Why are Americans so uptight?

[Thanz]

After the whole Janet Jackson nipple fiasco, I began to wonder why the citizens of the USA are so darn uptight. I recall that an ad for Labatt's that showed two women kissing during the Janet superbowl received far more complaints to the CRTC (the Canadian FCC) than Jackson's nipple. But what truly brings home the difference in attitudes between Americans and Canadians to me is a recent bit I saw on Rick Mercer's Monday Report.

Monday Report is sort of like the Daily Show. It is a satirical look at the news and events. Previous bits have included the host, Rick Mercer, doing a one on one interview with the Prime Minister during which he actually takes a swim in the PM's pool, for which he had to borrow a pair of the PM's shorts. Can you imagine anything of the sort happening with Bush?

One of the recurring bits on the show is celebrity tips. They get famous Canadians to give step by step instructions on various things (for ex, Geddy Lee of Rush explaining proper tobogganing technique). In any event, I encourage you to look at the video of Pierre Berton, Canadian author and Companion of the Order of Canada, giving instructions on how to roll a joint. It is quite funny, and shows just how laid back most Canadians are in contrast to Americans. It can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/

Bear in mind that this was shown on the CBC, which is the government owned, national network (both TV and Radio), and shows at 8:00 Eastern time. Can you imagine the furor if an American author of any stature gave instructions in prime time on American TV on how to roll a joint? I think that it would make Jackson's nipple seem positively wholesome in comparison.

My question is, why? Why such a huge difference in attitudes? Any thoughts?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Thanz
After the whole Janet Jackson [repulsive language referring to disgusting part of female anatomy removed] fiasco, I began to wonder why the citizens of the USA are so [repulsive language removed] uptight.
Uptight? How so?

[Lisa Simpson]

We are uptight because our very water supply is infected with homeopathic Puritanism (Latin name Puritanum uptightidae). As soon as one leaves the country and it's tainted water supply, the uptightedness is gone.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
We are uptight because our very water supply is infected with homeopathic Puritanism (Latin name Puritanum uptightidae). As soon as one leaves the country and it's tainted water supply, the uptightedness is gone.
Really? I thought introducing even trace amounts of alcohol into the mix also removed the uptightedness. Is Girls Gone Wild lying to me?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Thanz
One of the recurring bits on the show is celebrity tips. They get famous Canadians to give step by step instructions on various things (for ex, Geddy Lee of Rush explaining proper tobogganing technique). In any event, I encourage you to look at the video of Pierre Berton, Canadian author and Companion of the Order of Canada, giving instructions on how to roll a joint. It is quite funny, and shows just how laid back most Canadians are in contrast to Americans. It can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/


I don't think americans would have any problem with that. Cheech and Chong is played on TV quite a bit. The issue is that most americans don't think that the female breast should be on public TV. Other countries may draw the line at frontal nudity, others at sex acts. I'm not sure what your issue is with the moving of this line for public TV. You can still have subscribed channels (Ie, HBO), that are free to show pretty much whatever they want, as well as order pornography to your heart's content.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Thanz
My question is, why? Why such a huge difference in attitudes? Any thoughts? Gimme that old time religion...

I think there are other reasons, but I think that's the big one.

[Furious]

To paraphrase Robin Williams:

Keep in mind we are a country that was initially settled by people who were so uptight the British kicked them out.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Donks
Really? I thought introducing even trace amounts of alcohol into the mix also removed the uptightedness. Is Girls Gone Wild lying to me?

Obviously you haven't been reading the homeopathy threads enough to know just how powerful homeopathy is.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Obviously you haven't been reading the homeopathy threads enough to know just how powerful homeopathy is.
But homeopaths use alcohol as a solvent, no? Hmmm, can one make a homeopathic remedy of alcohol, using alcohol as a solvent?

[elle_inquisitor]

I think conservatives state side are more fierce about defending their opposition in the public arena. There is also more media outlets catering to the conservative masses. Canucks don't seem to embrace their opposition with such passion. Money talks and I don't believe personalities like Limbaugh would find the Canadian Media market very lucrative. Quite simply put, the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Gotta love those Trailer Park Boys, eh?

[Number Six]

I don't think the Janet Jackson nipplegate controversy had so much to do with what was shown as it did with the time and place where it was shown. I often see that kind of stuff on TV and I don't even have any movie channels. People know that such things are on and there's little outcry over them. But halftime of the Super Bowl is a different story and people were not expecting it and that is why many of them were upset.

[DanishDynamite]

You are not the first to ask this question, Thanz. Much of the civilized world wonders exactly as you do.

One would have thought that someone somewhere made a Phd researching this question.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thanz

My question is, why? Why such a huge difference in attitudes? Any thoughts?

Homogenous societies naturally have fewer sensitivity issues to cope with. Canada is far more culturally homegenous than the US is, therefore there's more general agreement on what obscenity is, what's funny and what's not, etc.

America's obsession with celebrating diversity has led inevitably to not one line, but a thousand lines that can be crossed on any given issue/race/creed/orientation/etc.

Oversensitivity is the result of constant cries for sensitivity.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Jocko
Homogenous societies naturally have fewer sensitivity issues to cope with. Canada is far more culturally homegenous than the US is, therefore there's more general agreement on what obscenity is, what's funny and what's not, etc.
Seeing as how a certain part of Canada has been trying to gain independence from Canada through decades, I find your explanation vacuous.
America's obsession with celebrating diversity has led inevitably to not one line, but a thousand lines that can be crossed on any given issue/race/creed/orientation/etc.
Why "inevitably"? And what makes you think that other countries only have one line to cross?
Oversensitivity is the result of constant cries for sensitivity.
I wont disagree, but how exactly is this relevant?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Jocko
Homogenous societies naturally have fewer sensitivity issues to cope with. Canada is far more culturally homegenous than the US is, therefore there's more general agreement on what obscenity is, what's funny and what's not, etc.

America's obsession with celebrating diversity has led inevitably to not one line, but a thousand lines that can be crossed on any given issue/race/creed/orientation/etc.

Oversensitivity is the result of constant cries for sensitivity. Tell me, and specifically address the examples in the OP, how cultural diversity is related. Which cultures are and are not offended by nipples and rolling joints and why?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jocko
Homogenous societies naturally have fewer sensitivity issues to cope with. Canada is far more culturally homegenous than the US is, therefore there's more general agreement on what obscenity is, what's funny and what's not, etc.

America's obsession with celebrating diversity has led inevitably to not one line, but a thousand lines that can be crossed on any given issue/race/creed/orientation/etc.

Oversensitivity is the result of constant cries for sensitivity.
Really? I fundamentally disagree with your premise that Canada is more culturally homogenous than America. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true. America has a history of being a melting pot - everyone assimilating together. Canada, on the other hand, is more of a mosaic - with many individual parts.

Further, I think that the multi-ethnic mosaic nature of Canada - with lots of diversity - leads to more tolerance and acceptance that one person's line may be another person's norm - and less fuss is made about it.

I find it perplexing that you think America has an obsession with celebrating diversity. I see America as the opposite - Celebrating Capital A America first, and other cultural diversity be damned. chants of "USA! USA!" abounding.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Jocko
Homogenous societies naturally have fewer sensitivity issues to cope with. Canada is far more culturally homegenous than the US is, therefore there's more general agreement on what obscenity is, what's funny and what's not, etc.

America's obsession with celebrating diversity has led inevitably to not one line, but a thousand lines that can be crossed on any given issue/race/creed/orientation/etc.

Oversensitivity is the result of constant cries for sensitivity.

I dunno, south korea is pretty homogeneous, but If I step foot in her wing of the dorm (at any time of the day) while I'm visiting, she gets expelled.

[elle_inquisitor]

Canada is most definitely not a more homogeneous society than the States. A visit to Toronto would confirm this. Toronto has been called the most diverse city in the world by the UN. Here's some info on Toronto. Definitely no melting pot, eh?

http://www.afghan-network.net/Toronto/

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Thanz
I find it perplexing that you think America has an obsession with celebrating diversity. I see America as the opposite - Celebrating Capital A America first, and other cultural diversity be damned. chants of "USA! USA!" abounding.

We're not the ones requiring that a certain percentage of media be native in origin.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Donks
But homeopaths use alcohol as a solvent, no? Hmmm, can one make a homeopathic remedy of alcohol, using alcohol as a solvent?

Yes, but any alcoholic beverage would have water in it, yes?


Regardless, I don't think Americans (the people) are terribly uptight. The government, OTOH, panders to the very vocal religious right, despite being a minority of the populace. And the media panders to the almighty god of ratings.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think saying 'Americans are uptight' is a gross over generalization. I think that there are a group of terribly uptight Americans who give the rest of us a bad name.

[jay gw]

I encourage you to look at the video of Pierre Berton, Canadian author and Companion of the Order of Canada, giving instructions on how to roll a joint. It is quite funny, and shows just how laid back most Canadians are in contrast to Americans.

Absolutely true. Canadians, and alot of Europeans, Australians are much more laid back/mellow than Americans are.

The reason? It would have to come from the differences in religious ideas. I've heard that Canadians would be shocked if the PM prayed in public. Europeans would be too.

Americans would be shocked if the president NEVER prayed in public. Even Bill Clinton did it. And how conservative is he?

The US public is divided into liberals and conservatives, but there's a segment of conservatives that are extremists. They really believe in the rapture and Israel is the holy land and must be defended at all costs from the forces of "evil".

Where do you think America's unwavering, unflinching and frankly, irrational support of Israel comes from? The liberals criticize Israeli policies all the time. The media doesn't, which is very weird, since they're supposed to be liberals. Something else has to be going on there. The extremists tell liberals they're going to hell.

America was founded by what amounts to as a religious cult. The Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Mennonites and the rest were outcasts in Europe. Their hold is pretty tight, even though they've been gone for a very long time.

The group of people that founded Hinduism and Buddhism have been dead for hundreds of years, thousands in fact. Does that mean their hold on Asia is any less than it was?

There's a group of Americans that want to keep the ideas everything started with, even if it means being out of step with the entire world.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I think saying 'Americans are uptight' is a gross over generalization. I think that there are a group of terribly uptight Americans who give the rest of us a bad name.
I think you are right but I wont say so in public.

D'oh!

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by RussDill
I don't think americans would have any problem with that. Cheech and Chong is played on TV quite a bit. The issue is that most americans don't think that the female breast should be on public TV. Other countries may draw the line at frontal nudity, others at sex acts. I'm not sure what your issue is with the moving of this line for public TV. You can still have subscribed channels (Ie, HBO), that are free to show pretty much whatever they want, as well as order pornography to your heart's content.

The thing about Janet was not her pastie covered tit. It was the obvious manipulation of images to shock and for nothing but shock. It was also the unspoken ratification of violence towards women. I was offended, I'm a man. It is not OK to cop a feel, particularly on national TV. That Jackson obviously consented in advance is just beyond belief.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I think you are right but I wont say so in public.

D'oh!

eh?

[kittynh]

Hmmm, define up tight. I just read that a religious group had to pay a large fine to two homosexuals they "offended" by placing ads in the paper with the place in the bible to find the texts saying homosexuality is a sin. In Canada. OK, but come one, freedom of the press and all that. How about those French? Come on, signs in FRENCH only, everywhere else FRENCH AND ENGLISH! Lighten up!

Music, and kids programming is quite heavily censored. Protect the kids and the minority groups.

It's a little uptight too...

And please the endless how PURE is the Canadian music. Sure the singer is Canadian, but a certain number of the group must also be Canadian. What is we kicked Peter Jennings off as he was Canadian?

When it comes to sex, I don't know...not compared to Germany! Id' like to see a store in Canada get away with placing a magazine with a woman sucking her own boob at eye level with the candy. It was educational! I didn't find it offensive, it was just very funny that stores placed the magazines like that next to the candy! Canada is ok, but Ottawa is NOT Amsterdam! Now that's a city that is relaxed!

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'm still giggling to myself with a mental image of Pierre Berton showing how to roll joints (I didn't see the TV show). Did he show how to blow "shotguns" as well?

I've been in the states since 1996. The "true" uptight Americans are a pathetic minority in my experience. They make the most noise, get the most news coverage, and apparently can dictate to the leadership their views to be honored.

I was amazed that someone stated that Canadian society is homogenous. This appears to be a person who hasn't been to Canada.

Charlie (Canada's best export: humor/humour) Monoxide

[RussDill]

Originally posted by IIRichard
The thing about Janet was not her pastie covered tit. It was the obvious manipulation of images to shock and for nothing but shock. It was also the unspoken ratification of violence towards women. I was offended, I'm a man. It is not OK to cop a feel, particularly on national TV. That Jackson obviously consented in advance is just beyond belief.

If you had a topless women doing the announcements for the superbowl, you would have gotten a response just as contrieversial. I don't think it has anything to do with violence.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide

I've been in the states since 1996. The "true" uptight Americans are a pathetic minority in my experience. They make the most noise, get the most news coverage, and apparently can dictate to the leadership their views to be honored.


Take the small group that makes the vast majority of complaints about the simpsons of all things.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide

I've been in the states since 1996. The "true" uptight Americans are a pathetic minority in my experience. They make the most noise, get the most news coverage, and apparently can dictate to the leadership their views to be honored.


I think you hit it right on the money. I think the REAL question isn't "why are Americans so uptight?" it's "Why are the uptight Americans able to get their uptightness enshrined in public policy?"

