In OSC's most recent article at the Rhino Time, he bashes on Game of Thrones for its "excessive" nudity. It left me wondering about the (often) excessive nudity on premium channels.
So, at first it was just a few shows. Rome was edgy and brilliant and showed nudity. But it was artistic, and no one minded. Then a number of shows hedged their plots to legitimately incorporate a greater amount of sex, shows like Californication and Hung. Now, nudity and sex seem almost commonplace in many premium series -- oh and they are proliferating.
But what about cases like True Blood? The show is purposefully campy and about relationships -- sexual and otherwise. The sex seems to fit in with the story (even if it isn't Mrs. Harris's story). Modern relationships, like modern life, are about more than just flashing eyelashes.
I tried watching Camelot -- but the sex thrown in seemed weird and out of place. And I've actually enjoyed watching Game of Thrones. In the former, the sex seemed thrown in. In the Game of Thrones, I can't think of a single second when it didn't seem to serve the characterization directly (Tyrion and prostitutes, Jaime and Cersei, Dany). This IS an adult series. Has HBO gone too far?
Honestly, I think they've been tasteful (unlike, ahem, Camelot). I just wonder what our puritan preoccupation has done to the REST of our art.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
To answer "Has HBO gone too far?" — in the case of Game of Thrones, the answer is "no."
But the exploits of nudity on television, starting with the premium channels, is just the old issue of changing mores. Even Rome had to deal with it, despite the artistry in its use of nudity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you actually counted the seconds of nudity, how many are they? In an hour and change episode with no commercials, there's maybe three, four minutes of nudity? And how much of it was totally useless? Eh, maybe a minute's worth?
Sure, Martin never goes out of his way to describe, in detail, sex and nudity in the novels, but they are always there. They're frequently mentioned as happening, so the show has a choice: Include them or don't, but including them is inherently graphic in a way that is easily avoided in a novel. You can say, in a novel, "she was naked," without going into details, but to depict someone naked visually, it's a binary, she's either naked or she isn't, and if she is, you're going to get far more detail that way.
Seems like his problem isn't the value of the nudity, it's with all nudity. And really, I thought the nude scenes with Dany in the first episode were very well done. I'll be watching Ep. 2 tomorrow.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I loved Rome, my wife hates it to this day and is convinced that I only like it because of the nudity.
For me it's a question of, "Is the nudity integral to the plot or to understand the character/world?" In Rome and GameOT, I'd say yes.
But I do have to disagree with Lyrhawn about a visual format being binary or not when it comes to nudity...you can show the audience that characters are nude without showing any "forbidden parts" through creative use of camera angle, lighting and cuts, and still get nearly the same emotional effect.
Nearly. So when you have the opportunity, and use it for impact and do it tastefully, it's art.
On the other hand, you have the scene in Demolition Man when John Spartan first arrives at his apartment in the future and gets a video call from a wrong number from a topless blond for zero reason other then someone said, "This movie needs some boobs in it!".
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Considering that it's now perfectly normal to see the 'hero' of a show bite someone's neck out, or decapitate them, I can't see how sex is a problem.
The violence/sex issue has been around for a long time, but I would think allowing a lot of one would eventually lead to the other - just to keep the 'shock' quotient high enough to keep people tuning in. Plus, porn has become a lot more mainstream in the last few years. Dramas have to compete (though thankfully, they're not showing the real thing yet).
Now, you might not want to see either thing, but that's up to you. I don't see why graphic simulated death is fine but graphic simulated sex is not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I don't see why graphic simulated death is fine but graphic simulated sex is not.
Good point.
Bloody murder/killing is ugly and most people won't ever have anything to do with it in their real life.
Sex is how we make our children, can be a beautiful, soulful experience and most everyone has something to do with it in their real life.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bella:
quote:Now, you might not want to see either thing, but that's up to you. I don't see why graphic simulated death is fine but graphic simulated sex is not.
Well for one thing, graphic simulated sex has a very powerful effect on viewers. Seeing others have sex makes many of us want to have sex. I wouldn't say that is remotely as true for violence.
Lyrhawn:
quote:Seems like his problem isn't the value of the nudity, it's with all nudity.
If you read the review his issue isn't with sex scenes, it's with sex scenes that don't advance the plot or instead of the sex being incidental to the character development its the character development is incidental to the sex. Which in the first episode of HBO I really felt they were trying to throw graphic sex at me, to entice viewership rather than just tell a story. I feel it's getting better, and many shows do that sort of thing on the first episode before tapering off somewhat.
If it makes you feel any better, if the (spoilers) white walkers had slowly tortured the men before severing their heads in a very graphic fashion I would have been bothered by that too. It's not as violence gets as free a pass as some say it does. It generally has to be brief or it goes from person to person. Prolonged scenes where a person is consistently and extensively harmed are reserved for media like Saw.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But I do have to disagree with Lyrhawn about a visual format being binary or not when it comes to nudity...you can show the audience that characters are nude without showing any "forbidden parts" through creative use of camera angle, lighting and cuts, and still get nearly the same emotional effect.
That's true, but a series like Rome (among many other earlier examples) shows that there's really no need to. Yes, there's going to be older people offended by the obscenity of godless depictions of sex (gasp! and between unwed couples! shock! and sometimes it is the gay sex) and you can either court them, or work with the censors and move on.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think whether a sex/nudity scene is perceived as "thrown in" or is seen as "excessive" is to a large extent dependent on a person's comfort with nudity. If you're bothered by it, then your threshold for an acceptable level of meaning in the scene is much higher than if nudity doesn't phase you.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
A good point!
quote: Seeing others have sex makes many of us want to have sex. I wouldn't say that is remotely as true for violence.
Well, for you maybe. A few people watch violence and gain inspiration from it for their own violent acts. Certainly, you could argue that seeing images of extreme fake violence helps to numb people to images of real violence.
As for seeing sex making you want to... well, I kind of think a lot of people want to have sex a lot of the time anyway. After all, sex is kind of an important foundation of our existence. I also think that most people can deal with this impulse without grabbing the nearest unwilling stranger.
But it basically boils down to market forces. You have to give the punters what they want. And they want sex, and don't see anymore why they can't have it. That envelope has already been pushed (as it were).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Seeing others have sex makes many of us want to have sex. I wouldn't say that is remotely as true for violence.
Most people do not want to hurt others, and even those like myself who collect weapons, are in martial arts and pride themselves on the ability to protect themselves and others do not relish killing.
But I watched the scene in Last Samurai when (SPOILERS) Tom Cruse's character kills five armed assassins while unarmed himself ten times over and over while I pranced around the room with a katana in hand.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I really would rather see nudity than violence, myself. People make too much of a big deal out of it, I think.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Some people really struggle with seeing that kind of stuff.
I feel sex is a very private, intimate thing, like going to the bathroom. You don't see a lot of TV shows/movies where going to the bathroom is the selling point. And you don't see a lot of people having sex in public OR going to the bathroom in public.
I don't know how to explain this in better terms, but since sex is an intimate act, putting it in a film creates a false intimacy between the audience and the character. (This may be more applicable to women than men.) If the point of the film is to create that intimacy from the beginning, it may have a purpose. But most films don't take this route. They are emotionally destitute, but they throw in a random sex scene, for what purpose, I don't know.
I think on-screen sex creates more emotional confusion than people are willing to admit.
That doesn't mean violence is okay in its place. Casual violence is as disturbing to me as casual sex.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I feel sex is a very private, intimate thing, like going to the bathroom.
Spoken like a person that hasn't peed on enough walls (Or in a washroom full of urinals for that matter)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's true, but a series like Rome (among many other earlier examples) shows that there's really no need to.
Also, historically, it isn't like Romans were particularly shy about depicting nudity (or even sexual acts) in their mosaics and artwork. Going out of our way to make our art about the Romans more conservative than Roman art about Romans is just odd.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I am not afraid nudity and am currently watching Carnivale through netflix and sometimes wonder if they could do without the nude scenes. Its very applicable considering the setup with the "cooch dancers" characters but other episodes include them naked without doing shows while other characters can be involved in sexual situations without nudity. It starts to seem like they have certain actress' who will go topless, and then go out of thier way to get them naked.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think it depends on the topic. Sex and violence were a big part of both the Game of Thrones series as well as the Southern Vampire Mysteries (True Blood series). I'm sure part of choosing those series were for the sex in them, but once the series were chosen I don't think it was strange to have sex/nudity/violence in them.
Of course, it has become expected for there to be sex in premium channel shows, and some have more than others. Entourage and Dexter both had some...but I don't think they went overboard with it.
I think that premium channels should have more leeway since you must pay extra for them (so people with just basic cable are not exposed).
As for the comment that watching sex makes people want to have sex, but watching violence does not make you want to be violent, many developmental psychologists disagree. Look for Bandura's social learning theory.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Spartacus is basically pornography. It's worth it for the fighting scenes, though. And when you're into the Classics, you take what you can get.
[ May 02, 2011, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I don't know how to explain this in better terms, but since sex is an intimate act, putting it in a film creates a false intimacy between the audience and the character.
I don't buy it. I think this is an observation that is true for you individually, but does not extend beyond self-analysis. it's certainly not what it engenders for many other people's viewership of such scenes. I definitely would disagree that I get a 'false intimacy' with the characters represented.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: Some people really struggle with seeing that kind of stuff.
I feel sex is a very private, intimate thing, like going to the bathroom. You don't see a lot of TV shows/movies where going to the bathroom is the selling point. And you don't see a lot of people having sex in public OR going to the bathroom in public.
I also don't use the bathroom with the help of my wife. I don't equate the privacy of sex with the privacy of using the bathroom.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I was going to ask if it was in the source material, and it looks like it is.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. I'm guessing those complaining didn't read the books. There is a reason why it is on HBO and not NBC.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Of course the final responsibility lays with the viewer, but this is not a topic of people complaining about all nudity, rather a discussion of when it is appropriate and when it isn't, and to what extent.
Art reflects life, and sex is a big part of human lives, and must remain so. We are born naked, it is our natural state. There is nothing fundamentally wrong about a naked human body, but our society has placed limits on what is "private" and what is "public".
And while you may well have naked time with your wife and never have bathroom time with her, both fall under the heading of "private".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But I do have to disagree with Lyrhawn about a visual format being binary or not when it comes to nudity...you can show the audience that characters are nude without showing any "forbidden parts" through creative use of camera angle, lighting and cuts, and still get nearly the same emotional effect.
That's true, but a series like Rome (among many other earlier examples) shows that there's really no need to. Yes, there's going to be older people offended by the obscenity of godless depictions of sex (gasp! and between unwed couples! shock! and sometimes it is the gay sex) and you can either court them, or work with the censors and move on.
