Recommended Posts

Just had a good laugh. Tits on CBS made the headlines!!! Super Bowl gets an entirely new meaning... I gues many Europeans laugh at the censorship the US media seems to be the victim of. Delaying a live broadcast a couple of seconds to cut out "inappropriate" parts :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See this thread. I don't personally see why guys fuss over tits to start with, but the 2004 Super Bowl (aka the Toilet Bowl) was shown during prime time and should not have had garbage like that, or all those commercials for things like erectile dysfunction. I'm personally tired of seeing sex and sexual innuendos working their way into every facet of the media. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another bodily function like urinating or defecating. Most people get over their obsession with those other bodily functions by the time they finish junior high. I don't understand why so many adults of both sexes continue to be so infantile about sex. They remind me of Beavis and Butthead when they act that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm all for more titties on TV, it's amazing how much fuss many in the US place on a bare breast at 7pm, yet have no probs exposing kids to talk about some young kid getting raped and murdered on the 6pm news, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had a good laugh.  Tits on CBS made the headlines!!!  Super Bowl gets an entirely new meaning...  I gues many Europeans laugh at the censorship the US media seems to be the victim of.  Delaying a live broadcast a couple of seconds to cut out "inappropriate" parts  :D

The best part with this kind of censorship is the ability to cut out

other nonwanted frames in the same yawn.

Whether we like it or not censorship has a colour

and the painter aint us looking.

/casa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry when were women stripped naked on the WWE? And I thought that wrestling stuff wasn't worth watching..... And what about all those animals doing it on animal planet? Wearing nothing at all.... It's deplorable......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry when were women stripped naked on the WWE?  And I thought that wrestling stuff wasn't worth watching..... And what about all those animals doing it on animal planet?  Wearing nothing at all.... It's deplorable......

You're gonna go off on National Geographic next SuperCaff, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that "nudity" is perfectly acceptable in certain contexts, but not in others... women can breast feed in public, but Janet Jackson's "costume reveal" is borderline criminal..... Reminds me of a Gary Larson FarSide cartoon (which is unavailable on the Net because he told everyone to cease-and-decist) that shows 2 Ameboe sitting on a couch watching cellular mitosis on a screen, with a caption that reads "Ameboe Porn".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
women can breast feed in public

One of my close friends told me the same thing. Is this for real or is it just understood as one 'can' do it.

I remember someone changing her baby on our table at the store I used to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I try to keep my 9-year old son from seeing violence more carefully than I try to keep him from seeing nudity or love. Sex for sex's sake is 'bad' at his current age, but if it's just nudity for nudity's sake, with no sexual content, it's not a bad thing. So I didn't let him watch the Super Bowl for it's violent content. (Sorry, American Football is one violent sport.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this article:

http://www.freep.com/news/childrenfirst/feed4_20030204.htm

Federal legislation protects breast-feeding in public, clarifying that the act is not a criminal offense. Many states, including Michigan, have laws that further protect nursing mothers from harassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I try to keep my 9-year old son from seeing violence more carefully than I try to keep him from seeing nudity or love.  Sex for sex's sake is 'bad' at his current age, but if it's just nudity for nudity's sake, with no sexual content, it's not a bad thing.  So I didn't let him watch the Super Bowl for it's violent content.  (Sorry, American Football is one violent sport.)

I keep my kids from nudity, sex, etc. pretty much as close to 100% as I can - but do not now nor have I ever had any qualms about violence. Indeed, in the nearly violence-free atmosphere in which kids are raised today in the US I am continually working on ways to keep the exposure levels up.

Compare now to, say, my Great-grandparents day when, for example, my great grandmother's older sister was at the age of 12 was worked so hard and cruelly that literally the flesh was stripped from her fingers - the "worked her fingers to the bone" statment that I'd never considered to have any real meaning until I was told that story. The daily slaughter of animals, random fighting and accosting in the streets, not to mention their grandparents being kidnapped as Indian brides, etc. etc. etc.

Brutal, violent times and they were tough old biddies because of it. Put any of us to shame.

