I am not sure, but since when did The Eyeopener (eyecloser is more like it) become the Ryerson porno rag? I do not appreciate the Ryerson Students’ Union taking a portion of my tuition fees to fund such crap. I don’t even think the Toronto Sun has ever stooped to the level that you sex craved, perverts have. Will this picture be followed by others? Will the “Making Whoopie” section become a regular feature in The Eyecloser? God! I hope not. But the question I have is “Does this mean I can stop buying my monthly issue of Playboy?” I mean, even Playboy has some standards.
Michael Stea
Business
Do you suppose it’s your civic duty to expose your readers to explicit and suggestive photographs, even on such a natural issue such as sex? To have such pornographic pictures in a non-profit, supposedly “for-the-students-by-the-students” paper reflects irresponsibility and open inconsideration on the part of the editors toward the student population. It simply cannot be taken for granted that such a feature would be “appreciated” by the majority of students, and not be highly offensive to a significant proportion of them.
Have you, as editor, no power of censorship? Is there no criteria by which material for your paper is judged appropriate? Understand that interest in your paper lies in producing quality, in being able to represent the student’s lifestyle and interest without being vulgar.
Michelle Rampersad
Hospitality of Tourism
Consider looking through magazines at a newsstand: An individual, who does not wish to look at pornographic material—or erotica in this case—has the opportunity to not do so. The Eyeopener did not give the unsuspecting reader this chance. Someone who did not know the photographs were in there could not help running across them.
I’ve heard people say that the pictures were disgusting and should not have been published at all. This letter is not in support of that argument. What is important is that many of our readers saw pictures that, if they were given the option, would have preferred not to see.
Rory Baksh
Urban Planning 1
Eyeopener Director
I have read The Eyeopener many times and thought it to be less than funny or even slightly interesting. But for the most part your paper has manged to stay on the side of good taste. Last week however you decided to put a photo of a topless woman hovering over a man’s penis. There was no motivation in the story for such a sleazy photo to accompany it. Perhaps if the photographer had taken a more artistic approach it would have been acceptable, but the way it appeared certainly was not. The next time you want to increase your readership, why not try writing interesting stories? I don’t want my student fees going to a second rate National Enquirrel Playboy wannabe.
Trish Launt
RTA 2
Upon opening last week’s Eyeopener, I was not greeted with the usual Ryerson news and views. Instead, I was treated to two pornographic photo’s masquerading as the “Sex and Love” supplement.
I am sure that most of the school population, like myself, was angered by this blatant exercise in bad taste. What angers me even more is that $11 a year from my school fees is what has partly allowed this paper to publish this garbage in the name of shock value. Be sure that this is not the rantings of a “prudish female,” because to me these pictures would not even be so out of place or shocking had I made a conscious decision to purchase a Penthouse or Playboy magazine; I did not have this choice.
What I am really worried about is the climate that this type of picture breeds in the university environment. In early November of last year, I was one of the many women at Ryerson who was subjected to an indecent exposure incident. These pictures can only help to contribute to an atmosphere and problem that we all know exists.
Upon speaking to the editor, Dick Snyder, (who describes himself on the masthead as “Editor in Cheese” and “Dick ‘racist, sexist & homophobic’ Snyder”—and might I suggest egocentric—I was informed that “this is an artistic photograph, and we have an artistic photographer.” I would like to impress upon Mr. Windsor (the photographer) that a picture of his penis is not exactly pretty. I was also told by Mr. Snyder that “I see no degradation in this picture.” The main fact that we see the face of the woman and not that of the man, lends to the fact that the woman is a sexual object.
What exactly was the point and where is the responsible journalism?
Wise up!!!
Vivian Barclay
RTA 2
Leave a Reply