I disagree. Like Stone Wolf says, you're basically suggesting nudity, you aren't showing it. Again, you show it, or you don't. If they are covered up or using strategic lighting to hide the naughty bits, then they aren't naked, they're censored.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: society has placed limits on what is "private" and what is "public".
Society changes. 150 years ago women would have been arrested for wearing the stuff many wear (or don't wear) now. Other societies are fine with topless women on beaches, while others don't allow ANY affection in public.
The new generation of youth is growing up in a world where it is quite common to record yourself having sex and uploading it to the internet.
Softcore porn on premium stations is nothing new. I remember being a teenager and trying to watch the stuff on Cinemax and HBO back then. The only difference is that the new stuff actually has a good story.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not entirely sure I'm following all this right...but...
As to the binary state, there are still so many different levels. You could take suggestive dialog, with lots of footage of a hip thrusting couple, showing many many personal aspects of sexual intercourse and never show any "naughty bits" and it would be an adult, sex scene.
You could show a woman getting a breast exam with a doctor in a lab coat and fully show breast and nipple, in an instructional video meant to help prevent breast cancer and you would have a vid about health and safety and it could be shown to teenagers with no moral ambiguity.
My public high school showed Schindler's List, with full frontal nudity and the birth of a baby, from head crowning to placenta to me and my classmates at the age of 15.
My point is that content, not nudity is the deciding factor. There are infinite possibilities, not just two, show or no show.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think the purpose of alot of these shows IS to bring the audience into the private lives of the characters. The creators are trying to get their viewers to relate to and develop an attachment to these characters. Often, as the audience, we'll know more about the lead character than his or her own friends do.
We aren't shown bathroom scenes because they're private, but because its rare for these types of moments to be intellectually or emotionally important. I guess a director or a screenwriter could have their character have a revelation on the toilet, but the gross factor still sort of remains which can distract from what they're trying to accomplish story-wise.
But sex is fun. And it means lots of different things to different people so it can be used to accomplish a variety of storytelling purposes.
Personally, I like the realism of nudity. I don't find its as easy to relate to the Hollywood version of sex with its soft focus, odd lighting, and awkward camera angles. Some stories want a sex scene even if its not necessary to the story, so it makes sense to use cleaned-down approach. But now I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to watch a Hollywood version of "Queer as Folk" or "True Blood." They'd be telling very different stories. As to the latter, the sex scenes give the show a sense of a darkness and danger which is much appreciated when surrounded by modern vampires that sparkle and wait until their wedding night.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...which is much appreciated when surrounded by modern vampires that sparkle and wait until their wedding night.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just watched the second episode of GoT, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The sex scenes between Drogo and Dany are fairly integral to the plot. Their sexual relationship is both a vehicle for her development as a stronger character, and is representative of her power relationship with both Drogo and others around her. It's how she comes into her own. This was the one sexual encounter that Martin DID actually describe in some detail.
I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
A socially conservative viewpoint that is exasperated by the sexualization of modern media?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I just watched the second episode of GoT, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The sex scenes between Drogo and Dany are fairly integral to the plot. Their sexual relationship is both a vehicle for her development as a stronger character, and is representative of her power relationship with both Drogo and others around her. It's how she comes into her own. This was the one sexual encounter that Martin DID actually describe in some detail.
I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
You need to stop addressing the idea that all nudity is bad. I waltzed around Rome all week long and saw nekkid statues/paintings/art the entire time. That didn't bother me, they were celebrating the human form, and the human form looks like the way they depicted it.
GOT has nudity, that in of itself does not bother me. I was fine with Dany and Drogo's stuff, it makes sense. I was slightly perturbed by Tyrion's scene, but OK he likes whores and they are some sort of replacement for his family. But it was a very lengthy scene, and it could have been in a much shorter period of time without losing its effectiveness, and in a TV show time is of the essence.
Dany and her brother felt pointless, OK he was appraising her value and we are meant to realize he doesn't care about her at all. But we had a better scene right afterward where he flat out states his feelings on the matter. We had nudity and sex at Dany's wedding, prior to the wedding night, OK primitive culture, that's just how they are. Taken in isolation I've only really got any criticism for the length of Tyrion's scene, and the scene with Dany and her brother, as well as the fact they decided to put all those scenes so close together. But taken as a whole it seems excessive, and I don't think anybody would argue that on the average the first episode featured more nudity and sex than most media outside pornography.
I'm still excited for episode #3 tonight, but I don't want to feel like I'm being given sex just because the film makers feel they need it to maintain interest. They are already showing that there is plenty to this story, including sex that can sell this story, so use every tool, not just the easy ones.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Why on Earth does sex have to advance plot or contribute to character?
In real life, sex is fun and requires no justification. A critic complaining that a sex scene does not advance the plot is a lot like a Catholic complaining about sex that does not lead to procreation.
Why not just enjoy it? Yeesh. It's just a boob.
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
For some reason, if a show is on HBO or other premium channels, because you can show nudity = you must show nudity. You can use profanity = you must use profanity.
Look at a typical Bill Maher show. "How about those teabaggers. F --- them" (cue audience cheering). His use of profanity seems almost forced.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
A socially conservative viewpoint that is exasperated by the sexualization of modern media?
Well, alright, as an underlying basis, but OSC, for example, has tried to couch his objection in the form of storytelling, which is totally different.
If that's someone's complaint, then we just plain disagree, and fair's fair, nothing wrong with that. But I don't think I've seen that used as a stand alone complaint yet.
I'm continually amused though, by those who support their version of morality and family values having such a lopsided hatred for the sexualization of the media over the desensitizing of violence. That's another issue though, I suppose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I just watched the second episode of GoT, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The sex scenes between Drogo and Dany are fairly integral to the plot. Their sexual relationship is both a vehicle for her development as a stronger character, and is representative of her power relationship with both Drogo and others around her. It's how she comes into her own. This was the one sexual encounter that Martin DID actually describe in some detail.
I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
You need to stop addressing the idea that all nudity is bad. I waltzed around Rome all week long and saw nekkid statues/paintings/art the entire time. That didn't bother me, they were celebrating the human form, and the human form looks like the way they depicted it.
GOT has nudity, that in of itself does not bother me. I was fine with Dany and Drogo's stuff, it makes sense. I was slightly perturbed by Tyrion's scene, but OK he likes whores and they are some sort of replacement for his family. But it was a very lengthy scene, and it could have been in a much shorter period of time without losing its effectiveness, and in a TV show time is of the essence.
Dany and her brother felt pointless, OK he was appraising her value and we are meant to realize he doesn't care about her at all. But we had a better scene right afterward where he flat out states his feelings on the matter. We had nudity and sex at Dany's wedding, prior to the wedding night, OK primitive culture, that's just how they are. Taken in isolation I've only really got any criticism for the length of Tyrion's scene, and the scene with Dany and her brother, as well as the fact they decided to put all those scenes so close together. But taken as a whole it seems excessive, and I don't think anybody would argue that on the average the first episode featured more nudity and sex than most media outside pornography.
I'm still excited for episode #3 tonight, but I don't want to feel like I'm being given sex just because the film makers feel they need it to maintain interest. They are already showing that there is plenty to this story, including sex that can sell this story, so use every tool, not just the easy ones.
The quote you included in your post has nothing to do with nudity for the sake of nudity being bad, it's about the role that nudity and sex play in the show as a plot device.
Was the Tyrion scene even that long? It felt like three or four minutes. Didn't strike me as a particularly long scene. I'll grant you that I felt it could have been lifted right out. I agree that that particular bit of nudity wasn't really necessary. Maybe none of it was necessary, but was it justifiable? That's the thresh hold I'm looking for. For the Tyrion scene? Not so much. For the other scenes? Yes, I think so.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Well, the Dany and Drogo scene tonight was shockingly tame after the first two episodes. And still conveyed the point.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Saying "X just seemed forced" when you probably really just mean "X pushed my moral buttons" is the most forced argument of all.
It's incredible bad faith. "Bad story telling" is all too often used as a cover for a complaint about a portrayal of sin.
It's the flip side of the "I took off my top because the story really justified it" excuse that actresses with a certain kind of public image use to justify appearing in nude scenes. We don't take that sort of statement seriously, and neither should we take seriously the statement "you shouldn't take off your top because the story doesn't justify it."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Woah complaining about nudity in an HBO show!?
Nudity!? In *my* HBOs? Surely you jest!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think "it was too long" and "it seemed force" and "they could have eliminated it without changing the story" and related complaints are all a proxy for a moral discomfort with nudity. It's like nudity is, if not an absolute evil, then a necessary evil which we'll reluctantly allow provided it meets our individual standards for appropriate content/context/duration. We get the same way about profanity.
It's interesting what hold portrayal of these vices have on our evaluation of media. You rarely hear someone say "I stopped watching that show - it had too much <x> in it." for anything but sex/nudity or profanity. Maybe violence, but not nearly as often.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be fair, I'm bothered by the apparent cinematic truth that almost all really "passionate" heterosexual sex is done doggy-style.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, I'm bothered by the apparent cinematic truth that almost all really "passionate" heterosexual sex is done doggy-style.
In GOT that was an important point. It doesn't become passionate until the doggy style stops. Though I find it funny that THAT scene was not shown when they finally try new positions.
Have any of you seen This Film is Not Yet Rated? The documentary makes a fairly strong case that Hollywood (or at least the MPAA) frowns on female pleasure.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yes, that really is a odd recent development, Tom. I think that might be the more gratuitous part - in that position everyone gets an eyeful of all the bits and pieces of the woman at all times, while the man still keeps his privates out of sight. Plus, yes, in these cases the male pleasure and dominance is focused on much more than the female's enjoyment.
Not to get too feminist, but this is one thing that bugs me - as far as I'm aware, there's still a lot more focus on the naked ladybits than the manparts. This may be changing, but it's certainly not equal.
(And I hate it when people pull the 'naked vaginas are pretty but naked penises are ugly', because that all depends on where you're coming from on the sexual map.)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Yes, that really is a odd recent development, Tom. I think that might be the more gratuitous part - in that position everyone gets an eyeful of all the bits and pieces of the woman at all times, while the man still keeps his privates out of sight. Plus, yes, in these cases the male pleasure and dominance is focused on much more than the female's enjoyment.
Not to get too feminist, but this is one thing that bugs me - as far as I'm aware, there's still a lot more focus on the naked ladybits than the manparts. This may be changing, but it's certainly not equal.
(And I hate it when people pull the 'naked vaginas are pretty but naked penises are ugly', because that all depends on where you're coming from on the sexual map.)
Depends on the camera angle. In GOT it was pretty much the same view of them both. You saw his chest, you saw her chest. Neither the vagina or penis is visible.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, I'm bothered by the apparent cinematic truth that almost all really "passionate" heterosexual sex is done doggy-style.
I would have thought that a majority of "good" sex in movies is cowgirl.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would have thought that a majority of "good" sex in movies is cowgirl.
You know, you're right. In movies, that appears to be the case. On pay cable, though, it's doggy-style.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would have thought that a majority of "good" sex in movies is cowgirl.
You know, you're right. In movies, that appears to be the case. On pay cable, though, it's doggy-style.
Except in the Matrix. When you live inside of computer programs it's good old missionary style!
On the subject though, I haven't really seen one scene in GoT that contains nudity that wasn't justified. They wanted to show you that Tyrion liked whores. They wanted to show that Lady Stark was not comfortable being in a brothel. They could have showed a lot more of Jaime and Cersei but it turned out to be pretty tame, because they didn't need to show anything more than they did.
Spartacus though....Man.. That show had nudity just to have nudity. I can't remember even one sex scene that was needed in that entire show, with the exception of Spartacus/Mira.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think "it was too long" and "it seemed force" and "they could have eliminated it without changing the story" and related complaints are all a proxy for a moral discomfort with nudity.
That's nice you feel that way, I don't really appreciate you trying to tell me what I really believe or think. But for the sake of fairness I do believe there is inherent immorality in excessive displays of nudity and sex. We live in a society where clothing serves a purpose outside mere comfort with the weather. Most societies including the one depicted in GOTs use clothing to hide nakedness, inform others of rank/position, as well as augment their ability to do their jobs. Each scene in episode one was depicting not just sex, but for most people, sexual immorality. Prostitution, humiliation, rape, incest, adultery, etc.
Now those things happen, that's fine. They involve sex, also fine. They involve people taking off their clothes so they can more easily enjoy sex in some circumstances, also fine. But there is a line between telling a story that contains sex and using sex to tell a story.
quote:It's interesting what hold portrayal of these vices have on our evaluation of media. You rarely hear someone say "I stopped watching that show - it had too much <x> in it." for anything but sex/nudity or profanity. Maybe violence, but not nearly as often.
I've stopped watching shows because I found them too violent. What other things besides, sex/nudity/violence/profanity would you expect people with consistent moral reasoning to leave a movie over?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I stopped playing the game "BioShock" as the 50s naivete twisted into something sinister and evil, the gore and maniacal laughter gave me nightmares...I wasn't expecting it, as a friend gave it to me on loan saying "Here, you'll like this."
Also I don't think the point of the scenes is "Tyrion likes whores" more like, Tyrion longs to be loved, but does not trust anyone to love his twisted form and family money for real, so he baths in comfort for hire to feel the shadow of actually being wanted and loved.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Also I don't think the point of the scenes is "Tyrion likes whores" more like, Tyrion longs to be loved, but does not trust anyone to love his twisted form and family money for real, so he baths in comfort for hire to feel the shadow of actually being wanted and loved.
You know that, I know that, but the average viewer doesn't. Not yet at least.
For someone that has read the books it is easy to see what you said. When Tyrion first gets with Shae it becomes very easy to see how he feels about himself. In a television series though all we saw was Peter Dinklage laughing and having a good ol' time.
For the average viewer that has not read the books they don't think Tyrion wants to be loved. They think he likes whores. As the series progresses I'm sure they will show how he feels, but right now it isn't doing a good job of showing that. Drogo and Danerys on the other hand is being depicted pretty well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I can't speak to the average viewer, but I think they are doing a good job at least of laying the ground work for all this, showing his discontent with his family, and his attitudes about his deformity.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:That's nice you feel that way, I don't really appreciate you trying to tell me what I really believe or think. But for the sake of fairness I do believe there is inherent immorality in excessive displays of nudity and sex.
BB, did you just complain about MattP accurately describing your point of view?
quote:What other things besides, sex/nudity/violence/profanity would you expect people with consistent moral reasoning to leave a movie over?
I change the channel most of the time when confronted with any of the following things I find morally wrong:
1) Exploiting poor or stupid people and their interpersonal conflicts for laughs (Maury, Jerry, lots of "court" shows).
2) Exploiting young children for the vanity of the parents (child beauty pageants, some talent competitions, lots of reality tv)
3) Playing up expensive taste and conformity as the keys to an acceptable level of self esteem (What Not To Wear, Extreme Makeover, etc.)
4) Contrived competitions masquerading as romantic love stories (the Bachelor[ette] and ilk)
When it comes to movies, there's rarely such a discrete theme, but I do find it morally objectionable to perpetuate the following ideas that crop up in a lot of popular movies, and try to avoid the ones where they are most blatant:
* Stalking is romantic and likely to work out well
* Everyone should have a glamorous job; people with boring jobs aren't worth telling stories about.
* You should have a wedding that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
* Slight dissatisfaction with your mate justifies breaking up your family.
---
I put all of the above on par with portraying reckless promiscuity as a good thing, or exploiting vulnerable people for titillation.
I think some pay cable entertainment walks a line between doing that and being willing to titillate without selling culturally harmful lies.
It's worth exercising your conscience and spending power to support only the entertainment that has the kind of cultural inertia you like, I think.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum:
quote:BB, did you just complain about MattP accurately describing your point of view?
No, I don't have an innate (edit: moral) discomfort with nudity. My protests regarding the nudity in GOT were not some sort of cloak I was hiding behind because in reality I'm so insecure about being around nudity that I feel a need to remove it from my consciousness by trying to get rid of it throughout society.
quote:I change the channel most of the time when confronted with any of the following things I find morally wrong:
1) Exploiting poor or stupid people and their interpersonal conflicts for laughs (Maury, Jerry, lots of "court" shows).
2) Exploiting young children for the vanity of the parents (child beauty pageants, some talent competitions, lots of reality tv)
3) Playing up expensive taste and conformity as the keys to an acceptable level of self esteem (What Not To Wear, Extreme Makeover, etc.)
4) Contrived competitions masquerading as romantic love stories (the Bachelor[ette] and ilk)
When it comes to movies, there's rarely such a discrete theme, but I do find it morally objectionable to perpetuate the following ideas that crop up in a lot of popular movies, and try to avoid the ones where they are most blatant:
* Stalking is romantic and likely to work out well
* Everyone should have a glamorous job; people with boring jobs aren't worth telling stories about.
* You should have a wedding that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
* Slight dissatisfaction with your mate justifies breaking up your family.
So basically most reality and documentary television, that's fine. I refuse to watch Toddlers in Tiaras for much the same reason.
I would put any of those shows on par with any show that glorifies other things I think are reprehensible.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I totally agree with scifibum on that...
I was watching Borgias yesterday. It would have made OSC's head explode from all the sex everyone kept having. But what freaked me out was
spoiler!
That kid was 12 YEARS OLD AND THAT BRAZEN HUSSY HAD JUST BEEN WITH THE KID'S BROTHER AND SHE WAS LIKE LET'S DO THIS AND HE WAS 12!!!! AUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! WHAT THE HELL?!?!
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Shockingly, OSC's last book is very sexual. He has a 20ish girl almost rape a 12 year old boy. And there's all these sex scenes going down on Westil.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It looks like I'm reading OSCs last book now.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
IIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE I hate rape scenes. I have no problem with some nice, normal, two people having sex scenes, but rape, SQUICK! HORROR! URG!
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I'm pretty sure the kid was 13.
I'm also fairly confident she took off her clothes and he went "WOW!" and that was, as they say, that.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:You rarely hear someone say "I stopped watching that show - it had too much <x> in it. for anything but sex/nudity or profanity.
I stopped watching 24, because it had too much supposedly "justified" torture in it. I stopped watching Charmed, because it had too much supposedly justified fatalism in it.
I don't mind sex, nudity or profanity -- some shows (like GOT) use it to properly portray sexual and profane characters, others (like Spartacus) use it pornographically: but that's okay, I don't mind porn either.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:You rarely hear someone say "I stopped watching that show - it had too much <x> in it. for anything but sex/nudity or profanity.
I stopped watching 24, because it had too much supposedly "justified" torture in it. I stopped watching Charmed, because it had too much supposedly justified fatalism in it.
I don't mind sex, nudity or profanity -- some shows (like GOT) use it to properly portray sexual and profane characters, others (like Spartacus) use it pornographically: but that's okay, I don't mind porn either.
It is still mind boggling that 24 could show such gruesome, graphic, torture. One bear breast for half a second in a violent sport game and the country is in an uproar. Frankly I think the world would be a much better place with more naked people and less displays of violence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: I'm pretty sure the kid was 13.
I'm also fairly confident she took off her clothes and he went "WOW!" and that was, as they say, that.
Is 13 the age of consent? Otherwise wouldn't it still be rape?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I mean, it's still OSC. He's not going to be graphic, but they do talk about it as rape within the book.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is 13 the age of consent? Otherwise wouldn't it still be rape?
In the 1400s?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The scene is set in the 21st century.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Huh. Have no interest in the show, but I thought it was about the Borgia family of the 1400s and 1500s?
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think "it was too long" and "it seemed force" and "they could have eliminated it without changing the story" and related complaints are all a proxy for a moral discomfort with nudity.
Um, nice theory but no. In my case "it was too long (that's what she said)" and "they could have etc., etc...." usually aren't proxies for anything other than boredom and frustration at wasted screen time that would be better spent on characters/development that I care about.
Sorry for the Michael Scott ref. but I literally couldn't help myself.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
It's not a show. It's a book.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Rivka, there's a misunderstanding. They're talking about a sex scene in OSC's latest book, apparently set in the 21st century, in which a woman in her 20s has sex with a 13 year old boy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have no interest in the book. My question was to clarify the possible implication that a minor boy's "enthusiasm" would make sex with him something other than rape. I was asking to see if that was what Carrie meant to imply. If so, I would object that even if a child says, "WOW", it is still rape.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It certainly is statutory rape, but you lessen the meaning of the word "rape" to call two eager participants in a sexual encounter just "rape" if one happens to be underage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm sure there are several priests and some scout leaders who would agree with you. They and you are wrong.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Rivka, there's a misunderstanding. They're talking about a sex scene in OSC's latest book, apparently set in the 21st century, in which a woman in her 20s has sex with a 13 year old boy.
They don't have sex. She is naked and tackles him, but the other people in the house stop her before she has her way with him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
kmbboots...there is a difference between a teenager who is enthusiastic about having sex with someone who is over the age of 18, a young child who is convinced that having sex with an adult is the "right" thing to do through the use of lies and misplaced trust and violent non consensual sex.
