Banned from reading Haunted!

How lame is that! Your girlfriend forbids you to buy playboy? Wow...

I have to agree, that's pretty damn lame.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]. My girlfriend has officially banned me from purchasing the particular magazine in which 'Punch Drunk' will be published this week. [/QUOTE]

Hre's what you do to get her to let you buy playboy.

Everyday, make her take off all her clothes, lay across the bathroom and not say a word while you masterbate on her. She has to change poses every few minutes, but be able to go back to any pose you request. When you are "finished", you walk away with out a word and go about your business.

It won't be long before she grows tired of this and allows playboy.

I like that idea. It will most probably be very convincing.

[QUOTE=rkdaley]Hre's what you do to get her to let you buy playboy.

Everyday, make her take off all her clothes, lay across the bathroom and not say a word while you masterbate on her. She has to change poses every few minutes, but be able to go back to any pose you request. When you are "finished", you walk away with out a word and go about your business.

It won't be long before she grows tired of this and allows playboy.[/QUOTE]
i like that tattoo, but that's a terrible idea.

Right, to get poly-ester tattooed on the banners. That's just silly.

Or were you refering to the magazine substitution idea?

hehe

must i clarify?

I repeat ...hehe

That was the best suggestion ever.
Brilliant.
I'm still laughing my ass off.

I don't think it's so bad. I certainly didn't expect this level of overreaction. I wouldn't be too into her buying male porn, and I kind of dislike everything that magazine stands for anyway. It's a pretty terrible institution, which would probably be more interested in the above suggestions about debasing women than I am.

I have a comment on a thread elsewhere wondering why Chuck is published in Playboy with such regularity. Is it just the money (which is apparently pretty good), or does that magazine fit with what his publishers think of as his key audience? That would be disappointing - if his work is considered to be on a par with vasaline-lensed soft-porn - it's not a demographic I'd like to be included in.

[QUOTE=fortune_wookie]That was the best suggestion ever.
Brilliant.
I'm still laughing my ass off.[/QUOTE]
yeah, brilliant. you just show her who's boss...

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]
I have a comment on a thread elsewhere wondering why Chuck is published in Playboy with such regularity. Is it just the money (which is apparently pretty good), or does that magazine fit with what his publishers think of as his key audience? That would be disappointing - if his work is considered to be on a par with vasaline-lensed soft-porn - it's not a demographic I'd like to be included in.[/QUOTE]

Believe it or not, Playboy is a pretty respected magazine (or at least it used to be) when it comes to it's actual stories and articles.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]I don't think it's so bad. I certainly didn't expect this level of overreaction. I wouldn't be too into her buying male porn, and I kind of dislike everything that magazine stands for anyway. It's a pretty terrible institution, which would probably be more interested in the above suggestions about debasing women than I am.

I have a comment on a thread elsewhere wondering why Chuck is published in Playboy with such regularity. Is it just the money (which is apparently pretty good), or does that magazine fit with what his publishers think of as his key audience? That would be disappointing - if his work is considered to be on a par with vasaline-lensed soft-porn - it's not a demographic I'd like to be included in.[/QUOTE]

Its almost prestige really. Playboy has actually published some pretty good authors in the past, some who later went on to become great.

Stereotyping things is always fun though isnt it...

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]Its almost prestige really. Playboy has actually published some pretty good authors in the past, some who later went on to become great.

Stereotyping things is always fun though isnt it...[/QUOTE]
eqm has a point about the content of playboy. look - there's playboy fiction and there's the paris review, and you're not kidding anyone by refusing to acknowledge that one of those is associated with plastic phonytits and one of those is associated with... george plimpton.

[QUOTE=vidalia]eqm has a point about the content of playboy. look - there's playboy fiction and there's the paris review, and you're not kidding anyone by refusing to acknowledge that one of those is associated with plastic phonytits and one of those is associated with... george plimpton.[/QUOTE]

I know I know

I realize that. I have never owned a Playboy. He just seemed to be acting stuffy.
And people like what they like.

in the interest of a fair argument, lots of prominent unsleazy authors & cartoonists have published in playboy - an affiliation i frankly don't get. i'm just saying, let's not pretend this is ploughshares or something.

