Or that the combined subscriber base of Penthouse and Playboy exceeds that of Newsweek and Time. Can someone verify this? I seriously doubt that this is true.
1 posted on
11/05/2003 10:14:02 AM PST by
presidio9
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: presidio9
I can't read Morford without laughing uproariously.
2 posted on
11/05/2003 10:17:42 AM PST by
WackyKat
To: presidio9
3 posted on
11/05/2003 10:17:58 AM PST by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: presidio9
Or that the combined subscriber base of Penthouse and Playboy exceeds that of Newsweek and Time. Can someone verify this? I seriously doubt that this is true. The articles are certainly better written.
4 posted on
11/05/2003 10:18:38 AM PST by
AdamSelene235
(I always shoot for the moon......sometimes I hit London.- Von Braun)
To: presidio9
Mark menstruates perpetually....
5 posted on
11/05/2003 10:19:38 AM PST by
clintonh8r
(This isn't rocket surgery, people.)
To: presidio9
I doubt that line is true, considering the Penthouse's sales base has reached such a low point they are on the verge of collapsing.
6 posted on
11/05/2003 10:20:17 AM PST by
LanPB01
To: presidio9
You forgot the barf alert.
To: presidio9
After all, porn ruins families. And communities. And children. And puppies. And the upholstery. That's all true, except for the part about puppies. No, scratch that. I'm sure some sicko must be producing porn featuring beastiality.
To: presidio9
Newsweek circulation worldwide is 4m, in the US 3.1m.
Source.
Penthouse circulation is 700k; it was 4.7m at its peak. Source [Warning: potentially objectionable content]
Playboy circulation was 7.2m at its peak (same source as above), but it's declined to points unknown now.
I don't have the time to find Time's circulation; it's a harder web query. But the odds are that Mark Morford's claim is based on peak circulation numbers, not current ones. Of course since then there has been an enormous boom in pornographic videos, so I don't doubt the truth of his essential point.
D
To: presidio9
This guy is so insane and nothing he writes is worthy of reading. ive now read several of his hate filled nasty screed's and wonder how old this guy is? what immature blathering. what a self centered little P***k. CACK CACK CACK.......
14 posted on
11/05/2003 10:27:07 AM PST by
suzyq5558
(I love Oregon! I hate envrionazi's and thier pets ,spotted owl's@tit mice)
To: presidio9
"After all, porn ruins families. And communities. And children."
It does indeed.
15 posted on
11/05/2003 10:29:47 AM PST by
MEGoody
To: presidio9
"After all, porn ruins families. And communities. And children."
It does indeed.
16 posted on
11/05/2003 10:30:19 AM PST by
MEGoody
To: presidio9
Man! You talk about run on sentences.
BTW, what married man would, ever, pay for porn?
I mean, c'mon, you have one of the herd so why pay for milk?
17 posted on
11/05/2003 10:30:32 AM PST by
Just another Joe
(FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: presidio9; All
Liberals are freaky about porn. Problem is they've over used it to the point that more and more is less and less.
Their search for a stimulation high is similar to the drug abusers search for the old high -- the one at the beginning of the addiction. Numb to the point of boredom. And boring to real women. Pathetic, thy name is Liberal.
18 posted on
11/05/2003 10:33:53 AM PST by
GOPJ
To: presidio9
I think I would be comfortable with fewer restrictions on porn if we also had fewer restrictions on vigilante torture of people who use porn in the abuse of children
Deal?
To: presidio9
Or that the combined subscriber base of Penthouse and Playboy exceeds that of Newsweek and Time. Can someone verify this? I seriously doubt that this is true.
I am not sure about now, since Penthouse has hit the skids, but until about 5 years ago, they had the two largest subscriber bases of any magazine.
So9
22 posted on
11/05/2003 10:38:14 AM PST by
Servant of the 9
(I am not reptilian, I just have a low basal metabloism.)
To: presidio9
This Morford clown is a complete asshole (note the bold and omission of the '$$'), but he makes a point. Pornography, sick as some of it may be, is protected speech under the 1st Amendment, and as such should not subjected to the implied threat of government censorship, as evidenced by the declaration of a 'Protection from Pornography Week'.
27 posted on
11/05/2003 10:47:32 AM PST by
bassmaner
(Let's give the word "Nazi" back to the commies!!)
To: presidio9
If I was in the porn industry, I would be all for Protection From Porn Week.
I assume it's the "forbidden fruit" aspect that, in part, generates so many $$$ for them.
31 posted on
11/05/2003 10:59:16 AM PST by
gdani
To: presidio9
Look. Of course hardcore porn can be dangerous to young children. Or course it can be overly explicit and hollow and is absolutely not for kids or even certain priests. This is not an argument.
Actually, this is the argument. Morford glosses over the very real problem of exposing children to porn. More and more young eyeballs are being exposed, and it is not a fleeting glimpse or happenstance. The constant barrage of pornographic images in our entertainment and advertising culture causes real developmental changes in immature minds. Civilization itself is in many ways defined by the accepted restraints or parameters of the sex drive. Where these parameters are is the heart of the argument.
32 posted on
11/05/2003 11:00:35 AM PST by
JmyBryan
To: presidio9
I think a gerbil burrowed its way up into his head.
To: presidio9
"...on rubber-fetish DVDs and nipple clips." Morford is just describing the contents of his sock drawer. This "man" is seriously deranged.
37 posted on
11/05/2003 11:15:21 AM PST by
jjm2111
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson