Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:18 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Is putting overtly sexual content magazine covers in plain liners a move forward?
Yes 28%  28%  [ 10 ]
No 33%  33%  [ 12 ]
Remove them completely from the shelves if they are offensive. 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Couldn't care less! 25%  25%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 36
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:31 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
The History Man wrote:
daugs wrote:
Godwin's law, time to lock the thread :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


Thank you for today's learning. Hyperbolic comparison. Lovely.

Is locking a given?


that's up to a mod, but where to go from here ? seem to recall there was some thread recently on internet etiquette etc ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:55 pm 
Karma Queen / Cake Meisterin
Karma Queen / Cake Meisterin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 6737
Location: North Yorkshire
daugs wrote:
gtRTSdh wrote:
However much we enjoy them, being open for children (especially girls) to see is not good & is not helping girls' self esteem when they can't possibly compete with the cosmetically enhanced airbrushed beauties on display. It takes a grown up to realise girls that put all their efforts into their appearance aren't the most rounded (mentally) of people.


quite, with a daughter I have moved from not caring to thinking just don't need the covers, a lot of the comments above refer to contents, it's only the cover that needs changing and publishers to accept it is visible to all, the mags only have themselves to blame, could have had toned down the cover and avoided the issue.


I don't think even fashion magazines are safe for young girls, anything that gives young teens a false sense of reality is a bad thing. My teenage daughter is already at 13 talking about how she looks, fortunately she is concerned about how skinny she is, so no trying to starve herself on the cards, and I've never let her look at fashion mags or girly mags, she's much better off with the books she reads.

Alison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:56 pm 
Gold Trader / Special
Gold Trader / Special
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 pm
Posts: 3169
Location: Leicestershire
Isaac_AG wrote:
daugs wrote:
gtRTSdh wrote:
However much we enjoy them, being open for children (especially girls) to see is not good & is not helping girls' self esteem when they can't possibly compete with the cosmetically enhanced airbrushed beauties on display. It takes a grown up to realise girls that put all their efforts into their appearance aren't the most rounded (mentally) of people.


quite, with a daughter I have moved from not caring to thinking just don't need the covers, a lot of the comments above refer to contents, it's only the cover that needs changing and publishers to accept it is visible to all, the mags only have themselves to blame, could have had toned down the cover and avoided the issue.


I don't think even fashion magazines are safe for young girls, anything that gives young teens a false sense of reality is a bad thing. My teenage daughter is already at 13 talking about how she looks, fortunately she is concerned about how skinny she is, so no trying to starve herself on the cards, and I've never let her look at fashion mags or girly mags, she's much better off with the books she reads.

Alison


Parenting.

You're doing it right. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:18 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1666
Location: Glasgow
KDM wrote:
minger feminist.

It always is.

As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do. Likewise in reverse, although with a lot fewer indignant bores going on TV.

As long as she's sitting next that other one rest assured nobody is taking any notice of her, far less thinking of her sexually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:23 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 4440
Location: Barry
Cover them up- yep for sure a good idea especially the daily sport. Not what children should be seeing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:28 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
technodup wrote:
As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do.


Mmmhhh. Is that what we call a Freudian slip you are wearing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:49 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
technodup wrote:
As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do. Likewise in reverse, although with a lot fewer indignant bores going on TV.


Kudos just going with instinct, there...

Many of us do have those big old brains, though, with that whole frontal lobe thing going on, so occasionally - just occasionally - on the 3rd Sunday of a month, we can behave with just a smidgen of intelligence, and in those rare moments, manage to be that bit more than pure instinct.

Doesn't happen very often, though, so it's probably best left forgotten.

We_are_Stevo wrote:
They'll be 'dressing' tables again next! :roll:


So long as they don't go after crack and meth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:05 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1666
Location: Glasgow
Neil wrote:
technodup wrote:
As far as men are concerned women are sex objects. It's what we're here to do. Likewise in reverse, although with a lot fewer indignant bores going on TV.


Kudos just going with instinct, there...

Many of us do have those big old brains, though, with that whole frontal lobe thing going on, so occasionally - just occasionally - on the 3rd Sunday of a month, we can behave with just a smidgen of intelligence, and in those rare moments, manage to be that bit more than pure instinct.

For me (and I imagine most although most on here wouldn't admit it) the would I/wouldn't I question comes before any other consideration. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or lack of.

I can find out if she likes animals or hates the rain sometime later. Because if she's a munter I couldn't care less.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:07 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 625
Location: He doesn't live in "The You-Kay"; he lives in GREAT BRITAIN!
I'm a Co-op member and former employee and I never remember members harping on about this at the intermiable members' annual meetings or in the in house magazine. I smell the sulphur of a witch hunt about this, or at least a hunt led by witches...

An equivalent situation happened at work a few months ago when my mate got told to take down the tiny Mac tools calendar he'd been sent, which was potentially the tamest totty shots ever, apparantly it was too provocative, even though it wasn't say, Nigella licking a strawberry, which would have been blood thunderingly provocative. Yet the female champions of the men of West Yorkshire Fire Brigade calendar [Dudes as sex objects posing with fire hoses (Surely symbolic of something)] have successfully resisted all attempts to get it removed from the office wall and burnt.

Back to the Co-op lad mag Jihad. If I was the editor of F.H.M or Loaded or whatever I would call the bluff of these Feminazi's thus;
Have a really provocative cover shot of a stunning "Babe" practically falling out of her [Wet?] bikini. Something to draw the fire of Harriet Harperson MP, Guardian "Social Affairs" commentator and patron saint of self rightousness Polly Toynbee and all the usual suspects, including "Spokeswoman Sophie Bennett" who seems to have Magazines and the Co-op in her crosshairs. They will get themselves into a right lather about "Objectifying women" and "Degrading the female form", except get this; the cover model wouldn't be a lady, "She'd" be a ladyboy and thus under the laws of England and Wales she would be... male. All these lady-zealots arguments about the exploitation of women would fall apart as they had clearly failed to look beyond the cover. Polly Toynbee gets a ten minute grilling on Channel 4 news and looks embarrased, Church bells rung in celebration, freedom of expression is allowed to continue.

The end!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:18 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 625
Location: He doesn't live in "The You-Kay"; he lives in GREAT BRITAIN!
Isaac_AG wrote:
daugs wrote:
gtRTSdh wrote:
However much we enjoy them, being open for children (especially girls) to see is not good & is not helping girls' self esteem when they can't possibly compete with the cosmetically enhanced airbrushed beauties on display. It takes a grown up to realise girls that put all their efforts into their appearance aren't the most rounded (mentally) of people.


quite, with a daughter I have moved from not caring to thinking just don't need the covers, a lot of the comments above refer to contents, it's only the cover that needs changing and publishers to accept it is visible to all, the mags only have themselves to blame, could have had toned down the cover and avoided the issue.


I don't think even fashion magazines are safe for young girls, anything that gives young teens a false sense of reality is a bad thing. My teenage daughter is already at 13 talking about how she looks, fortunately she is concerned about how skinny she is, so no trying to starve herself on the cards, and I've never let her look at fashion mags or girly mags, she's much better off with the books she reads.

Alison

Every Wednesday free magazines get given out at Leeds City Station [Apparantly bus passengers don't get them, they are the wrong "Demographic" or too poor or something], anyway the male one is full of titanium smartphones and new videogames and a load of wibble about whether or not turn-ups are the new black. The female one, called "Shortlist" is full of too skinny women modelling clothes. They are so skinny that they look like I [Male] did when I was about 15. These photo's aren't to attract mens attention they are to sell lipstick and handbags and other wierd&*^t to women. When it comes to objectifying women's bodies the female led fashion industry is far worse than Loaded or Nuts might be because it is pedalling a female ideal which is unhealthy. To get that thin most girls I know would have to live on a diet of Cheesy Wotsits and amphetamines.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], highlandsflyer, one-eyed_jim, Retro_Roy and 39 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group