U2girl said:
Angela: if it's all that harmless, then why do you think all the fuss about it happened? The show could just as easy been done without it, and it would still get covered by the media.
Yes, but the talk would've been more about the
game, about the scores, about the plays, and perhaps there would've been some discussion about what performances were people's favorites and stuff.
I honestly don't know why people are making a huge fuss over this. It's nothing people haven't seen before. It was for two seconds and then it was done. We have more important, more serious issues to be upset over than Janet's breast being exposed for a couple of minutes.
Originally posted by U2girl
There was no need for that stunt IMO, it was tasteless, done at the wrong place at the wrong time.
And that's the point-that's your personal opinion. Others liked it, others didn't care and wanted to go to the next topic of discussion. If you're personally offended, hey, that's fine, not everyone likes certain things and you have every right to be. But this whole investigation thing from the FCC, parents demanding censorship, all that...it's just gone overboard.
My dad told me yesterday that the FCC claimed to have gotten 6,500 letters complaining about that incident. That seems like a lot...until you consider that there's about 285 million people in this country. So that's a very large portion of people who didn't write in because they didn't care and weren't as bothered about it. The majority of the country just wants everyone to move on and stop making such a huge production out of this. Not saying that nobody should listen to those 6,500 people's complaints, but what exactly can they do now? It happened Sunday night, they can't rewind time and censor it ahead of time.
Originally posted by U2girl
I'd rather see a child hear dirty words than get thrown that kind of images.
Some people would rather kids hear and see neither, some would rather kids experience one and not the other, and some would rather kids hear and see both, because it's out there and they might as well realize it's out there now. That's something solely for the parents to decide. The government, celebrities, and the FCC shouldn't be taking over the role of parents and deciding that stuff for them.
Originally posted by U2girl
I have yet to hear or read about a guy feeling insecure about muscular guys.
There have been stories of men who've had anorexia, or who've taken steroids to try and bulk up. And the guys who go to the gym and work out-what do you think a lot of them are doing that for? They've seen a girl they may be interested in fawning all over a muscular man, and as a result feel inferior because they aren't as muscular, and go to the gym to try and look like the muscular guys. They want to impress us as much as we want to impress them.
Originally posted by U2girl
I agree women are smart and not all feel they need to measure up to the TV and media. But maybe some do feel offended and insecure at the media hype that a woman is portrayed as a supermodel body in this society -
Actually, a lot of women have made comments about that. I've even heard a lot of teenage girls complaining about how the girls in the magazines they read are stick thin, and they wish that bigger girls were put into magazines (and as a result, in a good deal of magazines, bigger girls are put in). Most girls are now realizing that you do not have to look like the skinny girls in a magazine. Most girls realize that if something offends them, they do not have to read it anymore, or they can help to change it so that girls their size are shown as well.
Originally posted by U2girl
let's not forget peer pressure or a commercial that suggest you absolutely need something or your life is incomplete .
And most people are smart enough to not do something just because someone told them to. Nobody at these magazines or on the TV shows have ever held guns to girls' heads and demanded they look a certain way.
And anyone who does give in to peer pressure has had insecurities for a very long time, long before they saw some girl in a magazine in a skimpy outfit or whatever. Nobody around them-friends, family, whatever-has helped them feel like they are important, that they're fine just the way they are. That's where the root of the problem lies.
Originally posted by U2girl
That should be adressed and I don't think girls like that should just not watch TV or not read the media at all.
It has been addressed, as I mentioned, and I don't know what else people can do. If something offends me, I don't watch it or read it or listen to it or do it. I don't understand why that's such a hard thing for some people to do. A woman can stand there naked on a cover, but she cannot
make me look like her. That's something that
I decide whether or not I want to do. It's
my fault if the results turn out bad, not hers.
Originally posted by U2girl
Because a little girl, unlike a grown woman, does not suggest sexual context. (assuming of course, perverts or pedofiles aren't considered) And if you mean the famous Vietnam pic, it wasn't even about the girl but the context of war and all that comes along with it - on the other hand, the woman in Playboy has, by definition of the magazine's history, no relevant context or message but a sexual one.
The point is that the
Hustler guy got in trouble because he had a naked girl on his cover. If the people who got upset with him say it's obscene to have a naked girl on the cover of a magazine, period, then the owners of
every other magazine that's
ever had a naked girl on the cover, no matter what the context, should have been in trouble, too. But if they're allowed to have a naked girl on their cover in a certain context, he should be allowed to have a naked girl on his cover in his own context. That's all he was getting at.
Besides, it was
Hustler magazine-what did those who were so offended expect was going to be on the cover? If it's a porn magazine, I would think people would expect porn-related things to be on the cover. If it's a news magazine, news-related things will be on the cover. And so on and so forth.
Also, yeah, the little girl was running from a war scene, but nobody ever demanded that magazine be censored. I hardly ever hear people demanding that the news be censored, no matter how horrible the images. People merely turn off the news if it bothers them. Why should it be different with entertainment-oriented things?
Angela
