.

phanto

'I was simply reflecting back your patronising behaviour.'

No. You're going on the offensive in order to avoid having to make an effort to learn the difference between sexualisation and sexuality. You've gone out of your way to humiliate me for making such a suggestion - which is a typical dominator response.

If you don't wish to learn more about the issue of sexualisation - that's fine. But don't pretend that you can take issue with feminists on the issue of sexualisation, when you refuse to make any effort to understand what they mean by it - and behave in hostile ways towards people who suggest you do.

Aristocrat

Collective Shout are not trying to ban Zoo Weekly. They are campaigning to take it out of supermarkets. I would prefer to legislate to have supermarkets and newsagents keep copies of Zoo Weekly (and other magazines like it) behind the counter, so that young children are not exposed to them at eye level - as they are at present.

If you are so imbued with your God-given, normal, natural, healthy macho right to buy and enjoy these magazines, then what is so wrong with purchasing them at the counter?

Killarney:

It is patronising to suggest that only those who have ‘made the effort’ can have worthwhile opinions.

Feminist theories are just theories and not facts. Anyone is entitled to express an opinion about these theories no matter how wide of the mark they may be. If I am wrong then all you need to say is that in your opinion I am wrong. You may or may not choose to point out the error of my ways but what is the purpose of telling me that I should ‘make an effort’. ‘Should’ is an order. I am quite capable of working out what I should and should not do without your input.

If you were genuinely concerned about finding the truth about feminist theories you would be open to finding it anywhere and not just amongst those who have ‘made the effort’. It is one thing to argue against an opinion but quite another to tell someone their opinion has no merit simply because they have not ‘made the effort’.

Perhaps you are afraid that the truth does not lie amongst those who have ‘made the effort’ and so you try and silence them by patronising them.

Phanto

You are playing the personality card, rather than address the actual argument I made. Nothing more to say, no point continuing. Enjoy your righteous vindication.

Killarney "If you are so imbued with your God-given, normal, natural, healthy macho right to buy and enjoy these magazines, then what is so wrong with purchasing them at the counter?"

I don't buy these magazines and never have - but that's not the point. I am more interested in feminism's value judgments of the male sex drive, and, how it believes it can be "corrected".

Can you outline a pragmatic plan of how to "correct" the male sex drive?