Joe Duffy .. stupid woman complaining ..

jackdaw

Stupid woman on Joe Duffy complaining about Playboy stationery being sold
in a toy shop... all it is , is a refill pad with the playboy bunny logo on it..
she calls it "Pornography" .. what a fuken idiot!!
Playboy is NOT porn !!!
Im sick of the Irish media being 50 years behind .. another mis definition is
when news (especially RTE) refer to child porn , they simply call it Porn ..
I hate that ... like there is no difference .. it's the same thing ...

:mad:

sorry for the rant...

mike65

*me shrugs* Its Liveline.

Mike.

Nevyn

It is the playboy symbol and the playboy brand which promotes the publications and the Dvds which are porn.

The brand is linked to porn and I don't consider that brand to be one which is suitible for children.

Owen

Playboy, in a newsagents? Jesus, break out the Holy Water, get the benediction, the sacraments, say the rosary a few times, and try to forget all that sordid, filthy, digusting business.

Well, that way at least, it leaves more Playboy for the rest of us!

homah_7ft

At least somebody is thinking of the children

jackdaw

Thaedydal wrote:

It is the playboy symbol and the playboy brand which promotes the publications and the Dvds which are porn.

The brand is linked to porn and I don't consider that brand to be one which is suitible for children.

Its not PORN!! it's naked women in classy poses!
if you ask me whats the difference ill say take a copy of Playboy and take a copy of HUSTLER and thats the difference between porn & playboy..

jackdaw

ned78 wrote:

Playboy, in a newsagents? Jesus, break out the Holy Water, get the benediction, the sacraments, say the rosary a few times, and try to forget all that sordid, filthy, digusting business.

Well, that way at least, it leaves more Playboy for the rest of us!

hahah nice one!!!

neacy69

Joe Duffy is a Cúnt and so is anybody who goes on his show....

super_furry

As much as I want to say; "It's Joe Duffy, all you're ever going to get is stupid women complaining." She has a point.

Playboy as a brand is inextricably linked to pornography and should not be sold in a children's toy shop. How anyone can claim that "Playboy is NOT porn !!!" is beyond me. Have you ever seen the magazine or DVD's? They're hardly used for educational purposes.

flogen

OP - you giving out about what you perceive to be an illogical woman complaining on Liveline makes about as much sense as the illogical people who themselves give out about things on Liveline.

What did you expect?

On the issue itself, while I don't agree with her assumption that Playboy is porn I do agree with her overall point. Sure, the name Playboy and its symbol itself isn't porn but it's not a brand that should be aimed at children. I'd have a problem with John Player Blue stationary too.

jackdaw

good point ...

homah_7ft

flogen wrote:

OP - you giving out about what you perceive to be an illogical woman complaining on Liveline makes about as much sense as the illogical people who themselves give out about things on Liveline.

What did you expect?

On the issue itself, while I don't agree with her assumption that Playboy is porn I do agree with her overall point. Sure, the name Playboy and its symbol itself isn't porn but it's not a brand that should be aimed at children. I'd have a problem with John Player Blue stationary too.

How about McDonald's being aimed at kids?

Cabaal

Thaedydal wrote:

It is the playboy symbol and the playboy brand which promotes the publications and the Dvds which are porn.

The brand is linked to porn and I don't consider that brand to be one which is suitible for children.

I'd tend to agree, its not a suitable product for small children as it only brings brand awareness in later life

homah_7ft

So no brand names then. Fair enough.

eth0_

jackdaw wrote:

Stupid woman on Joe Duffy complaining about Playboy stationery being sold
in a toy shop... all it is , is a refill pad with the playboy bunny logo on it..
she calls it "Pornography" .. what a fuken idiot!!
Playboy is NOT porn !!!
Im sick of the Irish media being 50 years behind .. another mis definition is
when news (especially RTE) refer to child porn , they simply call it Porn ..
I hate that ... like there is no difference .. it's the same thing ...

:mad:

sorry for the rant...

Sorry but Playboy *is* porn. Are you blind or ignorant? It's soft porn, but it's still porn.
I think it's disgusting to see a child wearing a playboy tshirt/bag or anything else with the Playboy logo on. I would go so far as to say they have bad parents. Playboy is pornography and it is not something a child should be exposed to, unless you like your daughter to look like a slut?

flogen

homah_7ft wrote:

How about McDonald's being aimed at kids?

If you're asking me about my opinion on junk food being targeted at young children then I'm against that too. That said I wouldn't completely compare junk food with pornography and smoking as the first can be enjoyed in well-managed moderation while I don't believe the other two can.

Of course this all comes down to issues of demand rather than supply. There's no point getting indignant about this kind of stuff if there's a market for it that we're also failing to address. I find it disgusting that young, pre-teenage girls are going around with "Sexy" emblazoned across the back-side of their tracksuit bottoms but who's more at fault - the company that produced it or the parents that bought them and/or let their children wear it?

homah_7ft

Yeah I was playing devil's advocate a bit. It would make me uncomfortable to see a child with that logo. Of course it does come down to the parents because the children don't have a clue what lies behind the rabbit. The playboy logo does seem to be appearing in more places. Strange that.

tbh

jackdaw wrote:

Stupid woman on Joe Duffy complaining about Playboy stationery being sold
in a toy shop... all it is , is a refill pad with the playboy bunny logo on it..
she calls it "Pornography" .. what a fuken idiot!!
Playboy is NOT porn !!!
Im sick of the Irish media being 50 years behind .. another mis definition is
when news (especially RTE) refer to child porn , they simply call it Porn ..
I hate that ... like there is no difference .. it's the same thing ...

:mad:

sorry for the rant...

Sorry, but that's not what she was saying AT ALL - she never once claimed that playboy stationary was porn, she actually made the point that the stationary was inoffensive of itself. What she was complaining about was the fact that selling products with the playboy bunny on it to 8-year olds "normalizes" the brand for kids, it makes it familiar to them, so that when they grow up they re comfortable around it. I think she had a very point, it's akin IMO to selling sweet cigarettes, which are being banned - tomorrow I think.

I thought you were posting about the woman who signed a lease on a house that said she couldn't put a sky dish up, then complained when she was asked to take it down. But that's a whole other thread (and forum)

also, I think you are way off the mark saying that RTE don't distinguish between porn and child porn.

Nevyn

It't not it is brand merchantising.
Any smart business will do the same and if the logo is hip or cool enough it will get plastered across as many products as possible.

A childs example would be barbie which you can get on lampshades, bed clothes, wall paper, bins, toothbrushes, bags, notebooks ect ect

The same thing is being done with the playboy bunny and on a range of products which are 'pink' for the most part.

Who wants a 12 year old to have thier room and thier 'stuff' decked out with the playboy bunny ?

I am personally against brands and kids tbh.

eth0_

flogen wrote:

I find it disgusting that young, pre-teenage girls are going around with "Sexy" emblazoned across the back-side of their tracksuit bottoms but who's more at fault - the company that produced it or the parents that bought them and/or let their children wear it?

They're both at fault but the parents more so for allowing their young girl to dress like that. What next, 10 year olds wearing t-shirt that say "slut"?

I once saw a girl who can't have been more than 7 wearing a tshirt that said "Drink til you think i'm hot".

Her parents should be shot.

flogen

eth0_ wrote:

They're both at fault but the parents more so for allowing their young girl to dress like that. What next, 10 year olds wearing t-shirt that say "slut"?

I once saw a girl who can't have been more than 7 wearing a tshirt that said "Drink til you think i'm hot".

Her parents should be shot.

Jesus - that's quite literally obscene.

I agree - the parents are at more of a fault but the producers are not without fault either. That said, if you remove the demand they'll stop the supply - it won't necessarily work the other way though.

