US, UK poles apart over breasts
by Big Tex 65 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Farkel
When it comes to female breasts for what they really are, I think all men of all cultures agree on their beauty and wonderment and their appeal for the male side of the human species.
Every other argument is caca. Men like 'em. That's it. Logically speaking, it's stupid lusting after bags of fat and tissue. Then again, men are stupid anyway. If we weren't this stupid, female humans would have become extinct a million years ago. But, NO! They are still here to haunt us and tell us we are wrong, even when when are, which is most of the time.
Farkel
-
bisous
I agree with you Xena....
Sorry I don't think anyone, child or not, was traumatized by seeing a boob...or the dancing for that matter. Dry humping has been around for awhile in dance ... "The Freak" in the 80s ... all of this hootin and hollerin....
If your morality doesn't include TV or what is on it nowadays, turn it off. It was widely broadcast that the 1/2 time show was produced by MTV...what did anyone expect?
The same people that bemoan boobs, sex, etc. more often than not set their kids loose on Terminator, Speed, Jean Claude van Damme and Steven Seagall.....sblood, murder, violence ... all more appealing .... hmmmmm....
Television is a poison in society for the most part anywayz.....generations of overweight drones will soon overrun us all!! lol
Censor Yourselves, People!
-
Farkel
: Television is a poison in society for the most part anywayz.....generations of overweight drones will soon overrun us all!! lol
If it weren't for the "lol" tag, I would have viciously attacked the above statement. But since you were sensible enough to put that "lol" tag in your post, I only have this to say, "your statements are really, really, stupid and totally without facts or foundation."
Let me illustrate: in the 1930's, 1940's and early 1950's radio was the medium of mass communication and millions of people spent hours with it as their entertainment. Does your argument work with that situation? If so, how so? How "fat" were radio listeners, then? If they were not as fat as television viewers today then please present FACTS why they weren't. If you think you know a reason, then you'd better have your ducks in order, or I will demolish any bogus argument you might make. Or at least, make you do some research and come up with some EVIDENCE. ("Evidence" is an anathema to people who pontificate from the place where the sun don't shine.)
If the radio shows, which had millions of people glued to them every week (fifty years ago) was not also "poison" why was it not also "poison"? And why is television more "poison" than radio, or movies, or plays, or street shows, or symphonies, or roving minstrels, or mimes, or hustlers on the street?
Please be very specific. There WILL be a quiz.
Farkel, not suspecting a substantive answere
-
talesin
Farkel = provocatuer
Keep up the good work, hun!
t
Re: TV - "the message is the medium" - Marshall McLuhan
-
LDH
Ahhhh....good to be back, if even for a brief visit.
Yeru says:
Her breast wasn't just exposed, her clothes were violently ripped off...I'm waiting to hear about the first reports of copycat ripping in the schools. BAD EXAMPLE.
LOL, perhaps Yeru doesn't have cable. Suggest you tune in, Yeru, to what's being broadcast on TV. Most "kids" tune in to Looney Toones where Wiley E. Coyote gets the shit beat out of him regularly. But let me guess, "animated" violence doesn't count. It's actually WWF and the like that kids are imitating, not JT and JJ. LOL, I can't stop laughing. Ever heard of a little phenomenon called "backyard wrestling?"
This was not violence....gimme a break. You are a member of the US armed services walking around armed to the teeth and you call JT pulling a rigged shirt "violent." LOL.
Why was no one in a funk during the Grammys a few years ago when Diana Ross played with Lil' Kim's left tit, guarded only by a nipple shield?!?!? Since when was the Grammys not a "family show."
In addition, I'm hoping Yeru et al called the FCC to complain about the commercial showing the horse's ass blowing a fart. I can't imaging no one was offended by that. Where's all the uproar over that?
Lisa
Generously Endowed Class
-
bisous
: Television is a poison in society for the most part anywayz.....generations of overweight drones will soon overrun us all!! lol
dear friend Farkel, first of all the reason the tag "lol" was in the comment was to indicate a mocking statement...frankly, I think your reaction was really, really stupid. My point was more around if people aren't happy with what they see on t.v., turn the f*cking thing off. If that is pontificating out of my ass ...wha'eva ...
Let me illustrate: where are your facts regarding the total number of "hours" you quote people spent listening to radio? Where are your supporting facts that they sat while doing said listening? As shared with me from parents and grands, radio was a background to other family activities (playing cards, games, preparing a meal, etc.) Kids weren't hooked up to it hours per day with video controllers. Is this the sole reason for overweight Americans? no.... Is it a contributor to lack of exercise and additional weight? darn tootin ... are there studies to prove it? hmmmmmmm
http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/healtheducation/junkfood.html
http://cesantabarbara.ucdavis.edu/overwght.pdf
During the 20s to 40s, Americans spent more time working outdoors or performing menial tasks indoors (there were fewer appliances to do them for us) and less sedentary hours. TV is a sedentary activity which occupies far more hours than activities performed during the time period you proscribe.
