Offensive pictorials

[Typh0n]

I'm offended that magazines are still around. Wake up, people. Print is dead.

I'm offended that you would be offended that something less popular is still around, just because there are online versions of those magazines doesn't mean that people might not want to buy an old fashioned magazine.

Yes, I did consider you were being sarcastic, but it doesn't seem like it given the context.

 

[GIjade]

What about female masturbation? How do you feel about Germaine Greers Beautiful Boy?

Well, there are no "female masturbation" magazines. Again, it's men who seem to need that sort of thing. I don't know who you're referring to in your last sentence, but I'll look into it.

 

[GIjade]

[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] - So, I looked into it, found information about the book on Amazon. I can't think of any adult woman sexualizing pictures of young boys. Yes, youth is beautiful to gaze upon. But not in that way. I don't really understand why she wrote the book, depicting boys that way, unless shes into child molestation.

 

[Dyslexxie]

I grew up where topless women would run around on TV during the 6 o'clock news and where tanning topless was the norm sooooooo y'all are a little uptight. Calm yo' tits.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Are any of you ever offended by anything at all? Well, some people are. Some people find Playboy and Hustler to be offensive. That's why they used to put those magazines in the back of the display shelves, so as not to offend people and to keep youngster's eyes pure. I guess they then started just using covers on those magazines so that the pictorial was hidden from view completely. Tell me fellow weirdos, what do you think of that. Do you agree that offensive material, even if it isn't offensive to you personally, but might be to others, should be hidden from view for the above reasons?

I'm not offended easily. I can't legit think of the last time I was ever really offended. Playboy and Hustler are not offensive in my view. They are a business active in a particular market which people readily consume. I think the main reason for keeping pornography censored is to prevent lawsuits from puritans looking to sue the companies. If little Jimmy has a sex problem it's easier ( and possibly more profitable) to blame Playboy or Hustler than poor parenting.

 

[GIjade]

I'm not offended easily. I can't legit think of the last time I was ever really offended. Playboy and Hustler are not offensive in my view. They are a business active in a particular market which people readily consume. I think the main reason for keeping pornography censored is to prevent lawsuits from puritans looking to sue the companies. If little Jimmy has a sex problem it's easier ( and possibly more profitable) to blame Playboy or Hustler than poor parenting.

That's ridiculous. First of all, pornography isn't censored. Those magazines are hidden and covered, but still sold in places where the general public can see them. They're hidden like that so that little Jimmy can't look at breasts and cunts before he's old enough to understand what they are. It's called child protection. If the reason were, as you stated, that companies hid those things so that IF little Jimmy is exposed to them, the parents might bring lawsuits against them, it would say more about greed and less about, as I have stated, the protection of the young. I think most people really care about children and what they should and shouldn't see before they're old enough.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

That's ridiculous. First of all, pornography isn't censored. Those magazines are hidden and covered, but still sold in places where the general public can see them. They're hidden like that so that little Jimmy can't look at breasts and cunts before he's old enough to understand what they are. It's called child protection. If the reason were, as you stated, that companies hid those things so that IF little Jimmy is exposed to them, the parents might bring lawsuits against them, it would say more about greed and less about, as I have stated, the protection of the young. I think most people really care about children and what they should and shouldn't see before they're old enough.

Whatever the reason shielding yourself isn't a bad motivator from the tons of lawsuits subpar parents would bring against your company just because of the industry you're involved with. This is why these magazines are covered, blacked out, and higher up on the shelves, and towards the back, out of easy reach of children.

 

[Bush]

On something being personally offensive:

I've ultimately come to the conclusion that if someone finds something personally offensive it's up to them to deal with it. One can take on a mindset of exposure therapy (get desensitized/put it into perspective) -- or they can turn it off, whether externally (the damn remote) or internally (the brain's own filters).

Though it happens rarely (or maybe not at all) nowadays, if and when it happens there's an initial visceral reaction there but chances are high that I'll get over it in the span of a minute or less. I've endured some pretty bad criticisms but managed to come out the other side with little or no consequence, and that's a thing that sticks with me in the back of my head.


On something being offensive in the sense that you feel that it's so deplorable that it's dangerous to society and you want it eradicated, though -- that's a different beast.

 

[geedoenfj]

My views about it will offend some members lol..
I think there should be restrictions on public published materials, it should be more considerable of the general values of the society and family friendly and not be included in freedom of speech, I don't buy the "you have the remote control you are in control" because this stuff is public and is getting on everyones home, if I'm visiting somebody's home I should be respectful for their rules and values..
I think those who search for something other than that also have the power to search for these materials and they shall easily find them..

 

[ceecee]

My views about it will offend some members lol..
I think there should be restrictions on public published materials, it should be more considerable of the general values of the society and family friendly and not be included in freedom of speech, I don't buy the "you have the remote control you are in control" because this stuff is public and is getting on everyones home, if I'm visiting somebody's home I should be respectful for their rules and values..
I think those who search for something other than that also have the power to search for these materials and they shall easily find them..

I'm curious what published material shouldn't be included under freedom of speech in your opinion?

 

[geedoenfj]

I'm curious what published material shouldn't be included under freedom of speech in your opinion?

Those which are not family friendly

 

[ZNP-TBA]

My views about it will offend some members lol..
I think there should be restrictions on public published materials, it should be more considerable of the general values of the society and family friendly and not be included in freedom of speech, I don't buy the "you have the remote control you are in control" because this stuff is public and is getting on everyones home, if I'm visiting somebody's home I should be respectful for their rules and values..
I think those who search for something other than that also have the power to search for these materials and they shall easily find them..

I see your point but establishing and maintaining boundaries isn't supposed to be easy nor do I see a rational argument for offloading that responsibility to other members of society. For example there are many ways parents can control what content is shown on TV, at least in their own homes. It's actually not that difficult to set up but some parents are just too lazy to take the extra time to ensure what their kids are watching is acceptable. Rather than critiquing their own parenting (i.e. why are their children such easy targets for bad programming in the first place?) they would rather critique the businesses and society at large making the content ready for the public. The real world works by navigating through the good and bad instead of having some authority shielding you from the bad constantly. I think the sooner kids are taught how to think about these things rather than what to think is a step towards having a generally positive upbringing. If a TV or book publication or website could cause someone to waiver into nastiness so easily then it means the person wasn't instilled with solid values to begin with which is the fault of the caretakers.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

Absolutely not. Everyone is offended by something, and everything is offensive to someone.

 

[GIjade]

I find these offensive and they're right at eye level on the display stand so you can't miss them.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I find these offensive and they're right at eye level on the display stand so you can't miss them.


View attachment 15854 View attachment 15855 View attachment 15853

 

[ceecee]

Those which are not family friendly

Ok everyone has a different opinion and definition of what that is. Plus you're in Dubai so I don't think a discussion on freedom of speech will be productive.

 

[geedoenfj]

Ok everyone has a different opinion and definition of what that is. Plus you're in Dubai so I don't think a discussion on freedom of speech will be productive.

If I wanted to link the discussion someway to where I come from or where I live I would have done it, but obviously I'm not connecting this to that, and I don't think the discussion going that way would be productive either so I gotta agree with you on that..
Anyway, there's no such thing as absolute freedom, every society and culture has it's limitations and laws, and I believe pornography and nudity and showing most of human body and flesh should be one of those limitations, because it's not about expressing your opinion about a subject, it's about raising standards and expectations of sexuality and beauty and cause more women and men to be less confidant about themselves and less satisfied with their body, because they compare what they got with what's out there, although different people have different ideas about beauty but the media is reshaping that unfortunately, not only in your country but also here in this region, it's global, and I don't say that because I'm necessarily have a body image issues, no, in fact I'm considered very attractive and appealing in where I live, but I prefer to be valued by my personality not by how much flesh I show, and refuse to be compared with women on the magazine covers..
So yeah I love Dubai it's a lovely place and maybe you can pay it a visit someday

 

[geedoenfj]

I find these offensive and they're right at eye level on the display stand so you can't miss them.


View attachment 15854 View attachment 15855 View attachment 15853

I find them offensive too, I don't want to look at poor dead animals

 

[ceecee]

If I wanted to link the discussion someway to where I come from or where I live I would have done it, but obviously I'm not connecting this to that, and I don't think the discussion going that way would be productive either so I gotta agree with you on that..
Anyway, there's no such thing as absolute freedom, every society and culture has it's limitations and laws, and I believe pornography and nudity and showing most of human body and flesh should be one of those limitations, because it's not about expressing your opinion about a subject, it's about raising standards and expectations of sexuality and beauty and cause more women and men to be less confidant about themselves and less satisfied with their body, because they compare what they got with what's out there, although different people have different ideas about beauty but the media is reshaping that unfortunately, not only in your country but also here in this region, it's global, and I don't say that because I'm necessarily have a body image issues, no, in fact I'm considered very attractive and appealing in where I live, but I prefer to be valued by my personality not by how much flesh I show, and refuse to be compared with women on the magazine covers..
So yeah I love Dubai it's a lovely place and maybe you can pay it a visit someday

I don't think you understand what I mean. Of course I would visit Dubai, I don't have any problem with the UAE. I'm talking about a discussion on freedom of speech, not a moral view on sexuality, that had nothing to do with my original question but it seems that's the way these conversations go. It's cultural, I understand that.

 

[Norrsken]

Freedom of Speech, OP. That's all there is to it. Most of Western society are free to print what ever they want, even seemingly offensive materials. I've seen some pretty spooky ones when I lived in America- something about necrophiliacs and how totally okay it is. I wonder if it is a troll magazine, but boy, what a trip that was! My only advice is to just turn your head away and find another magazine to read. You can't control the general population.