why cant you do toppless &porn?

[golostruda]

I assume by "non-porn magazines" that have topless photos in, people are referring to men's magazines like FHM and Loaded.

I'm not sure to what extent the "they are scared to use hardcore models" argument holds up.

Loaded was obsessed with Jo Guest and used to feature her in some capacity or other every month. FHM, meanwhile, have carried an agony aunt column purportedly written by Jenna Jameson for several years now. Hardly the sort of behaviour you'd expect from magazines "scared to use hardcore models".

When it comes to photo shoots, maybe the magazine's art directors simply fancy the likes of Jakki Degg more than they fancy the Britporn girls...?

[Officer Dibble]

Yes Gol, but images of Jo Guest and Jenna Jameson are very clean, positive, and glamorous, so they can get away including them. No one is going to turn their noses up at a tasteful picture of Jenna or Jo. Including them may even add a frisson of raciness and provide the mag with some anti-establishment credentials (without actually being anti-establishment) that they feel will appeal to young naive male minds. But featuring pictures of scraggy gonzo models would be very negative, as they would evoke feelings of skank, of council flats and sloth, of sleaziness and shoestring budgets, of desperation and exploitation. Not the kind of things corporate business wishes to associate itself with. It would be at odds with the vacuous, sunny, cheery facades those mags wish to project.

When it comes to photo shoots and lads mag cover models I get very exercised. It?s always some anorexic, androgynous, desexualised blond with a crap haircut, and it?s crystal clear to a Photoshop artist, like my good self, that they have been digitally shorn of their hips, and occasionally their breasts. There is a definite agenda here, which I believe is to put a girl on the front cover to supposedly appeal to young naive males, but sterilise her of any sexuality and sexual intent. Maybe put her in some kind of sports bikini, instead of stockings and suspenders, i.e. bedroom/bordello attire. This satisfies the corporate cunts who don?t want any real (possibly controversial) suggestion of sexuality and the need to say ?Hey look lads! Wow, this month we?ve got another mega bland blonde who was in a tedious episode of Hollyoaks last year?!

I say to fuck with ?em and their slimy, poxy, agenda. Their shitty mags are unreadable anyway - I bought one (Loaded) to see what it was all about and it just seemed to be incoherent babble all the way through, so I didn?t buy anymore. They?ll have to get up earlier in the morning if they think they are going to sucker Officer Dibble.


Officer Dibbs

[Officer Dibble]

I have an idea! Why don't we all chip in and buy out W H Smiths (who control most of the magazine distribution in the UK) then we could fill the shelves with the sort of mags we wanted, like mags featuring proper sexy birds with big tit n bums, wearing stockings 'n' suspenders and bright scarlet lipstick. If any punters were poncy enough to protest we could then say "Hey look, if yer don't like it yer can fuck off out and buy yer Bic Biros down the road at Mr Patels". Wouldn?t that be great?


Officer Dibble - waxing whimsical