[QUOTE=rkdaley]Hre's what you do to get her to let you buy playboy.

Everyday, make her take off all her clothes, lay across the bathroom and not say a word while you masterbate on her. She has to change poses every few minutes, but be able to go back to any pose you request. When you are "finished", you walk away with out a word and go about your business.

It won't be long before she grows tired of this and allows playboy.[/QUOTE]
haha :eek: that's just good old logic.

replace "logic" with "nonsense" and you got it, mister

[QUOTE=vidalia]replace "logic" with "nonsense" and you got it, mister[/QUOTE]
You know there is a fine line between "logic" and "nonsense." On most days that line is nonexistent.

there's a fine line between stupid and clever, my friend.

Wow, vidalia, five of your posts here are about expressing your utmost disagreement about a jocular suggestion.

it's all fun and games til someone gets spooj in their eye.

[QUOTE=vidalia]there's a fine line between stupid and clever, my friend.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but what is clever. I know nothing therefore I know no empirical truth except that "i think therefore I am." but to think that negates the very idea that the only absolute is knowing that you know nothing. So we are stuck in a cyclical cycle that leads nowhere, kind of like this thread. actually i forgot what we were debating

And remember, I'm just playing. How can I not love someone who peeks from under an umbrella?

And stoyan. damn, you evolved. where's that painting from?

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Well, not really. My girlfriend has officially banned me from purchasing the particular magazine in which 'Punch Drunk' will be published this week. This means I'll be hanging around the boards waiting for reviews and opinions. I'll also be hoping that it gets printed in [I]The Guardian[/I] at some point like 'Guts'.[/QUOTE]

Wait.... did she officially ban you prior to this? in that case, her punishment will be lessened... but if you brought this up about the article and [I]then [/I] she officially banned you with that in mind, she is evil, and retribution will be swift.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Yeah but what is clever. I know nothing therefore I know no empirical truth except that "i think therefore I am." but to think that negates the very idea that the only absolute is knowing that you know nothing. So we are stuck in a cyclical cycle that leads nowhere, kind of like this thread. actually i forgot what we were debating

And remember, I'm just playing. How can I not love someone who peeks from under an umbrella?

And stoyan. damn, you evolved. where's that painting from?[/QUOTE]
I evolved? The painting I stole from a Salinger site... I have no idea who painted it but I like it.

[QUOTE=stoyan]I evolved? The painting I stole from a Salinger site... I have no idea who painted it but I like it.[/QUOTE]

yeah evolved? don't know what i was thinking at the moment. sorry. hate that. anyhow, i do like the painting. cheers

*makes whipping noise*

I don't want to make broad generalizations about your girlfriend, but is she offended by Playboy, threatened by it, or what? Because some girls think if you're looking at pornography, however airbrushed, toned-down and mainstream it may be, it's a minor form of infidelity. Like, finding other women attractive. Sort of a reverse-Taliban thing... not that I'm suggesting your girlfriend is anything like the Taliban, unless she rides around in a pickup truck and throws acid on people.

I mean, we're not even allowed to have sexual [i]thoughts[/i] about other women if we're in a relationship. But trust me, every guy masturbates unless he's super-religious or so depressed he doesn't think he deserved himself, or somehow injured [i]both[/i] his hands. And some women are [i]crazy[/i] insecure. For a few weeks, I was dating this girl who wouldn't take her bra off in front of me. Which was really weird, because we were having sex. First time it didn't bug that much, but after that it was like, hey, if she's partially clothed can I wear pants? Maybe a hat?

Oops. I've gone off on a tangent. But anyway, do not take any relationship advice I might give. I'm just speaking from experience.

My advice: Buy the magazine. Take it to Kinko's, copy the story. Dispose of magazine, and keep the copied article in a place your girlfriend wound [i]never[/i] look, like your journal or a manilla envelope marked "Kurt Cobain Autopsy Photos".

