When I was around 15 or 16, FHM put out an edition with Louise Redknapp (or Nurding as she was then) on the cover. I’d bought the magazine before, despite always feeling a little bit embarrassed doing so, but Louise sent me all wobbly. I had a flick through all the magazine’s sections and was vaguely amused by the daft antics and inconsequential pub-chat style articles. But my crush was the main reason why I bought the thing, and I do not regret it.

How things have changed. Or have they? The magazines, who identify themselves with the bawdy humour The Sun was peddling long before them, would disagree. And are they not still just what Loaded (the original “lads mag”) set out to become, an alternative to the GQ representation of what men are supposed to be? And isn’t all this really a discussion about child protection, because we’re all old enough to “get it”, to take it or leave it as we wish?

I don’t feel that way. These magazines didn’t even have women on their covers in the early days (Gary Oldman graced Loaded’s first cover), now they wouldn’t dream of doing anything else. The circulations started rising and I completely understand why. A lads mag editor has spoken of how, to maintain perspective, they came up with the Tube Test – they would go with a cover if they thought you wouldn’t feel embarrassed to be seen reading such a thing on the London Underground. But when you’ve started selling titillation, selling a fantasy, you need to keep upping the ante. A bit more flesh, a racier look into the camera, the possible rewards of abandoning the Tube Test considered. As soon as Louise appeared, they all did it, and the race to “The Big Boob Issue” of Nuts magazine had started.

And now we have the Government commissioned report stating that these magazines are part of the pornographication of everyday life and our perceptions of sexuality. It also states that this stuff is making young women permissive and young men believe women are objects for fun and nothing more.

Surely it’s a question of degree. For me it’s not about right or wrong, it’s about the irresponsibility. These magazines sell a lifestyle with considerable vigour but refuse to accept that said lifestyle may have unforeseen negative effects on men. Yes, men. Amidst the usual furore about the objectification of women there is STILL no real talk of the restrictive box these magazines put men into, and the pressure and confusion of not conforming.

You don’t have to buy it, they say. It’s jokey, beach postcard sex, they say. But that’s just not fair. They effectively state that you may be an Oscar winning actress, you may be an Olympic gold medallist, you may make music, but are you fit? Because if you’re not then you’re not coming in.

I resent a magazine explicitly aimed at men that implies that this is my pecking order. Most definitely one that seeks to hide its modus operandi behind a “music issue” that leads with Pixie Lott, someone I’m willing to bet is not to the musical taste of a lot of men (as in the case of FHM last year).

And cheeky postcard-sex humour? When their front covers are less subtle than a Carry On film? Come on.

Maybe this is just what happens when commercialisation meets sex. But banning them or moving them up the shelves won’t change anything. Talking about them might. Right here and now I’m happy to say that I don’t identify with the image of men that they present. That’s not me. I wonder how many feel the same.

Martin Cordiner - 9 Mar 2010