Opa-Opa wrote:Dudley, Stuff and T3 nearly always have a half naked woman on the front holding a new camara or I-pod thing and there for deserve to be covered up.
You also say that there would need to be ten of me to cover the loss of readers who stop buying the mag because of a small price rise, but where did you get that figure from..? Seems to me it's just a guess for arguments sakes.
You said you'd be willing to pay 50p. They'd need 10 of those 50ps to cover the one person dropping out and not paying Â£5.
Also, there's nothing on stuff that isn't on the cover of cosmo, or about 18 similar mags.
Parental responsibility has nothing to do with this discusion. The magazine is not an "adult" magazine and the advertising sales team who know that people from all age groups read this mag should be taking some of the responsibility as well. We as parents try to keep these images away from our children while the people who make money couldn't care less, how is that the parents fault..?
Because you're trying to censor someone elses experience rather than put in the effort to evaluate the material you open up to your kids. Why should we all pay that 50p say because you can't be arsed to parent?
Or of course you could just stop being so uptight and recognise that the average 12 year old probably knows more about sex than you do.
I dont know where you got that impression but perhaps I didnt put it diwn clearly, I was just asking him if he would accept ads containing child porn or links to childporn in the magazine just so he could still save a few pence on the magazine.
Yes and therefore using that as an example of an ad. you compared those ads to child porn ads.
I being a member of the NSPCC know exactly that childporn is not the same as ads for sex chatlines but a hell of a lot worse, but if some children were to phone these numbers out of curiosty and listend to people having orgasms e.g. etc on these lines that in itself could be a form of child abuse.
You are of course joking here. Child abuse needs someone to commit the crime. Who is the abuser in this scenario? The line clearly marked for over 18s? The advertiser selling the ad clearly marked for over 18s?
I don't have any problems with 'Porn' mags advertising 'Porn', but what I don't like is reading a publication that is generally aimed at any age group, only to flick the page to find 'Chat with the hottest girls'.
It's tasteless ignorance and serves no purpose in a mag such as RG.
It pisses me right of when people quote 'don't read if you don't like', why don't people use that locked part of their brain called 'common sense'
Because common sense means "Don't read what you don't like" not "Try to alter the experience for anyone else".
Why should we all pay 50p extra on the mag (since apparently we're going with that as the cost) because you can't be bothered to sigh and turn a page, or just not buy a mag doing something you don't like.
They were acceptable as long as I've been alive. They were in PC Format 10 years ago for instance. Probably still are.
Sounds to me like you don't have children.
We are not talking about the kids ringing the numbers, we are talking about the advert being there in the first place, showing women as sex objects in a place where children could easy be exposed to it and being out of content with the rest of the magazine..
And if you don't like them, don't give your kids access to that material.