My advice: Buy that magazine and tell her to relax.

[QUOTE=stoyan]My advice: Buy that magazine and tell her to relax.[/QUOTE]
The thing is he has to get his balls out of her purse before he can do that.

Just be straight with her. If you really want to just read the article, tell her you're going to buy it and rip the article out. No biggie. If it is, you two have other issues to work out.

Pretty much everone here has made somewhat of a usefull contribution. I agrea mainly with them, buy the mag for the story read it,trash it. Tell your girlfriend you did it and there is not much she can do about it. Basically.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Well, not really. My girlfriend has officially banned me from purchasing the particular magazine in which 'Punch Drunk' will be published this week. This means I'll be hanging around the boards waiting for reviews and opinions. I'll also be hoping that it gets printed in [I]The Guardian[/I] at some point like 'Guts'.[/QUOTE]
Joking aside, if it's that much of an issue, I'll scan it, and send it as an attachment. Done deal.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Joking aside, if it's that much of an issue, I'll scan it, and send it as an attachment. Done deal. :)[/QUOTE]
There's no way I can get Playboy in English in Bulgaria. I would greatly appreciate something like that.

OK I'll sort that out. I just need to know when it's on the racks. i think it comes out this or the following week. hahaha! Should be interesting. I don't have a scanner, and I do all my scanning at the library. I can see the look on the face of the librarian (about seventy-five years old) when I'm scanning playboy. it will give her gossip Cheers.

Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. I didn't mean to cause such a stir and I don't want to make any enemies but please, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about my loved ones like that - that's a pretty scuzzy way to treat people don't you think?

Thanks to Vidalia, who's been taking this question seriously about why Playboy has this standing that it does. Perhaps it's telling that most people here are willing to just accept that what is essentially a pornographic magazine is a respected publication. I still find that odd.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. I didn't mean to cause such a stir and I don't want to make any enemies but please, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about my loved ones like that - that's a pretty scuzzy way to treat people don't you think?

Thanks to Vidalia, who's been taking this question seriously about why Playboy has this standing that it does. Perhaps it's telling that most people here are willing to just accept that what is essentially a pornographic magazine is a respected publication. I still find that odd.[/QUOTE]

Pornography has more to do with your current freedom of speech rights than any other form of media today.

But don't thank me...thank Larry Flynt.

Pornography has more to do with freedom of [I]expression[/I] than it does freedom of [I]speech[/I], and interestingly here in the UK we don't have statutory rights to either. We have what you may consider negative rights. Rather than a right to whatever a constitution may say, we have a right to anything which isn't expressly banned.

Whilst I value very highly the freedom to speak my mind and more widely to express myself in ways I see fit, I don't find any value in pornography. I'd defend their right to do it just as I'd defend my right to dislike it.

I think there is value in pornography. I feel that a lot of it just crosses the line, and I sort of tilt my head and think "how...can someone be aroused by this? A watermellon simply shouldn't GO there!"

What I find baffling is that pornography is more accessible than ever, yet we Americans are still a very prude, puritanical culture. Or at least, we're trying to pretend we are. If we're all so rightious and against porn, who's buying it? I just don't understand that mentality. "Yes I buy porn. Yes I have sex." Why is that such a hard thing for our society to admit?

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]OK I'll sort that out. I just need to know when it's on the racks. i think it comes out this or the following week. hahaha! Should be interesting. I don't have a scanner, and I do all my scanning at the library. I can see the look on the face of the librarian (about seventy-five years old) when I'm scanning playboy. it will give her gossip Cheers.[/QUOTE]

ixnay on the anningscay of copyrighted aterialmay

or at least don't discuss it in the forums.

you're a big boy. you can buy what you want. it's not even to look at the fucking titty pictures. it's for chuck's story. if she can't understand that, you guys have some real talking to do.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy.[/QUOTE]

sigworthy.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. I didn't mean to cause such a stir and I don't want to make any enemies but please, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about my loved ones like that - that's a pretty scuzzy way to treat people don't you think?

Thanks to Vidalia, who's been taking this question seriously about why Playboy has this standing that it does. Perhaps it's telling that most people here are willing to just accept that what is essentially a pornographic magazine is a respected publication. I still find that odd.[/QUOTE]

yeah, this is all interesting. i struggle with my opinions about pornography. i feel as if i'm told i should accept it, like it, even... but i feel like so much of it misses the point of real human sexuality - it definitely misses the point of my own - and the messages a lot of it sends encourage stupid attitudes and behavior. it doesn't correspond with reality - and not in a fantasy-based way - somewhere else. (very funny episode about freaks and geeks about this.) i'm talking body-image and behavioral stuff - it's not like i'm against the representation of sex, nudity, whatever, in media.

i suppose if i saw pornography that was a realistic representation of sex, i might respond differently, but as i see it, most of it looks like a parody - of sex, of women, even of men.

I don't see at all what's wrong with pornography (or rather erotica) as it is presented in Playboy. I think the display of human bodies as objects of high aesthetical value is perfectly normal. These amazing women, or rather these pretty female human bodies, are a manifest of beauty and sexuality, two of the most (if not [I]the[/I] most) important concepts in our little lives.

Saying that publications such as Playboy portray women as mere objects of little or no spiritual value is plainly stupid. That's like saying that showing a particular car's great design implies that the car has only an aesthetical function and no engine.

I think anyone who is bitching about quality pornography is simply either having great insecurities about his or her own sexuality, or is not able to understand that paying attention to outer beauty does not necessarily mean neglecting inner qualities.

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't see at all what's wrong with pornography (or rather erotica) as it is presented in Playboy. I think the display of human bodies as objects of high aesthetical value is perfectly normal. These amazing women, or rather these pretty female human bodies, are a manifest of beauty and sexuality, two of the most (if not [I]the[/I] most) important concepts in our little lives.

Saying that publications such as Playboy portray women as mere objects of little or no spiritual value is plainly stupid. That's like saying that showing a particular car's great design implies that the car has only an aesthetical function and no engine.

I think anyone who is bitching about quality pornography is simply either having great insecurities about his or her own sexuality, or is not able to understand that paying attention to outer beauty does not necessarily mean neglecting inner qualities.[/QUOTE]

Bravo!

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't see at all what's wrong with pornography (or rather erotica) as it is presented in Playboy. I think the display of human bodies as objects of high aesthetical value is perfectly normal. These amazing women, or rather these pretty female human bodies, are a manifest of beauty and sexuality, two of the most (if not [I]the[/I] most) important concepts in our little lives.
[/QUOTE]

I think the problem lies with this misconception that all men think the types of women in Playboy represent the pinnacle of beauty. Women get that into their heads and their own self-image takes a nose dive.

If you look at Playboy enough, you start to realize that most of the women in it are just caricatures of a woman. Absurdly large breasts and protruding hipbones. Not really healthy and beautiful to me, but maybe I'm in the minority.

And really, it doesn't take much for me to adjust my thinking a little bit, and view pornography as a form of absurdist, almost surrealist, art. I'm rarely aroused by it, and more often than not, it just makes me laugh. There's an interesting contrast between how the animal and logical parts of our brains interpret the same image.

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't see at all what's wrong with pornography (or rather erotica) as it is presented in Playboy. I think the display of human bodies as objects of high aesthetical value is perfectly normal. These amazing women, or rather these pretty female human bodies, are a manifest of beauty and sexuality, two of the most (if not [I]the[/I] most) important concepts in our little lives.

Saying that publications such as Playboy portray women as mere objects of little or no spiritual value is plainly stupid. That's like saying that showing a particular car's great design implies that the car has only an aesthetical function and no engine.

