Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:46 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 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: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:15 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 4438
Location: Barry
technodup wrote:
I am not seeing anyone at the minute. If I see a woman my first instinct is would I/wouldn't I. After deciding on I would then I find out more. If she's an arsehole that doesn't trump the fact she looks like a page 3 stunna


I understand this first instinct thing- but seriously are you saying you don't talk to women you don't find attractive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:17 am 
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
Khane wrote:
Neil wrote:
Khane wrote:
Whose talking about stalking?


Didn't you say something about the "beginning of most relationships"?

Unless it really isn't unrequited lust, I'm not sure I'm getting the connection between what you said, the subject of lads mags, and the rejection of what I said.


I realise a lot on this forum are aging in years, but surely when you went out courting the first thing you noticed about a potential partner was how physically attractive they were? Then you find out afterwards that you couldn't possibly have a relationship with them as they have literally no personality.

Much like the ladies in said magazines.


I'm truly not getting the connection, though - nor the rejection of what I've said.

I get the attraction thing... but what on earth has that (the attraction, the appeal) got to do with magazines with titillating covers - I'm not sure why you introduced relationships with that?

Unless you intended - by fair means, or foul - of attempting to have a relationship with one of the fine young ladies on the cover of said magazines - and in which case, as I said, I can't help but think injunctions and restraining orders are heading your way.

I don't dispute that peoples' initial, and natural, reaction to potential partners is perhaps dominated by appraising their attractiveness (which in turn, is significantly affected by conditioned or societal influences, just as much as pure instinct) - but all the same, that doesn't define mens entire dealings, behaviour and relationships with other females / women, in their lives (which was my point all along).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:23 am 
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:
And there is far more danger to children in the food aisles than on the top shelves. And given that most little darlings have internet phones... you know the rest.


For some, at least some of that danger, and both those factors, maybe related...

I'm just saying.

Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I can see both sides to it - those that can see it can or has possibility to be damaging to their off-spring - and others, who see things purely in black and white, and care little about anything other than their interests.

All the same, what I don't really get is the arms race for this sort of appearance of magazines - yes, I know it sells - but all the same, why blur the lines? People know where to get stuff that is purely to look at, has society become some vapid and vacuous that "sex sells" needs to encroach practically everything?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:43 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
Neil wrote:
has society become some vapid and vacuous that "sex sells" needs to encroach practically everything?


Yes.

Can you think of anything that hasn't got a pretty (instant I would) girl selling it?

The countdown girls have the chance of being shining beacons but both after Carol's affiliation with mega APR companies that went down the pan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:41 pm 
rBoTM Winner
rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:28 pm
Posts: 3104
Location: Mansfield Woodhouse, Nott's.
Four pages about this article! Sure is some dirty minded buggers on her! Errr! I mean here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:12 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1665
Location: Glasgow
Neil wrote:
Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I can see both sides to it - those that can see it can or has possibility to be damaging to their off-spring - and others, who see things purely in black and white, and care little about anything other than their interests.

It doesn't affect me in the slightest, I don't buy the mags and I don't have kids.

I can't see how a bird on a cover of a magazine on the top shelf out of reach is damaging to children. If parents saw it less of a problem and more of an opportunity, i.e. to do some actual parenting rather than leave it to hysterical pressure groups or worse, the state then society might be better off all round.

I'll not hold my breath.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:19 pm 
Gold Trader / Special
Gold Trader / Special
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 pm
Posts: 3169
Location: Leicestershire
technodup wrote:
Neil wrote:
Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I can see both sides to it - those that can see it can or has possibility to be damaging to their off-spring - and others, who see things purely in black and white, and care little about anything other than their interests.

It doesn't affect me in the slightest, I don't buy the mags and I don't have kids.

I can't see how a bird on a cover of a magazine on the top shelf out of reach is damaging to children. If parents saw it less of a problem and more of an opportunity, i.e. to do some actual parenting rather than leave it to hysterical pressure groups or worse, the state then society might be better off all round.

I'll not hold my breath.


Parents actually doing parenting?
Don't talk stupid!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:45 pm 
rBoTM Winner
rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:28 pm
Posts: 3104
Location: Mansfield Woodhouse, Nott's.
Khane wrote:
Parents actually doing parenting? Don't talk stupid!

Grandparents have more sense :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:03 pm 
Gold Trader / Special
Gold Trader / Special
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 pm
Posts: 3169
Location: Leicestershire
Ian Raleigh wrote:
Khane wrote:
Parents actually doing parenting? Don't talk stupid!

Grandparents have more sense :oops:


Mine don't/didn't


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:30 pm 
aka Leo Swayer
aka Leo Swayer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 6365
Location: Wales.UK
Quote:
Parents actually doing parenting?
Don't talk stupid!



Happens every day in my home :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FairfaxPat and 37 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