• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Modesty bags

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Surely this is the free market in action. A business is responding to customer demand and placing conditions on its supplier.

    I don't want my five and two year old girls exposed to lads mag front covers when we're out shopping.
    But womens magazines with anorexic models on the cover are just as harmful to children, and they're not asking for them to be covered up

    What about the Daily Star promoting communism should that be covered up lest children think it's acceptable ?
    Doing the needful since 1827

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by vetran View Post
      Magazines targeted at teens are filled with sexual tidbits or reasons for them to feel a failure.
      What's all this about feeling a failure?

      Are there really lots of people feeling that they're a sexual failure?
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
        But womens magazines with anorexic models on the cover are just as harmful to children, and they're not asking for them to be covered up
        WHS



        Arguably even more harmful. As least porn models are allowed to eat.
        And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
          What about the Daily Star promoting communism should that be covered up lest children think it's acceptable ?
          I don't think that's what the Daily Star promotes, to be honest. I thought it's role was to promote Big Brother and other Channel 5 programmes.
          Best Forum Advisor 2014
          Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
          Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            umm, difficult, but given an entirely false choice of all censorship or zero censorship, I'm inclined toward zero. Which won't happen. Thankfully, perhaps.
            And I won't insult you by saying that you must therefore be in favour o fallowing Necrophile Today to display a graphic photo from their Jimmy Savile Hospital Morgue Special Edition on an advertising hoarding outside a primary school.

            So... you're in favour of a balance, as am I. But having young kids (especially daughters) has skewed my view, not of what should be on sale, but of what should be visible in a public place. It's fine to say things can be explained to them, but it is nice to try to preserve some innocence until they have the emotional capacity to process difficult issues.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
              I don't think that's what the Daily Star promotes, to be honest. I thought it's role was to promote Big Brother and other Channel 5 programmes.
              He meant the Morning Star, but he's a bit you-know-what.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                No, I think on the whole it's a good thing that sexuality has become more open. It's a good thing that women can now actually talk about what they want instead of having some clueless bloke say 'brace yourself' before stumbling in for his 2 minutes of fun. It's a good thing that gay people and bisexual people can, at least here in NL, be open about their life. It's a good thing that sex can be discussed on the telly and the net, seeing as so many people's marriages seem to break down because of a bad sex life. Of course there's a downside, and yes, the parents of kids in that kind of clothing deserve at least a good talking to, and some young people need to learn to control their desires, but I think the upside is much bigger than the downside and steps toward censorship would be retrograde.
                Yep, can't argue with that.

                But I don't believe that media images of perfect bodies and magazines (men and women's) pretending to be general interest that sell on sex equates to openness.

                I don't know that censorship is the answer either - but I do think that something needs to change. Maybe looking past the calls for censorship (i.e. not dismissing those who call for it as feminist extremists) and debating the wider issue is a starting point.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
                  But womens magazines with anorexic models on the cover are just as harmful to children, and they're not asking for them to be covered up

                  What about the Daily Star promoting communism should that be covered up lest children think it's acceptable ?
                  Intervention A (modesty bags) does not solve problems that are perceived to be related. That doesn't invalidate Intervention B

                  I would suggest you boycott Co-op but you probably view it as a Marxist institution threatening the free market fabric of society.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                    Yep, can't argue with that.

                    But I don't believe that media images of perfect bodies and magazines (men and women's) pretending to be general interest that sell on sex equates to openness.

                    I don't know that censorship is the answer either - but I do think that something needs to change. Maybe looking past the calls for censorship (i.e. not dismissing those who call for it as feminist extremists) and debating the wider issue is a starting point.
                    Feminazi!

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Old Hack View Post
                      In all fairness, I don't want my young kids reading the kind of headlines they have 'Kayley at her sexiest, filthiest ever', 'Amber confronts her addiction to sex', 'Chardonnay and her loveof group sex', etc, etc, etc. I don't necessarily think it's about becoming more and more puritanical, but more about having a bit more decency, for it's not as though the standards haven't changed over the years, more they've definitely slipped. They're as close as you can get to porn mags really; would you like Babestation to be available night and day, for it's the same content, just different media.
                      So you'd ban the Daily Mail then?
                      Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X