The real message? I find it ironic that someone is so concerned about their child seeing a partially naked woman but has not problem with same child watching a bunch of guys try their best to violently knock each other down? We are so uptight about bare flesh and sexuality in this country its ridiculous. And what's worse is that marginally talented entertainers use our Puritanical hangups in order to attract attention to their crappy albums/movies/TV shows. I think I get the message just fine.
are you even remotely serious?? i literally laughed out loud when i read this. yeah...i know...big bad football...i should let my kid watch less of david carr and more of grinding on stage and with exposed body parts he'd have to be 17 to see in a movie theater...body parts that if she exposed on the street, she'd be arrested for it.
In all practicality, the single act that would have the most beneficient effect on your kid would be to remove TV from the house altogether. Quibbling about which is worse on television, sex or violence, is a moot point when there's a better option that includes neither.
That movie almost changed my opinion about Lifetime sucking. Mom from Family Ties had some...um...MTV...uh...ah...bye!
The Super Bowl is the glorification of a bunch of testosterone-laden men beating the crap out of each other for millions of dollars while people in the stadium are encouraged to drink and cheer for women in slightly more than bikinis who dance suggestively on the sideline. The week of the Super Bowl is known for its Martis Gras-like atmosphere and all-night parties thrown by such upstanding establishments as Maxim and Playboy. Some of the NFL's biggest sponsors are alcohol distributors and drug companies peddaling pills for sexual enhancement. The ads during the broadcast include women in nearly ever stage of undress and incredibly suggestive content. And we are all so surpised by Janet Jackson's "stunt" because??? What, there aren't boobs behind the 3" squares of fabric worn by the two catfighting women who end the commercial as they are about to "make out?" By the way, this is the same Dan Patrick who, as a publicity stunt, had a vascectomy peformed on him on live radio while he described the procedure.
Now look at them yo - yo's that's the way you do it You play the guitar on the MTV That ain't workin' that's the way you do it Money for nothin' and chicks for free Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb Maybe get a blister on your little finger Maybe get a blister on your thumb
It's true though. What was airing opposite the Superbowl? Alias? What's a normal body count on an Alias episode? 2 or 3? I'm sure Terminator or something like that was airing on some other channel. WHere's the outrage about that? We, alone among most Western countries, have a ridiculously puritanical attitude towards sex and a strange indifference to bloodlust and explicit violence. I'm not sure if either is good for kids to watch, but I bet that a split second glimpse of a partially exposed nipple can't be as damaging as watching Vin Diesel gun down 25 people.
Yo, I want my MTV, naganooch. Actually, I haven't watched MTV since the last movie awards, and the last time before that was the previous movie awards.
I'm not sure if either is good for kids to watch, but I bet that a split second glimpse of a partially exposed nipple can't be as damaging as watching Vin Diesel gun down 25 people. I don't think that's relevent at all. We tell parents that its up to them to determine what their kids should or should not watch - not you or me. How can a parent do that if the show does things that are unexpected (and violating FCC regulations in this case)? If a parent doesn't want his 10 year old seeing an exposed breast, <I>that's the parent's choice</I>. Yet, how is a parent supposed to do his or her job if they don't have any clue what's coming? The NFL and CBS broadcast the Superbowl with the expectation of it not having nudity, and the FCC allows it to be broadcast based on that standard - parents rely on that information. If the show violates that, they should pay the price.
First off, the FCC regulations that you allude to are nowhere near as precise as you make it sound. There's no "anti nipple rule"; it's all on a case by case basis. Second, I wasn't really commenting on the FCC or anything like that, just in hypocrisy and double standards in general; A nipple is treated with shock and horror; murder violence and the like is treated with casual indifference. Although the asinine amount of hyperbole coming from them this week was nauseating, Michael Powell described it as despoiling a "sacred" moment. WTF? Since when did the freaking superbowl halftime show become sacred? Likewise, the hyprocrisy coming from the NFL, whicch is a Sunday specatcle of violence and T&A revolving around beer drinking and selling beer was also absurd. These guys run Bud light commercials featurning farting horses and they're worried about people being offended by a split secons shot of a nipple? COme on.
Was anybody listening when "Chick" from "The Bob and Tom Show" had his prostate exam live on the air?
