Some little toe-rag has responded to my article on the BBC with a defence of Lad Mags. The article is here, and it seems, as usual, to fall to me to respond to it.
His first point I had already addressed in my article. He claims that these magazines are not meant to be read by women, or people who might be offended by them. My point was that they are very widely available and that it is impossible to avoid them in modern life. That they have effected the "normalisation" of porn.
His second arguement seems to be "Lads just ARE like that", as though men aged as young as 12 - the readership of these magazines, are somehow immune to media influence. As counter-point to that I offer Diane Russel's work "Pornography as a cause of Rape". This proves thoroughly and conclusively that reading pornography increases the likelihood that men will commit rape.
He goes on to define "the Lad" (his capital letter, not mine) as being like a "six-year old alcoholic child with a sex drive", sending round tasteless jokes, and as a "tattooed 20-somethings wearing football shirts and swilling lager in the town centre while whistling at anything wearing a skirt". OK I see that demographic, what of it? Well apparently the world NEEDS lads. Yes. And here's why: "the world needs Lads, for young women to puzzle over and be frustrated by, for older men to look back on with fondness, and for mothers to pamper and tell off. Even if the pleasure you get from Lads is that you glory in not being one, at least they give you that joy"
I mean that arguement is just a huge pile of stinking b*ll*cks! It makes as much sense as the following:
The world needs Pedophiles, for police officers to puzzle over and be frustrated by, for children to learn the importance of not taking sweeties from strangers, and for therapists, to keep them in business. Even if the pleasure you get from Pedophiles is that you glory in not being one, at least they give you that joy.
Or has someone really missed the point?