With all things, though, the onus is on the parents (at least in my opinion). Legislate all you want but it won't stop kids being kids and kids being susceptible to peer pressure etc. Just look at smoking as an example of that - I'm on the verge of making this a Humanities thread but in my opinion these types of laws should be an aid to not a foundation of child protection.

jackdaw

tbh wrote:

Sorry, but that's not what she was saying AT ALL - she never once claimed that playboy stationary was porn, she actually made the point that the stationary was inoffensive of itself. What she was complaining about was the fact that selling products with the playboy bunny on it to 8-year olds "normalizes" the brand for kids, it makes it familiar to them, so that when they grow up they re comfortable around it. I think she had a very point, it's akin IMO to selling sweet cigarettes, which are being banned - tomorrow I think.

I thought you were posting about the woman who signed a lease on a house that said she couldn't put a sky dish up, then complained when she was asked to take it down. But that's a whole other thread (and forum)

also, I think you are way off the mark saying that RTE don't distinguish between porn and child porn.

many many times i have seen reports on the RTE news about John Doe who was arrested for approaching kids .. then they would go on to report how his home PC contained "pornography" .. and that's it .. now you can come to the conclusion that it was child porn .. but the news should still say it ..
you would be amazed how stupid people are .. some people really think if you have some porn on your pc, then you are a danger to kids...
as regards to the original argument .. i take your points and i actually agree i don't think it should be on any child brands ,,
what annoyed me was her calling it a symbol for porn .. i still don't think it is porn..
porn has a whole sleazy meaning to it, but i think playboy is pretty clean...

tbh

jackdaw wrote:

many many times i have seen reports on the RTE news about John Doe who was arrested for approaching kids .. then they would go on to report how his home PC contained "pornography" .. and that's it .. now you can come to the conclusion that it was child porn .. but the news should still say it ..
you would be amazed how stupid people are .. some people really think if you have some porn on your pc, then you are a danger to kids...
as regards to the original argument .. i take your points and i actually agree i don't think it should be on any child brands ,,
what annoyed me was her calling it a symbol for porn .. i still don't think it is porn..
porn has a whole sleazy meaning to it, but i think playboy is pretty clean...

Would you watch it with your mam or grandma? I know what you mean, but porn is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Ph3n0m

Porn, by definition is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. (which playboy does or are you going to claim that most male "readers" of Playboy dont rub one out while looking at the centerfolds?)

I think the 2nd and 3rd links here make it quite clear

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:Porn&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

haz

jackdaw wrote:

porn has a whole sleazy meaning to it, but i think playboy is pretty clean...

I don't tend to complain about explicit pornography, but the so-called "men's magazines" and "lad's mags"- from Playboy through FHM and Nuts to Zoo - are vomit-inducing, adolescent nastiness that objectify women.

Perhaps as a boy the original poster wasn't quantified by bust-size, complexion or the pertness of his buttocks. Perhaps during employment he hasn't had his qualifications, skills and achievements demolished by comments about whether he is a goer, or how good his "head" might feel. I am assuming "jackdaw" is male, and guess the quality of the relationships that lie behind the dismissal of another human being and her opinions by "stupid woman complaining".

tbh

have to say ^^^^^ that's one of the best posts I've ever seen on boards.

I was about to type "written" but that's just wishful thinking.

kmick

Joe Duffy centrefold in playboy - now that's something Id like to see.

Mr. Presentable

kmick wrote:

Joe Duffy centrefold in playboy - now that's something Id like to see.

Print run of one then, I'd say

Voipjunkie

eth0_ wrote:

Sorry but Playboy *is* porn. Are you blind or ignorant? It's soft porn, but it's still porn.
I think it's disgusting to see a child wearing a playboy tshirt/bag or anything else with the Playboy logo on. I would go so far as to say they have bad parents. Playboy is pornography and it is not something a child should be exposed to, unless you like your daughter to look like a slut?

It depends on your definition of porn is it the human form naked in which case is
you end up with this nonsense http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=1711

On Playboy I only buy it for the articles

(BTW that was a joke)

I agree though the playboy logo is not suitable for children it is an adult product end of story

monument

haz wrote:

I don't tend to complain about explicit pornography, but the so-called "men's magazines" and "lad's mags"- from Playboy through FHM and Nuts to Zoo - are vomit-inducing, adolescent nastiness that objectify women.

:rolleyes: