|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is Reader's Digest turning into a porn mag? WTF?
I have here four consecutive issues of Reader's Digest, each one looks innocuous, but put them together and a pattern emerges!
Here you see the perfectly normal front covers.
The dates on them, so you can know that I'm being truthful and not just using only issues that match the pattern.
Now, look at the back covers!
What's up with that? Just a coincidence, or is it something more? Perhaps the reader's digest is trying to become a porno magazine without people noticing...
Here you see the perfectly normal front covers.
The dates on them, so you can know that I'm being truthful and not just using only issues that match the pattern.
Now, look at the back covers!
What's up with that? Just a coincidence, or is it something more? Perhaps the reader's digest is trying to become a porno magazine without people noticing...
Those images are all part of ads for different bath products. Most of the ads for products like that have similar images. I can't really see but it looks like they're all Dove ads, so the pattern may just be that Dove has a deal with Reader's Digest to have ads on the back of the magazines for a few issues.
Ads for skin products thats all, no malicious images I can see.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| Ads for skin products thats all, no malicious images I can see. |
Remember that Reader's Digest is supposed to be for everyone's reading pleasure (or at least I think so), be it an adult or a teenager, or a kid. Also note that the magazine does not come with _any_ age warnings. So in my view, showing such ads in the magazine (or outside on the cover (more troubling)) is not something I would not appreciate!
Man, if you can that a porn I wonder, what will you call a XXX movie.. 
Unless you are living in some Islamic State, I do not see a problem in there.
Unless you are living in some Islamic State, I do not see a problem in there.
Sounds like another "conspiracy theory"...but I like it! 
I never cared much for Reader's Digest...maybe a few good pictorials would win me over.
I never cared much for Reader's Digest...maybe a few good pictorials would win me over.
I see nothing sexually implicit about the advertisement images on the back of the magazines. I agree that children, up to a certain age, are too young to have their minds filled with images and ideas of sex... it's just too much for them to handle. However, I believe that no child is too young to be deprived of reality; we are all human, all covered in skin. If one disagrees with this, then certainly one is making an effort to not leave their Reader's Digests laying about the coffee table.
ooooooh I can see her belly!!
disgrace!! scandalous !! shame on readers digest!!
swimming pool? No that's totally different!
I'm pretty sure it's just you. I don't think Reader's Digest is trying to become another playboy magazine. Those are just bath/body product ads. Those type of ads always show skin and stuff.
Nothing wrong with that.
Mda... i also think that is nothing wrong with the back covers. Think at the fact that they advertise the company/product that pays the most. So... in the next no., on the back cover, could be you if you pay extremely well 
(this is almost a joke... so don't be offended)
(this is almost a joke... so don't be offended)Reader's Digest is not exactly aimed at that demographic, although I'm not really sure what demographic it's aimed at... It's probably one of the most generic magazines you can buy...
First of this year, Reader's Digest did a makeover (not for the better). I miss the C.F. Payne artwork on the back cover but RD decided to "sell" the back cover.
I think everyone is rather disgusted by the change. I honestly didn't even realize it was a RD when I first saw it, and I was like WTF!
It probably advertising skin care or sumthing.
Sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade. Nothing really significant here.
So if you go to a beach/swimming pool and you see a woman in bikini, that's porno?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
Now, look at the back covers!
What's up with that? Just a coincidence, or is it something more? Perhaps the reader's digest is trying to become a porno magazine without people noticing... |
If you think those images are pornographic, why are you posting them on a public forum where anybody can read them?
And what about your sig with that naked female inviting us to ride her like a mare....
Obviously a conspiracy from the skin care companies to sell more products</sarcasm>
But really I don't see anything wrong with that, maybe for like 10 year old boys who would be immature about it, but no it's not bad.
But really I don't see anything wrong with that, maybe for like 10 year old boys who would be immature about it, but no it's not bad.
I don't see the big deal as I see women walking the streets with much less on than that.
Probably is for attention-grabbing purposes, but those images I wouldn't think are classified as pornographic.
These are just advertisements that's all.
Give it a few more issues, and the Dove ads will probably disappear. Dove apparently bought advertisements on the back of the magazine for a couple issures.
It will change sometime later.
Give it a few more issues, and the Dove ads will probably disappear. Dove apparently bought advertisements on the back of the magazine for a couple issures.
It will change sometime later.
| Josso wrote: |
| Probably is for attention-grabbing purposes, but those images I wouldn't think are classified as pornographic. |
Well of course they're not going to add in true porno right away! They're trying to be sneaky about it...
They want to start of slow, with stuff like this that is plausibly deniable!
(Really, it is kind of funny seeing all these people trying to argue the point, when I posted it as a joke in the first place!)
hi dear,
readers digest always have ads at the back... and these are ads for soaps or beauty soaps which need to how some skin... and there's nothing wrong in that... i also think the same way... so peace.
readers digest always have ads at the back... and these are ads for soaps or beauty soaps which need to how some skin... and there's nothing wrong in that... i also think the same way... so peace.
Nahh, of course they're not pornographic, silly person.
It is a very amusing idea, though.
I think I remember reading that Dove was trying to incorporate "real" people in their ads, so they could stop having the usual models that promote the "perfect" body and give people unrealistic standards. So maybe that's why RD decided to have it on their back covers, because it promotes healthy images.
Or it is some kind of conspiracy.
lol
It is a very amusing idea, though.
I think I remember reading that Dove was trying to incorporate "real" people in their ads, so they could stop having the usual models that promote the "perfect" body and give people unrealistic standards. So maybe that's why RD decided to have it on their back covers, because it promotes healthy images.
Or it is some kind of conspiracy.
lol
They should just re-title the magazine and call it Readers Wives.
...wait, that's porn? Not really, it's just a belly.
Thats really something... I dont read it but eh... if its true thats sad LOL HAHA...
I don't get it....they're just ads? I seriously doubt Readers Digest, the magazine of old people & doctor's waiting rooms, would ever turn PORNOGRAPHIC.
Oh, for goodness' sake! Ocalhoun clearly doesn't actually think that the images are pornographic. I can't believe anyone is even arguing this seriously.
Ah, Reader's Digest. Reminds me of my grandparents.
Ah, Reader's Digest. Reminds me of my grandparents.
| meet in rio wrote: |
| Oh, for goodness' sake! Ocalhoun clearly doesn't actually think that the images are pornographic. I can't believe anyone is even arguing this seriously.
Ah, Reader's Digest. Reminds me of my grandparents. |
Don't you know? No one reads anything but the first post.
Sadly it's true.
Well, those ads would have done wonders for circulation in the 1960ies, where millions of 8-year-olds were waiting for the next National Geographic Magazine containing pictures of some aboriginal tribe which, for some reason, wouldn't dress according to western decorum. Even if this thread is meant in good fun, I shudder at the thought that these ads probably did cause serious discussions in the RD editorial dept. with the avantgarde (read: backward) members slugging it out with the conservative (read: extremely backward) members.
Sex sells - no matter how much we campaign for women lib and stuff like that. Its not Reader's Digest thats going porno but just that they are accepting ads that might border on the questionable.
I don't see an issue with this. All they are is ads for personal hygiene products. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think you're looking a little bit too closely at this...
I think you're looking a little bit too closely at this...
 |