Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

tweets

Every series of coach trip they go on segways in one of the trips

Bedtime now goodnight :wave:

streetlights

Good evening I hope you are well.
from a womble AvT 2x Ambrosia Devon Custard (400G) £1.94 £1.00

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

He did indeed, in Yorkshire.

HEY!!! How come I have just had to see a penis in BB, yet yesterday a womans lady bumps were pixelated, how sexist!!! :eek:

:rotfl::rotfl:










(Don't get me on to inconsistency again - it's all useless! Of course - here I go again:rotfl: - it could be argued, purely from an outside POV and completely divorced from societal standards, that it is inconsistent that men's top halves can be publicly displayed - I mean on the street - yet women's cannot (unless they are in the act of breastfeeding and even that is disagreed with by some). It could be argued that it was sexist to allow men to bare their top half of their body but not women. However, clearly I understand our society's standards. Yet no-one would say that it was acceptable for a man to show his penis in a public street either - so again that doesn't account for seeing it on BB (I assume it was in a private setting) yet not seeing the breasts. It's pretty stupid, in that context, IMO, even though I've not seen the programme:rotfl:, as the Sun newspaper shows or has shown women's breasts (and some people disagree with that too) yet there's no suggestion that the Sun would be willing to show a naked penis. They would probably pixelate that. (Yet you know what it is anyway, so what's the point?) Yet the reverse seems to apply on television?!?:huh: I have no idea why the seeming inconsistency. Why don't you complain that it was sexist and that it offended you? See what their reply is to that one - as they seek to try to avoid offence and succeed in doing the exact opposite. I don't know - they'd probably say it was broadcasting regulations (yet it was all after 9pm!) and that the breasts weren't justified in context - presumably the penis was?!? - and weren't editorially justified - which seems to mean whenever the broadcasters decide themselves that it is or isn't and therefore applied/disapplied at total whim (IMO) - but in which case, if it wasn't editorially "justified", then why show anything at all? The pixelation doesn't make it any more acceptable. All in all, it's just drawn even more attention to the thing.)

davemorton

Savvybuyer wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:










(Don't get me on to inconsistency again - it's all useless! Of course - here I go again:rotfl: - it could be argued, purely from an outside POV and completely divorced from societal standards, that it is inconsistent that men's top halves can be publicly displayed - I mean on the street - yet women's cannot (unless they are in the act of breastfeeding and even that is disagreed with by some). It could be argued that it was sexist to allow men to bare their top half of their body but not women. However, clearly I understand our society's standards. Yet no-one would say that it was acceptable for a man to show his penis in a public street either - so again that doesn't account for seeing it on BB (I assume it was in a private setting) yet not seeing the breasts. It's pretty stupid, in that context, IMO, even though I've not seen the programme:rotfl:, as the Sun newspaper shows or has shown women's breasts (and some people disagree with that too) yet there's no suggestion that the Sun would be willing to show a naked penis. They would probably pixelate that. (Yet you know what it is anyway, so what's the point?) Yet the reverse seems to apply on television?!? I have no idea why the seeming inconsistency. Why don't you complain that it was sexist and that it offended you? See what their reply is to that one - as they seek to try to avoid offence and succeed in doing the exact opposite. I don't know - they'd probably say it was broadcasting regulations (yet it was all after 9pm!) and that the breasts weren't justified in context - presumably the penis was?!? - and weren't editorially justified - which seems to mean whenever the broadcasters decide themselves that it is or isn't and therefore applied/disapplied at total whim (IMO) - but in which case, if it wasn't editorially "justified", then why show anything at all? The pixelation doesn't make it any more acceptable. All in all, it's just drawn even more attention to the thing.)

You know what, I think I might well put a complaint in tomorrow Savvy!

Nannylala

Another one here off to bed ..hugs to all the poorly ones nighty night :A

Savvybuyer

But the question is: did you have to see the penis?
(...Could you not have averted your eyes?:rotfl::rotfl:)

Sunshinemummy

davemorton wrote: »

You know what, I think I might well put a complaint in tomorrow Savvy!

Are you complaining that the ladies bits were pixelated, or that the mens bits were not?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

You know what, I think I might well put a complaint in tomorrow Savvy!

Put one in today!

:rotfl:

Are you complaining about the penis or the breasts, or both? (Don't answer this - we ought to get off this topic:rotfl:.) Don't complain about the penis - I don't mind penises on late night television:rotfl::eek: (or breasts for that matter).

Serendipitious

davemorton wrote: »

He did indeed, in Yorkshire.

HEY!!! How come I have just had to see a penis in BB, yet yesterday a womans lady bumps were pixelated, how sexist!!! :eek:

I wonder whether different rules apply for men and women or whether on-screen nudity is a matter of individual consent in each individual contract?

Savvybuyer

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Are you complaining that the ladies bits were pixelated, or that the mens bits were not?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's what I've just asked:rotfl::rotfl:.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: