Posted December 16 2004 - 04:15 AM
| I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing to try to extract understanding. Dead bodies on tv are not new. |
Up-close, realistically rendered shots of decomposing dead bodies, are.
| The rawer sex-related content is. |
And that's why shows now warn you as to what type of content to expect.
| Neither is good, but one is new. |
They're often plot devices. Shocking, yes. But "bad"? Not really.
| If you have been watching this stuff all along, it would not shock you, which would be the only reasonable explanation of why you continue to misunderstand. |
Posted December 16 2004 - 04:26 AM
| Stop being so impressed with how clever you are, and listen to what I am saying. |
My, that wasn't condescending at all...
I might say the same thing to you. Listen to what I'm saying.
I wasn't specifically referring the the Janet Jackson thing...so perhaps I should have said "breast" or "penis" or something other than "nipple". (And yeah, the JJ thing was WAY overblown...)
My POINT, which perhaps I didn't communicate well, was that American culture villifies showing the human body, yet celebrates violence in all it's forms, and that's really rather backwards.
It's okay to see dismembered body parts and maggot-ridden bodies, but a breast (or god forbid, genetalia) sends people (not necessarily directed at YOU Elinor) into shock. Silliness...
| Dead bodies on tv are not new. |
dead bodies on TV most certainly are. At least when it comes to dramatic television, and not TLC documentary stuff. I don't know about you, but the first few times I watched CSI I was pretty shocked and amazed at the detail on the corpses, and the gory flashback shots.
The question that was posed DIRECTLY to you was how can you be offended MORE by a phallic-shaped bit o' plastic sitting on a shelf than you can be by a rotting corpse or parade thereof.
THAT was the main point.
Not the degree to which you were put-off, but why was a (not-in-use) sex-toy (or the phrase "feeling her up") more shocking than the realistic violence and/or corpses?
How can you be shocked by one thing, but brush off another because you've seen it before? That's contradictory.
*IF* sexual content did offend me, I'd be more upset over the CSI episodes that show scantily clad women and chrome-plated poles, or the episodes that feature "Lady Heather" than I would be over vibrators on a shelf.
| I had no idea they would *have* to exercise control at 8 pm. |
Is there some rule somewhere that says parents don't have to exercise control over their youngsters until a certain hour? Shouldn't a parent always be aware of the activites of their children?
Again, there hasn't been a "family hour" in the time period in question for a long time now. You yourself admitted you haven't watched network TV for years.
Again, that is why there is a rating system on television programs these days, and why there are warnings about "mature content" preceeding the program.
Boy, I hope you never watch "The Sopranos".
Posted December 16 2004 - 04:54 AM
| Sorry guys, but Elinor has every right to be upset with one form of content and not another. We all have our own set of values. |
No one is questioning that right. What I'm saying is how is one thing more offensive than another?
Or perhaps a better question is, if you KNOW the program contains "mature content", and you get exactly that, should you be angry with the network/program/writers, or with yourself because you watched a program you were TOLD contained such things?
People who watch mature-programming, and then get offended at the content of such simply mystify me.
Once again... if you don't like it... change the channel. God, we have hundreds to select from these days...should be something there for everyone's tastes.
| As to having one group being able to dictate what I can and cannot watch - THAT I find objectionable. |
On that we TOTALLY agree Jeff.
Now, on to Elinor's post....
| Do you ever wonder why kids are more violent? Is there a chance that it is at least partially caused by violence in entertainment? |
Sure there is a chance. There is also a chance that due to the reality of todays economics, lots of kids don't have a full-time parent at home, and are left to their own devices. There is also a chance that some
parents tend to think of a TV/computer/gamesystem as a babysitter of sorts. There is also a chance that some
parents don't monitor their childrens activites.
| Do you wonder why most kids today are sexually active before HS graduation? Is there a chance that it is at least partially caused by the increased sexual content in entertainment? |