No amount of video games can begin to scratch the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No amount of video games can begin to scratch the surface.

hehe.. I don't try to hide the real world from him, I just don't want him exposed to 'entertainment' that glorifies violence. (Or promiscuity, or even rudeness, for that matter.) I let him watch the news, I try to explain what is going on when he sees things about car bombings and similar. I don't try to sugar coat the world to make him think everything is like on "Leave it to Beaver"...

But I don't want him to become desensitized to the point that he no longer cares about other lives. "Oh, another forty people killed in Iraq today, oh well." "Oh, man, car accident! I hope someone died!" That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hehe..  I don't try to hide the real world from him, I just don't want him exposed to 'entertainment' that glorifies violence.  (Or promiscuity, or even rudeness, for that matter.) 

I think that is the 'smart' way to go about things. I think that glorified violence 'teaches' children to seek violence as an easy way out...

I keep my kids from nudity, sex, etc. pretty much as close to 100% as I can - but do not now nor have I ever had any qualms about violence. Indeed, in the nearly violence-free atmosphere in which kids are raised today in the US I am continually working on ways to keep the exposure levels up.
I dissagree with the sex/ nudity part. Is it 'bad' to see a person naked? In all honesty, you say that you were comparing how life is today with how it was a couple of years ago:
Compare now to, say, my Great-grandparents day when, for example, my great grandmother's older sister was at the age of 12 was worked so hard and cruelly that literally the flesh was stripped from her fingers - the "worked her fingers to the bone" statment that I'd never considered to have any real meaning until I was told that story.
In that case, I don't think sex/ nudity should be such a taboo. Mind you, I am German and we Germans think of ourselves (and in comparison to our neighbors from the Netherlands are) quite inhibited when it comes to sexuality and sexual themes. Nonetheless, I think that partial nudity isn't something that corrupts souls. I agree, hardcore porn does not belong in primetime, but a single exposed breast is nothing that will turn children into axe murderers.

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not understand the concern that nudity causes in the US. I am open for explanations.

I think that the 'ultra-viloence free' TV (can I say Barney) is definetely total garbage. I had to watch the Barney movie with my host sisters once... and it was more than I could take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem was that the "naked nipple" ( not the breast ) was sent out over public airwaves. If her "nipple appliance" *covered* the nipple that would have been legal.

The airing of the female areola and genitals is illegal.

If the broadcast was on a paid service and appropiatedly labeled for content there would not have been a problem either.

Pasties would have been "offensive" but not illegal. This reflects public nudity laws. Showing said body parts will get you arrested for Indecent exposure.

The public can have laws changed if they want it. Until then, it will be illegal.

I agree that football is violent. Most sports are.

But it is in a controlled environment. And when things do get out of hand (fights, late hits, etc.) people are punished. It is important to point that out.

It is similar to what my kids picked up on when they were ~ 1 year of age: you can get away with things at Grandpa and Grandma's house, but not at home.

I want them to learn that it's OK to let it all hang out on the field or court. But it ends there.

I want them to learn that Daddy laughs at Bart on the Simpsons, but doesn't find it funny when they do the same thing. ;)

Kids see that people get hurt on the news (killed, raped, etc.) and I make a point to show that these guys get caught. And sent to jail (even if it's only for a day. :P )

In any case, I think it is more important to talk to kids about what they are seeing around them (TV, school, etc.) than try to control what they see. But, both need to happen.

Dogeared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The public can have laws changed if they want it.  Until then, it will be illegal.

really? So, how would the public, who mostly despises the speed limit, go about changing that law? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The public can have laws changed if they want it.  Until then, it will be illegal.

really? So, how would the public, who mostly despises the speed limit, go about changing that law? ;)

They'd have to have more money than GEICO and the insurance industry and be able to lobby the politicians to get it changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The public can have laws changed if they want it.  Until then, it will be illegal.

really? So, how would the public, who mostly despises the speed limit, go about changing that law? ;)

OK, I'll bite. :P

A couple of my own ideas on that at the risk of taking this thread off-topic:

1) Do studies which show the "speed kills" theory is nonsense, and make sure they find their way to lawmakers. If anything, the higher the speed limit the more the driving process demands total concentration, and thus the less likely one is to use driver distractions like cell phones. On roads with no speed limits, like Germany's autobahn, the fatality rate per million miles is actually much lower than on US highways. A large part of this may be because the consequences of having an accident at 130 mph are much greater than at 55 mph, so drivers concentrate more, and don't take any needless chances. They also keep their cars in better repair. I've seen cars on highways here that weren't fit to go 25 mph, let alone the 75 mph they were doing.