The first is called statutory rape, the second is child molestation and the third is rape.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But all of them are rape. If one cannot give consent, one has not given consent.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Rivka, there's a misunderstanding. They're talking about a sex scene in OSC's latest book, apparently set in the 21st century, in which a woman in her 20s has sex with a 13 year old boy.
Ah. Too many threads in this thread. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm sure there are several priests and some scout leaders who would agree with you. They and you are wrong.
quote:Um, nice theory but no. In my case "it was too long (that's what she said)" and "they could have etc., etc...." usually aren't proxies for anything other than boredom and frustration at wasted screen time that would be better spent on characters/development that I care about.
But plenty of things waste screen time. No one starts threads titled "Are there too many chase scenes in today's TV shows?" or "Do we hear too much internal monologue in TV shows?" When we complain about an inappropriate amount of content it's almost always nudity/sex. (I'm now imagining an XKCD comic charting Google results for permutations of "Is there too much <*> on TV?" for various ridiculous subjects.)
I'm not saying this as some sort of criticism of uptight prudes. It's a problem I experience myself, usually with a show that I would love to share with my kids but which has an uncomfortable amount of nudity in it. I'm wondering at my own discomfort here as well as the rest of y'all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
kmbboots:
If all these things are simply "rape" then why did more specific language to describe those situations develop at all?
Someone very close to me was violently rapped by strangers, and she would also disagree with you that all forms of sexual abuse should be classified by the word of what happened to her.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Someone very close to me was violently rapped by strangers
Was one of them an old dirty bastard? Or a ghost faced killer?
Seriously, though. Sex without consent is rape; this includes situations both involving open lack of consent as well as inability to give consent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, I did not say "simply"; rape is a complicated thing. But it is still rape. I am sorry for what happened to your friend, but do not discount the trauma of those abused or exploited as children or teenagers either.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no interest in the book. My question was to clarify the possible implication that a minor boy's "enthusiasm" would make sex with him something other than rape. I was asking to see if that was what Carrie meant to imply. If so, I would object that even if a child says, "WOW", it is still rape.
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring to "The Borgias," where there is no explicit child sex (nor even physical contact), and the thirteen-year-old is fully clothed whilst a woman disrobes. I have no idea what OSC's scene is about.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have a friend who was date raped while unconscious. I know she still considers herself to have been very much raped and the fact that it was someone she thought cared a little about her made it an emotional betrayal as well as a physical thing.
I have read accounts online of people who had sex at 13 and there is a lot of baggage and hurt and betrayal and a very clear feeling of violation in there.
Every rape is different and brutal and traumatizing in its own way. Debating whose rape was the most damaging seems a bit silly to me. It seems like an attempt to make the other forms less serious and less socially unacceptable and repulsive. He's not really a rapist because...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no interest in the book. My question was to clarify the possible implication that a minor boy's "enthusiasm" would make sex with him something other than rape. I was asking to see if that was what Carrie meant to imply. If so, I would object that even if a child says, "WOW", it is still rape.
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring to "The Borgias," where there is no explicit child sex (nor even physical contact), and the thirteen-year-old is fully clothed whilst a woman disrobes. I have no idea what OSC's scene is about.
Ah...I thought you were referring to JonHecht's post. I do think that 13 year olds were "older" then than now. Still...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no interest in the book. My question was to clarify the possible implication that a minor boy's "enthusiasm" would make sex with him something other than rape. I was asking to see if that was what Carrie meant to imply. If so, I would object that even if a child says, "WOW", it is still rape.
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring to "The Borgias," where there is no explicit child sex (nor even physical contact), and the thirteen-year-old is fully clothed whilst a woman disrobes.
Aha! See, I was right!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Was one of them an old dirty bastard? Or a ghost faced killer?
I don't know what this means, so I am trying not to assume anything as it seems possible that you are making light of a very serious situation. Please explain.
quote:...do not discount the trauma of those abused or exploited as children or teenagers either.
Using specific terminology in no way discounts the trauma. We are having a discussion of semantics.
quote:Debating whose rape was the most damaging seems a bit silly to me. It seems like an attempt to make the other forms less serious and less socially unacceptable and repulsive. He's not really a rapist because...
To an extent I agree, to an extent I do not. Firstly, I don't think anyone was debating which is the most damaging. But I do feel that if a 17 year old's parents press charges against her 20 year old boy friend for sex which she was a willing participant in, it is just not the same thing as a child who is molested by a trusted acquaintance or someone being violently forced into sex or someone being drugged and taken advantage of.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But Stone Wolf, even where you gave what you believe was more specific terminology, you used it wrong. A child who is convinced to have sex with an adult and do so is not simply child molestation. Molestation does not necessarily involve penetration. Legally there are different levels to rape true. When you say statutory, you are saying that you don't have to look at the level of consent- all that matters is did sex occur. The burden of proof is different. When you drop the statutory aspect, then you look at consent issues. If violence also occurred, there will likely be an additional charge alone the lines of assault.
The 17 year old with boyfriend is why Romeo and Juliet laws are out there. That is not considered rape by most standards because it is assumed meaningful consent is posssible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Seventeen is past the age of consent in most places; thirteen is not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Molestation does not necessarily involve penetration.
Neither does the word "sex" only mean penetration.
quote:When you drop the statutory aspect, then you look at consent issues. If violence also occurred, there will likely be an additional charge alone the lines of assault.
I don't understand what you are getting at here.
I looked up "Romeo and Juliet" laws, and they are a great idea, and I am very happy that we have added another level of concern for justice into our justice system.
quote:Seventeen is past the age of consent in most places;
Not where I live.
quote:Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[41]
* age of consent 16 (31) : Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
* age of consent 17 (8): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas
* age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
The statement was "most places". The statistics you cite agree completely.
What's more, some of the states where the absolute age of consent is 18 may have laws that extend the age of consent downward for certain cases. For instance, you see Indiana has 16 recorded as an age of consent, but the law is written such that a 17 year old could have sex with a 15 year old and neither be guilty of any crimes (basically, as the law is written, the age of consent if those involved are under 18 is 14).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:The statement was "most places". The statistics you cite agree completely.
Isn't that instantly obvious? I never said she was wrong, just that...I happen to live in an 18 consent state.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sorry, I misunderstood the intent of quoting the state info.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No worries, thanks for the apology. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: It is still mind boggling that 24 could show such gruesome, graphic, torture. One bear breast for half a second in a violent sport game and the country is in an uproar. Frankly I think the world would be a much better place with more naked people and less displays of violence. [/QB]
I'm with you. It's easier to have a scene shooting someone in the face on a TV show than showing a bare breast, which, when you think about it, everyone likely to watch is significantly more likely to see one in daily life than the other. (But I live in New Orleans. We have naked bike races here. "Oh, look. The neighbors are naked again. Ho hum.")
Stone_Wolf_ - Samp was naming rappers as a joke (in dubious taste), mocking the typo in your previous post ("rapped" for "raped").
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can say that I won't watch Game of Thrones and I turned off Rome (as a classics student!) after one episode because of the sex and nudity. It ruins a show for me, on multiple levels: I don't want to see it, it is almost always objectifying and exploitative (and "condemning" characters for being the same doesn't let the show off the hook), and it lowers my opinion of the storytelling abilities of the showmakers.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:But all of them are rape. If one cannot give consent, one has not given consent.
The idea of a minor being unable to give consent is purely regulatory. It is very difficult to judge whether or not the older partner has manipulated the younger partner, so we ban all such acts.
That does not mean it is in principle impossible for a young adolescent to enjoy healthy sex with an adult.
In other words, the law against statutory rape is a good law, because of the stakes. This does not mean there is anything inherently moral or immoral about the act it bans.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Um, nice theory but no. In my case "it was too long (that's what she said)" and "they could have etc., etc...." usually aren't proxies for anything other than boredom and frustration at wasted screen time that would be better spent on characters/development that I care about.
Wait, you're bored by breasts and blood? LoL. I understand outrage, but boredom? You're either sad or lying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Stone_Wolf_ - Samp was naming rappers as a joke (in dubious taste), mocking the typo in your previous post ("rapped" for "raped").
Thank you Olivet.
I am very angry to hear this...not that samp and I have gotten along in the past, but to openly mock a loved one raped on the basis of a typo strikes me as beyond the pale.
I really do not know how to react other then to say this: samp, it is not funny, and you have crossed over the line.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I stopped playing the game "BioShock" as the 50s naivete twisted into something sinister and evil, the gore and maniacal laughter gave me nightmares...I wasn't expecting it, as a friend gave it to me on loan saying "Here, you'll like this."
Also I don't think the point of the scenes is "Tyrion likes whores" more like, Tyrion longs to be loved, but does not trust anyone to love his twisted form and family money for real, so he baths in comfort for hire to feel the shadow of actually being wanted and loved.
That is a very accurate description of Tyrion.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I totally agree with scifibum on that...
I was watching Borgias yesterday. It would have made OSC's head explode from all the sex everyone kept having. But what freaked me out was
spoiler!
That kid was 12 YEARS OLD AND THAT BRAZEN HUSSY HAD JUST BEEN WITH THE KID'S BROTHER AND SHE WAS LIKE LET'S DO THIS AND HE WAS 12!!!! AUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! WHAT THE HELL?!?!
I loved how they highlighted that scene with the milk he was drinking. I liked that scene. It didn't shy away from what arranged marriages really were. Selling your children for power and wealth.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The scene is set in the 21st century.
Even in the 21st century the Age of Consent is all over the place but it doesn't matter anyways as they didn't show any sex. Just a cut to black.
EDIT I was talking about Borgia's not the OSC book
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I am very angry to hear this...not that samp and I have gotten along in the past, but to openly mock a loved one raped on the basis of a typo strikes me as beyond the pale.
Sorry. No offense intended.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have struggled with this Samprimary, I know you love a good snarky jab at anyone, and while we do not see eye to eye on many a thing, I have never seen you as a stupid person, in fact quite the opposite.
So I accept "Sorry." but I have to ask, if offense was not your intention, what was your intent? You are smart enough to know that it was an offensive thing to say, and of all the people who regularly post on this board, I am not exactly known for my thick skin or ability to take comments about my loved ones in stride.
I'm not trying to make more of this then need be, but I truly wonder: where exactly your head was at when you said what you said?
ETA: Request rescinded. Apology accepted. Moving on.
[ May 05, 2011, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
SW, I am almost certain that Sam's thought process was "Gee, that's a funny typo. Let me make this mildly amusing joke." Let it go.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Agreed. He apologized. Move on and don't dwell on it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Added to post by way of edit:
quote: ETA: Request rescinded. Apology accepted. Moving on.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Or in a washroom full of urinals for that matter)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)