I think anyone who is bitching about quality pornography is simply either having great insecurities about his or her own sexuality, or is not able to understand that paying attention to outer beauty does not necessarily mean neglecting inner qualities.[/QUOTE]
first, let me say this: the way to have this discussion should not start with: "saying playboy makes objects out of women is STUPID" and "clearly anyone who disagrees with me is insecure about themself." that doesn't argue much beyond a "i know you are but what am i?" kind of platform.

looking at beautiful people is a pleasantry, of course. but it's unclear to me how the women of playboy, or most other mainstream porn, are anything but objects. hell, the earlier post joking about how to demonstrate to one's girlfriend the purpose of porn illustrates that well - have her lie there as an object, etc. if the media-wide culture were fair toward their representation of women, i wouldn't think of pornography as an exaggeration of a wider trend, but the fact is that in most mainstream movies, women play girlfriends, eye candy love interests, and appendages of the main, male character.

i can see what you're saying, stoyan, that paying attention to appearances does not preclude an appreciation of one's intellect, and it's charming that you say so. my thoughts are, then, that i wish that were true for so many others.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]I think the problem lies with this misconception that all men think the types of women in Playboy represent the pinnacle of beauty. Women get that into their heads and their own self-image takes a nose dive.

If you look at Playboy enough, you start to realize that most of the women in it are just caricatures of a woman. Absurdly large breasts and protruding hipbones. Not really healthy and beautiful to me, but maybe I'm in the minority.

And really, it doesn't take much for me to adjust my thinking a little bit, and view pornography as a form of absurdist, almost surrealist, art. I'm rarely aroused by it, and more often than not, it just makes me laugh. There an interesting contrast between how the animal and logical parts of our brains interpret the same image.[/QUOTE]
bravo.

part of what i'm saying is that i wish i didn't have to do so much of that adjustment.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]ixnay on the anningscay of copyrighted aterialmay

or at least don't discuss it in the forums.[/QUOTE]

What? You can't. I't's not plagiarism and chuck still gets full credit. is it because boyplay doesn't get a cut from free distribution? That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]I think the problem lies with this misconception that all men think the types of women in Playboy represent the pinnacle of beauty. Women get that into their heads and their own self-image takes a nose dive.

If you look at Playboy enough, you start to realize that most of the women in it are just caricatures of a woman. Absurdly large breasts and protruding hipbones. Not really healthy and beautiful to me, but maybe I'm in the minority.

And really, it doesn't take much for me to adjust my thinking a little bit, and view pornography as a form of absurdist, almost surrealist, art. I'm rarely aroused by it, and more often than not, it just makes me laugh. There an interesting contrast between how the animal and logical parts of our brains interpret the same image.[/QUOTE]
by the way. good post. good points

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]If you look at Playboy enough, you start to realize that most of the women in it are just caricatures of a woman. Absurdly large breasts and protruding hipbones. Not really healthy and beautiful to me, but maybe I'm in the minority.[/QUOTE]

Well that I guess is just a differece in personal preferences. I think Playmates are beautiful. Indeed very much so.

[QUOTE=vidalia]first, let me say this: the way to have this discussion should not start with: "saying playboy makes objects out of women is STUPID" and "clearly anyone who disagrees with me is insecure about themself." that doesn't argue much beyond a "i know you are but what am i?" kind of platform.[/QUOTE]
1. Don't tell me how to discuss and argue.
2. Just the word "stupid" does not devalue my argument except in the perception of narrow-minded people. I might as well say "wrong, in my opinion" but I do believe this meaning is implied.
3. I said people who feel threatened by the sexuality displayed in Playboy, or rather, the form in which it is displayed, are likely to have insecuritie about their own sexuality.

[QUOTE]looking at beautiful people is a pleasantry, of course. but it's unclear to me how the women of playboy, or most other mainstream porn, are anything but objects. hell, the earlier post joking about how to demonstrate to one's girlfriend the purpose of porn illustrates that well - have her lie there as an object, etc. if the media-wide culture were fair toward their representation of women, i wouldn't think of pornography as an exaggeration of a wider trend, but the fact is that in most mainstream movies, women play girlfriends, eye candy love interests, and appendages of the main, male character.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that Playboy doen't present women's bodies as objects. In fact, I did stress on the opposite: the bodies are shown as bodies. What my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with it.