2) Ban the use of cell phones and other distractions in cars (food, TVs, even music), and/or perhaps use a safety interlock that won't allow the phone to operate unless the car is stopped. This may not be popular, but sometimes you have to give up something to get something. I think the public would prefer to get where they're going faster more than having a phone in their car.

3) Force automakers to make only much more aerodynamic cars that get halfway decent fuel economy at high speeds, and/or accelerate the switch to hybrids/electrics. Many lawmakers would still be against higher speed limits for the fuel usage reasons alone. If vehicles like SUVs didn't exist, or weren't allowed on higher speed roads, that objection would fall by the wayside.

4) The best idea of all is to make all cars self-driven. We can do this via GPS and embedded magnets in the roadways fairly cheaply. If the driver is no longer in control, human error is out of the equation, and accidents are reduced to practically zero regardless of the speed limit. The insurance industry could make no logical objection to higher speed limits at that point. In fact, there may not even be any need for insurance, or if it still existed the rates would be ridiculously low, due to the near-zero accident rate. Of course, anybody who likes to drive will be out of luck, but you'll get higher speeds, and you can do other things like read, watch TV, talk on the phone, or post on SR instead of driving.

Fact is, a good reason the speed limit exists is to generate revenue, and for that reason many lawmakers are averse to raising it to high enough levels that only a few drivers would exceed. Indeed, with driverless cars moving violations of any kind by definition would become a thing of the past, and you can only make so much with parking tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dissagree with the sex/ nudity part.

It depends on the context. I practically had my head handed to me in another thread when I came out against the excessive nudity/sex on TV nowadays. Nudity by itself isn't necessarily objectionable, but in a sexual context, which it almost always is, I find it highly objectionable for the reason that it trivializes sex. Sex (and violence) should not be trivialized. This isn't to say one shouldn't be exposed to them, or that a certain level of exposure isn't necessary for a healthy perspective, only that they shouldn't be pervasive to the point that one is desensitized. By this I mean to the degree that one has sex as casually as eating a meal, or sees 50 people killed in a suicide bombing and thinks it's just another day in Iraq. Like btb4, I also worry that exposure levels to real violence in this country aren't high enough. When you're never exposed to real violence and its consequences at all, or very little, you tend to sugarcoat the world in abstractions. Thankfully, I've been exposed to enough reality living in NYC that this isn't a problem for me (I've already seen people who were shot), but I worry about children raised in suburbia where literally almost nothing ever happens.

About the working your finger to the bone thing, the old timers were a much tougher lot. Even my generation is compared to the twenty somethings. I walk ten miles round trip to CompUSA sometimes, and towards the end I'm often nursing blisters. Par for the course as far as I'm concerned. Last week when doing some work the top layer of skin literally came off one of my fingers. I just bandaged it and went back to work. I see some kids nowadays complain if they have to walk five blocks, or if they get a paper cut. I'm also sure that I'm a wimp compared to my grandparents generation. I remember my grandfather talking about changing the cardboard in his shoes as he couldn't afford new ones. Also the stories about having a job lighting streetlights when he was eight. My generation, and especially the younger one, wouldn't last a week in the world of 100 years ago.

I think that the 'ultra-viloence free' TV (can I say Barney) is definetely total garbage. I had to watch the Barney movie with my host sisters once... and it was more than I could take.

Barney is actually painful to watch. I remember when my niece used to visit and I overhead that show. It made me wish there were dinosaur hunting licences. Thankfully, my niece outgrew it. Now she sings "Barney's dead, shot in the head", which is a much healthier perspective, I think. :D

Funny, everyone's talking about Janet's breasts, and nobody has mentioned the commecials shown in the SuperBowl. Why should a parent be put in the position of explaining what viagra or a yeast infection is to an eight-year old? The commercials are worse in my opinion than a few seconds of exposed boobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are in transition, and we as a species usually suck at quick transitions. Modern media (TV, internet, etc.) are just a crude pre-cursor to when people WILL have wireless connectivity through implants. Such implants will allow a more advanced form of "web browsing" and messaging than we have now, and to have it any place and any time. While this will have many benefits to society, it will also break down the walls between children and adults at a much earlier age. With all of the world's websites (including all the "bad" or "adult" ones) available, how can we hope to wall off children from sex or even violent images and teachings?

The answer is YOU CAN'T - but you CAN teach them to deal with it (and the requisite maturity) at an earlier age. This is similar to the way inner city children grow up - they may lack a picture perfect suburban childhood, but they are mature way beyond their years. Now, current inner city children ALSO suffer from bad environments and parenting in many cases, so there is a tendancy to view "wise beyond their years" as a bad thing, leading to drugs, etc. But combined with good parents and supportive environments, city children often grow up to be very mature, very wise adults - they've seen it all before they were 16.

Back in the olden days, people got married at 12 years old - the average adult life span was only until the 30s. So we CAN mature at an earlier age - we have just adjusted to an education system that keeps us as students until ~18. Hopefully our wireless implants will let us contract that educational cycle as well - or obviate it. Whatever the case, children WILL mature faster given unlimited information access...and we will need to adjust our society and norms to that.

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Do studies which show the "speed kills" theory is nonsense, and make sure they find their way to lawmakers.
has been done. There is a book that compares the US to Germany. It compares the statistics from 1970 (or sometime around then) to late 1990's. In both countries, the number of vehicles operating has greatly increased. In germany, the speed limit has about doubled, while in the US it did not change. In Germany the number of traffic deaths has decreased, not so in the US. The problem is though that one could look at the numbers and argue that in germany more people that get into an accident will die, because of the higher speeds. If one crashes at 65mph the chance to survive is probably 4 times the chance to survive at 130mph.
3) Force automakers to make only much more aerodynamic cars that get halfway decent fuel economy at high speeds, and/or accelerate the switch to hybrids/electrics.  Many lawmakers would still be against higher speed limits for the fuel usage reasons alone.  If vehicles like SUVs didn't exist, or weren't allowed on higher speed roads, that objection would fall by the wayside.

In all honesty, this would never work. We all know how much safer SUV's are... I think people would quickly realize why SUV's are a pointless idea when living in a country, which such great infrastructure as the U.S. Most SUV's are unable to go anywhere near 100mph and when people start passing them in their Civics, it will become apparent how fuel efficiency makes a difference. Atm. there is no/ very little incentive to drive a fuel-efficient car in the U.S.

Fact is, a good reason the speed limit exists is to generate revenue, and for that reason many lawmakers are averse to raising it to high enough levels that only a few drivers would exceed.
i think that will be the major deterrent (spelling?) to raising speed limits. I feel that drivers (more so in germany than in the US) are being milked for all its worth. A friend of mine just had his license revoked for 6 months solely because she had 3 speeding tickets within the last 18 months.... in addition to paying all the fines, she "had to" get a restricted license for USD 75 and will have to apply for a new one this summer (USD 50).. it makes it pretty clear that speeding tickets/ speed limits have nothing to do with road safety...

ps.: yes, she 'could' run/ walk to work, but it takes me ~2 hours to RUN there (one way) and i am somewhat fit, seeing how I need <3h 30min for a marathon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on the context.  I practically had my head handed to me in another thread when I came out against the excessive nudity/sex on TV nowadays.  Nudity by itself isn't necessarily objectionable, but in a sexual context, which it almost always is, I find it highly objectionable for the reason that it trivializes sex.  Sex (and violence) should not be trivialized.

I partially agree, I think that my treshold ("when is sex trivialized") is likely a lot lower than yours, but sex should not be made to be something that one does just like having lunch.

Barney is actually painful to watch.  I remember when my niece used to visit and I overhead that show.  It made me wish there were dinosaur hunting licences.  Thankfully, my niece outgrew it.  Now she sings "Barney's dead, shot in the head", which is a much healthier perspective, I think.  :D
I wish my host sisters would have arrived at that point :/

but yes, a shooting license for purple, bright green and yellow dinosaurs would be nice :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now