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
eh?
Sorry.

I was trying to be funny.

Forget the "D'oh!".

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I think you hit it right on the money. I think the REAL question isn't "why are Americans so uptight?" it's "Why are the uptight Americans able to get their uptightness enshrined in public policy?"
I could agree.

So, why is it that a supposed minority in the US not only get to make the laws but get to make their screwed up world the general opinion of how Americans are like to the rest of the world?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

So, why is it that a supposed minority in the US not only get to make the laws but get to make their screwed up world the general opinion of how Americans are like to the rest of the world?

As far as indecency laws go, its because try to be a very sensitive and understanding people. Is there something so horribly wrong about banning topless women from public TV? Its not like there is a ban of topless women or anything.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
As far as indecency laws go, its because try to be a very sensitive and understanding people. Is there something so horribly wrong about banning topless women from public TV? Its not like there is a ban of topless women or anything.
Sorry, I don't understand your response. Could you clarify?

[kittynh]

Well and it's the whole the US is darn BIG. Some places, let's say VEgas, pretty open minded. Other places, the Bible belt, not so...

When I am in Europe it is not ALL the same. Some areas, let's say the Vatican, not going with the nudie pics on the street corner. Other places, who cares?

In Canada I know my Asian relatives are VERY conservative. They totally disapprove of homosexual marriage and stuff like that. I find them way behind my friends and co workers from Vermont.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by kittynh
Well and it's the whole the US is darn BIG. Some places, let's say VEgas, pretty open minded. Other places, the Bible belt, not so...

When I am in Europe it is not ALL the same. Some areas, let's say the Vatican, not going with the nudie pics on the street corner. Other places, who cares?

In Canada I know my Asian relatives are VERY conservative. They totally disapprove of homosexual marriage and stuff like that. I find them way behind my friends and co workers from Vermont.
Cool.

Europe, however, is not a country.

The USA is a country. And to some extent a democracy. So why is it that if only a minority has this screwed-up opinion, it is nevertheless the law of the land, as well as the general perception of the US?

[Ralph]

Uptight????


As compared with who????----Saudi Arabia.....China.......Sudan........Singapore




I think the majority of Americans really could've cared less about what Janet Jackson did.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by kittynh
Hmmm, define up tight. I just read that a religious group had to pay a large fine to two homosexuals they "offended" by placing ads in the paper with the place in the bible to find the texts saying homosexuality is a sin. In Canada. OK, but come one, freedom of the press and all that. How about those French? Come on, signs in FRENCH only, everywhere else FRENCH AND ENGLISH! Lighten up!


Sigh. For one, if there is a thing everybody in Quebec hates, it's being associated with the cousins. And bill 101 isn't half as strict or half as bad as The Gazette would tell you.

Anyway, tittie-wise (TV-wise), Canada certainly isn't as up tight as the US. Boobies before 10PM on publicly-owned channels, softcore porn on non-cable channels starting at 11:30PM. At least it's better than informercials (but we have those too).

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry, I don't understand your response. Could you clarify?

You seem to view the banning of topless women from public TV as going over the "top" as it were. I could see how a society banning all images and apearences of topless women as a problem though.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
You seem to view the banning of topless women from public TV as going over the "top" as it were. I could see how a society banning all images and apearences of topless women as a problem though.
Of course I view any society who would even question the appearance of nude women on their electronic altar, as backwards.

I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Thanz
After the whole Janet Jackson nipple fiasco, I began to wonder why the citizens of the USA are so darn uptight. I recall that an ad for Labatt's that showed two women kissing during the Janet superbowl received far more complaints to the CRTC (the Canadian FCC) than Jackson's nipple. But what truly brings home the difference in attitudes between Americans and Canadians to me is a recent bit I saw on Rick Mercer's Monday Report.

Monday Report is sort of like the Daily Show. It is a satirical look at the news and events. Previous bits have included the host, Rick Mercer, doing a one on one interview with the Prime Minister during which he actually takes a swim in the PM's pool, for which he had to borrow a pair of the PM's shorts. Can you imagine anything of the sort happening with Bush?

One of the recurring bits on the show is celebrity tips. They get famous Canadians to give step by step instructions on various things (for ex, Geddy Lee of Rush explaining proper tobogganing technique). In any event, I encourage you to look at the video of Pierre Berton, Canadian author and Companion of the Order of Canada, giving instructions on how to roll a joint. It is quite funny, and shows just how laid back most Canadians are in contrast to Americans. It can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/

Bear in mind that this was shown on the CBC, which is the government owned, national network (both TV and Radio), and shows at 8:00 Eastern time. Can you imagine the furor if an American author of any stature gave instructions in prime time on American TV on how to roll a joint? I think that it would make Jackson's nipple seem positively wholesome in comparison.

