Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Klein jotted this down: > My favorite was an image of an > answering machine on a table, with a voice bubble coming out of it... > " Congratulations, Ms. , the waiting period is over, and you can come > pick up your gun today! " > > Below that was the image of a woman lying face down on the floor, in a large > dark pool of a viscous liquid. See, I don't care for propaganda like that; it leaps to conclusions I usually don't, among other things. My first thought was that were it real life, chances are she was shot to death by a gun in the first place, and it was likely bought/owned by somebody with a history of stalking or other problems that don't rule out being a gun owner. Or that given this would be her first gun, the killer likely was more properly trained, so he/she could out-shoot her to begin with. Or any other number of scenarios, including that she should have been better-protected to begin with, that various agencies should have been handling whatever the problem is better, and so forth. On top of that, I've seen how easy it is to get at least the concealed-carry permits even if the person is in a long-term emotional state that most people feel means that the person shouldn't be armed in the first place -- so I am wary because of that as well. I have to wonder what percentage of non-financial murder or murder-suicide cases were committed by somebody that was legally armed. For the most part, I don't care either way about guns; Parrish owns them, I've handled them, and it's all a big " shrug " from my corner. (Especially as I'm not exactly anti-violence; I just instinctively lean towards hand-to-hand combat.) However, certain aspects of the gun lobby turn me away pretty strongly from ever wanting to be associated with it. I won't go into that, though, since it would turn into quite an extended discussion, and I only sporadically have the energy to reply. -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: >> I don't know what the exact demographic breakdown is of Playboy's >> readership, >> but I do know (as is probably pretty obvious) that the largest >> portion is men >> in their twenties and thirties. It does go beyond that, though. > > Oh, I know it goes beyond it. I'm mostly curious whether it reflects > the lifestyle of the subscribers -- whether the subscribers tend to > have LTRs and get laid regularly, or if they're more like the sort > that largely remain unattached and get laid sporadically on a casual > basis. I'm honestly not sure. Most people who read Playboy don't talk about it, so I have too small of a " statistical sample " to know for sure. >> Back when I was in college, for example, I stayed with my mother and >> her >> husband whenever school was out, and they always read my copy when I >> was done >> with it. They're both in their fifties. > > True, but I was talking about subscribing, rather than just looking at > it. I looked over some of your magazines when I was there, but that's > a long stretch from me being a subscriber, masturbating with the pics, > etc. True. Except Playboy isn't masturbation material. ;-) >> I'm mostly speculating, here, but I wouldn't think that the nude >> photography >> would be the main appeal of Playboy anymore. As said, if >> that's all >> you're looking for, you can find terabytes of it on the Internet for >> free. >> Most of the people who buy it are most likely looking for the other >> content. >> (Most, not all... I'm sure there are exceptions.) > > There's a long online, but I don't know the quality, since I'm more > into other things when it comes to sexual content. The quality is all over the place. Some of it is excellent, some of it is really bad, most of it is probably somewhere in between. > There's also, like some guys have mentioned on 'net forums, that you > can't bring the computer easily into the various places people like to > masturbate, plus you have to worry about mess rather more with > electronics, etc. Well, again, I was referring mostly to nude photography, which isn't masturbation fodder. But yes, I see what you mean, partially. >> The only other comment I can offer is anecdotal... I had a roommate >> back in >> the late Eighties who subscribed. He was in his mid-thirties, and >> he had had >> women falling all over him all his life. > > Was this the narcissistic guy that was unable to emotionally connect > with anybody, though? No, different guy with different problems. *chuckle* The guy with NPD didn't read Playboy. ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: > Except Playboy isn't masturbation material. -) It isn't? I'd always heard of it more in the sexual context. (Aside from you, and when I've mentioned your comments about reading it for the articles, even the men reacted pretty much with the " you'd have to be pretty naive to believe that " type responses.) >> There's also, like some guys have mentioned on 'net forums, that you >> can't bring the computer easily into the various places people like to >> masturbate, plus you have to worry about mess rather more with >> electronics, etc. > > Well, again, I was referring mostly to nude photography, which isn't > masturbation fodder. But yes, I see what you mean, partially. I've just gone off what the men at Slashdot and similar forums say whenever printed vs. electronic material is brought up in that regard. > No, different guy with different problems. *chuckle* The guy with NPD > didn't read Playboy. What were this one's problems, then? -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: >> Except Playboy isn't masturbation material. -) > > It isn't? I'd always heard of it more in the sexual context. (Aside > from you, and when I've mentioned your comments about reading it for > the articles, even the men reacted pretty much with the " you'd have to > be pretty naive to believe that " type responses.) *shrug* Well, all I know is, *I've* never masturbated over the photos in Playboy, and I've never known anyone else who has, either. The photos in Playboy aren't pornographic -- they're lean more toward the " artistic nude " type (for comparison, take a look at Hustler, or even Penthouse, where the photos are much more explicit). >> No, different guy with different problems. *chuckle* The guy with >> NPD >> didn't read Playboy. > > What were this one's problems, then? Gerhardt was the guy who treated women like absolute garbage and saw nothing wrong with what he did. Best example: he was in an LTR with a woman whom he knew wanted to have children someday. He was childfree and had had a vasectomy some years before he met her, but since he knew she wanted children, he lied to her about being CF and told her instead that he had " fertility problems " because he knew that if she knew the truth, she'd leave him. Charming guy. (This was the same guy who was also a highly fundamentalist Christian, BTW.) ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.