posted
for parenting and Janet-Jackson's-Super-Bowl-boob-incident-like reasons?
idk how i feel since I haven't watched it. but I feel sorry for those that like it. It's just like cancelling Looney Tunes from the broadcast tv.
Most parents believe that tv is at least somewhat important (Idk if I can put urgent) when it comes to intelligent levels from kids (probably teens most likely), believing that brief nudity can harm them especially. Idk how to understand them and don't want to. I guess parents wanted to make tv decent and tolerable, but as the critic said from LA Times, "We still love indecency, like violence. But at the same time, we want less indecency." Nevertheless, he called us hypocrits in a different way, so are we?
Posts: 50 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think violence is any better than nudity. I used to tolerate it more, but then I decided not to. And I think having a Victoria's Secret show was more like having a cartoon based on a line of toys, like Strawberry Shortcake. (because it's programming based on marketing an existing product).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes and no. It is one group vs another. Only in this case, the group that is going for decency is speaking out more. But this is all my opinion, and I don't watch a whole lot of tv anyway. If it ain't Nascar, Baseball, or Hockey I ain't watchin.
Edited to add: I never saw much of the Victoria Secret tv show. Just the ESPN highlights. To me it looked promising for decent viewing. By me of course. I wouldn't let my kids watch it.
*Thanks the being upstairs he doesn't have kids.
[ April 13, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The human (in this case male) body reacts in a very powerful way to images of scantily clad people (in this case female people ). It is, for the most part, designed to bring on extreme pleasure, and thus our body "likes indecency". However, not everyone feels that viewing this, or being titilated by images of almost naked women is morally upright, and is in fact damaging in many ways (like objectifing women). Thus they try to get such harmful material removed from TV. Calling them hypocrits for this like saying that if you ever get a violent urge it's hypocritical to not blow somebody away.
posted
Bah! If you want porn you'll have to steal cable and decipher the wavy sexiness like everyone else.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
No. I have a female friend back home who used to ask if I could lend her a couple issues now and then. These days tho, I don't waste money on such stuff.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bah! If you want porn you'll have to steal cable and decipher the wavy sexiness like everyone else. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for saying this. It just illustrates what kind of prudes--yeah, I said it--so many people in the anti-porn camp are and how there is a serious disconnect between them and the rest of the country. When you can classify the kind of clothing that you would see on a beach anywhere in the US as 'porn', there is just no room for communication. It's why I believe communicating with people on porn is impossible.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, unless watching it with specifically lewd intent in mind (which people do I admit). I think any guy that was flipping through and got turned on by a the Victoria's secret fashion show, was probably majorly sexually repressed because he hasn't had the exposure necessary to develop self control over his own body.
Steve agrees with me as do many of my guy friends, so I'm not making a totally baseless hypothesis.
posted
I didn't watch it -- didn't know it was on, though that wouldn't have changed anything -- but what was the seeming intent of the show? What was being advertised during the commercials? Was it face cream and Massengill, or was it big-screens and pick-ups? I know those are gross simplifications and generalizations, but what I'm asking is who, in the mind of whoever makes the decisions, was the target audience?
posted
Hardly. Women's "sexy" fashions are designed by wannabe drag queens to titilate gay dudes. Straight guys are titilated by women in pickup trucks, or Porsches, or Bugs, or '59 Cadillacs, or Civics, or ...
posted
Okay so maybe Strawberry Shortcake isn't the best parallel. What about a movie based on a video game? I'm just saying that I think the show was less likely to be an artistic masterpiece because it is based on a commercial idea. Ooops. Now I've opened a can of worms.
Maybe what I'm getting at is I doubt it was different from an infomercial, except it was probably a lot more expensive. It didn't yield enough return to be worthwhile. So why do I care if it's cancelled? It apparently wasn't a good investment for the creators.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). It is, for the most part, designed to bring on extreme pleasure, and thus our body "likes indecency". However, not everyone feels that viewing this, or being titilated by images of almost naked women is morally upright, and is in fact damaging in many ways (like objectifing women). Thus they try to get such harmful material removed from TV. Calling them hypocrits for this like saying that if you ever get a violent urge it's hypocritical to not blow somebody away.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