Other factors influencing overweight during this time other than lack of activity include changes in food products and intake compared to today.
As far as your other questions, since my lighthearted remark is subjected to your scrutiny:
If the radio shows, which had millions of people glued to them every week (fifty years ago) was not also "poison" why was it not also "poison"? And why is television more "poison" than radio, or movies, or plays, or street shows, or symphonies, or roving minstrels, or mimes, or hustlers on the street?
As mentioned, my 1 line phrase ending with LOL was half joking. But if you need someone to explain to you why t.v. is more "poison" than radio....hmmmmmm
IMO, (last time I checked I was still entitled to it ) Television is like fast food entertainment...taking the other forms you mention to the lowest common denominator....mass produced, barely skimming the surface, and filled with advertisement which today is the primary reason it exists...unless referring to cable. Also, as a source for news, 90% of programming is one sided, based on which corporation owns the news station. Much of it is a heartbeat away from propaganda. and Americans lap up the pap willingly.
BTW, did you get your name from the Farkel Family, dearly beloved from a television show...let's see, was that Sonny & Cher? or some other?
you really need to lighten up. take your pills next time before you post, maybe you won't be so angry.
-
seattleniceguy
LOL...Nice reply, Bisous. Farkel needed to be set in his place for that response....:)
Obviously, like any other convenience or tool, TV can be used or misused. But I think Bisous makes some excellent points about the effect it has on people today.
SNG
-
Abaddon
Hey, look at the bright side...
... at least she wasn't breast-feeding, that would have really made people react...
... where's the emoticon for shaking one's head in disbelief...
I think those who control every second of their child's TV viewing and can say with hand on their heart they have never allowed their child to watch death/violence etc. on TV are statistical anolmies.
Research shows that by age ten American kids have seen more deaths than many African child soldiers, albeit TV death, but death all the same. This is a fact; the few people who actually make sure their children aren't part of this rather chilling statistic are to be commended and their lack of perspective in reacting to not-even-a-completely-naked-breast is understandable.
To those who look at what's average, what's representative, the disparity between likely harm (ooo... about, say, near enough to... zero?) of Janet's right tit and the lackm of reaction to the daily tide of violence on TV is just plain silly.
If you think kids seeing violence on TV isn't damaging you should see the research they've done on children's play patterns after watching various types of TV programs. Almost without fail violent programs (even cartoon violence) stimulate violent play. I don;t know if they did any research on the effects of breast exposure though...
-
Farkel
bisous,
: As mentioned, my 1 line phrase ending with LOL was half joking. But if you need someone to explain to you why t.v. is more "poison" than radio....hmmmmmm
You should attempt to do things 100%. 50% is not cutting it. The other 50% is failure, you know.
: But if you need someone to explain to you why t.v. is more "poison" than radio....hmmmmmm
Actually, that is a strawman fallacy. I never said TV was more poison than radio TODAY. What I said was that in times past, the medium WAS radio and on radio they did the same things as television does today. And newspapers have ALWAYS done the same things that you and I don't like: they LIE or slant things to suit their own agenda.
: IMO, (last time I checked I was still entitled to it ) Television is like fast food entertainment...taking the other forms you mention to the lowest common denominator....mass produced, barely skimming the surface, and filled with advertisement which today is the primary reason it exists...unless referring to cable. Also, as a source for news, 90% of programming is one sided, based on which corporation owns the news station. Much of it is a heartbeat away from propaganda. and Americans lap up the pap willingly.
You think things were any different in radio? Would you like me to send you some CDs of the old Jack Benny show where EVERY ad (and there were many during the broadcast) spent 2 minutes extoling the virtues of the "smooth, rich and flavorful taste" of Lucky Strike cigarettes?
Obviously, you aren't old enough to remember the old radio shows, and I'm barely old enough to remember them myself. But I do remember the last of them.
I will agree with you about the one-sided TV programming and clueless folks lapping it up. That is so obvious it is a given. I watch Fox because I can't stand the slant CNN puts on stuff. Yet, Fox is also slanted. Sometimes, when I watch Fox and see their slant is biased, I switch to CNN to see the other side of the lies.
It was the same in radio days, my friend: "he who has the gold makes the rules", i.e. money talks and money greases the media.
I'm just aware enough to (mostly) see when a program is propaganda. The whole problem of TV (or radio, or newspapers, or any other medium) tilting public opinion would go away if folks would learn a little logic and do their own research outside of relying on a single medium.
You pick "TV" as the bad guy. I assert that the problem is bigger than just TV.
There were a lot of fat people long before TV came around. In Hawaii, the royalty HAD to be fat. They were the ali'i and fat was kewl. They had no TVs in Hawaii 8,000 years ago.
Farkel