Lads Mags In Black Bags!

technodup":13be84gq said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Khane":1x1c46be said:

Neil":1x1c46be said:

Khane":1x1c46be said:

Whose talking about stalking?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

technodup":1a5jtyhh said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Neil":3f5yhwzh said:

has society become some vapid and vacuous that "sex sells" needs to encroach practically everything?

Click to expand...

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.

Four pages about this article! Sure is some dirty minded buggers on her! Errr! I mean here.

Neil":1vqd1966 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

technodup":r9uz2a8b said:

Neil":r9uz2a8b said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Parents actually doing parenting?
Don't talk stupid!

Khane":41jdh55z said:

Parents actually doing parenting? Don't talk stupid!

Click to expand...

Grandparents have more sense

Ian Raleigh":2ubi3lq3 said:

Khane":2ubi3lq3 said:

Parents actually doing parenting? Don't talk stupid!

Click to expand...

Grandparents have more sense

Click to expand...

Mine don't/didn't

Parents actually doing parenting?
Don't talk stupid!

Click to expand...

Happens every day in my home