The ass barrier was breached many times back in the late 80's by LA Law and number of other shows - you are wrong.
then we're good, but for the record, this is an *******, the previous post was all about the butt-ocks.
That is why I don't aprticularly care about this issue. I would greatly prefer no nudity on the network airwaves during prime time. But if a network goes out of bounds, you have to enforce the rules then...not years later. I agree with that.
My own mom was like this...and its the only thing negative thing I can say about my otherwise sainted mother. Any amount of violence...no matter how overdone and gruesome is perfectly ok for kids over like 10...but god forbid they should (GASP) see a bare breast.
Oh my goodness. My rating of this thread just went up considerably, basso. Impeach Bush. Free Buttocks for the Public!
There have been numerous times when a male's buttocks have been shown on TV and non rated r movies. I remember seeing Cuba Gooding's on TV in that movie about how they went on a gay cruise. Why arent we allowed to see a female's ass then? Call it both sides please.
So you're in favor of this Orwellian approach? The whole reasoning behind this decision is something we should all be wary of...
I remember seeing that episode and it wasn't that bad. What ABC should be fined for is showing us Dennis Franz's fat naked ass.
dude, you are such a neo-con bush nutsackrider did you read the thread title? you are such a sheep as BUSH takes over the country
If you are going to say "buttocks are" then make "sexual organ" plural. Buttocks are [not] sexual organs. Of course, you could just say ass and avoid the awkward grammar. I also object to the timing of the fine. Late call, no foul.
Exactly. I guess we should protest Playtex, Victoria's Secret, and many other types of commercials. I guess we should edit or ban anytime a woman happens to be in a bathing suit or bikini on a show. I guess we should do away with shows where a woman's skirt or shorts do not come down to he knees. Stupid.
That's not the point. I don't care if they're allowed or not, but the language and reasoning behind this fine is absolutely Orwellian. There is nothing about the cheeky region that is anything close to a sexual organ. Note they say "organ," not "turn on." Any reasonable person would take that to mean reproductive parts... vagina and penis. The cheeks cover up your anus, so no excretory organ there either. If you don't want cheeks on TV say you don't want cheeks on TV. Don't use some nonsensical language to justify it... and then do it in real time, don't wait a bunch of years.
There is a big, big difference between a fine (silly or not) for showing a bare butt on TV and Orwell's vision of a totalitarian state that watches your every movement, reads your mail, and jails for you for expressing dissent. I don't agree with a fine years later, but to call it Orwellian seems a little tin foil hatted to me.
paranoia strikes deep into your life it will creep it starts when you're always afraid step outta line, the man come and take you away...
Again, you're missing the point. The cheekiness is not relevant to my argument... it revolves around the language and justifications of the FCC's decision. And the Orwell reference was to his writings and thinking on political rhetoric. For example... The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. or Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. or Political chaos is connected with the decay of language... one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. "Butt cheeks are sexual organs" is, in my view, a fit for Orwellian language.