My question is, why? Why such a huge difference in attitudes? Any thoughts?

I have no idea what actually happened after the 1970's, but something did. The pendulum swung way back and somehow got stuck in that position. My personal feeling is that it is a scarey place to live. A John Ashcroft kind of place to live.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RussDill
As far as indecency laws go, its because try to be a very sensitive and understanding people. Is there something so horribly wrong about banning topless women from public TV? Its not like there is a ban of topless women or anything.

This is where I really get confused. In New York, for example, it has been recognized that women have the same right as men to be topless on public lands, but somehow, they can not be topless on their own lawns should anyone catch a glimpse of them or on television. Another thing that I find really mind boggling is the fact that the police will arrest people for things that are not crimes - going topless on a publicly owned NY beach for example - and that person can further be convicted of something that is not a crime. It has happened that the police have arrested individuals for not being deferential enough - certainly not a crime - and on occasion these people are convicted for this non-crime and fined or jailed simply because the judge didn't like a persons attitude.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Of course I view any society who would even question the appearance of nude women on their electronic altar, as backwards.

I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals.

So are there any prudes in Denmark????


Do you know how many porn videos are rented in the US every year???

I'm not sure you can make the assumption that Americans are uptight because a few TV channels prohibit nudity.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I think saying 'Americans are uptight' is a gross over generalization. I think that there are a group of terribly uptight Americans who give the rest of us a bad name.

I completely agree with this statement. I'm met a lot of people all across this country, and there are very few of them that I would consider uptight, including and especially "those trailer park folk" in the "Jesus states". Has anyone seen the Blue Collar Comedy Tour? Those guys represent the majority of the country folk in the United states in terms of humor and decency.

American politics, media, and law are driven by the concept of, "The squeeky wheel gets the grease." It only takes one person with a powerful lawyer to sue and drive an organization to bankruptcy. If you bitch loud enough, you'll get what you want, and the minority that has nothing better to do than watch TV and complain about nipples can make a lot of noise.

As always, I blame the media and lawyers.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ralph
So are there any prudes in Denmark????
A few. Perhaps as much as 0.01 percent of the population.
Do you know how many porn videos are rented in the US every year???
No. Is it of any significance?
I'm not sure you can make the assumption that Americans are uptight because a few TV channels prohibit nudity.
I totally agree. Which is why I don't base my decision on this assesment.

[TragicMonkey]

From David Sedaris, Me Talk Pretty One Day, in an essay describing his experiences while living in France:


"You Americans are all such Puritans." Citizens of Europe and Asia, my fellow class members would agree with her, while I'd wonder, Are we? I'm sure the reputation isn't entirely undeserved, but how prudish can we be when almost everyone I know has engaged in a three-way?


America is a land of contrasts, and we got our share of freaky-sneaky. Oh, yeah!

[kittynh]

DAvid Sedaris RULES!!!

If any Europeans would like to know how intolerant people can be to visiting US citizens, please read his book, "Me Talk Pretty One Day".

I remember once reading in an English autobiography about the experience of an Englishman abroad. He was berated for not speaking better French, German, Spainish, even though he bravely tried with several dictionaries not to insult the natives. He ate the local foods, but when he once commented on how much he would like some English cheese (just that he missed it) he was humiliated for not appreciating the culture of the land he was visiting. It went on and on. He returned home to be verbally attacked by his French cousin who was visiting. English food, beer, culture, clothing was all NOT up to the French standard.
"We have to find a decent French restaurant before I starve!" was the refrain. HIs cousin insisted they all speak French, and basically insulted everyone while refusing to hear or acknowledge any complaint about France.

The poor Englishman wondered why it was proper to insult England and the English and not be thought rude, while to insult the French, Spainish or Germans was to be accused of bigotry.


But "Me Talk PRetty One Day". It's a blast to read, and I for one would like an answer to the question, WHY A BELL FROM ROME INSTEAD OF A BUNNY!!!!!

[kimiko]

I don't know if Americans really are uptight, but a lot are in north texas. My entire experience with the openness of foreigners is from naked Germans.

The nearest air force base hosts the NATO pilot training, so there's always lots of Euros living here. Quite a few German students attended my school because the German language elementary is located there, so I had German friends in junior high and high school. Their parents were always having naked barbecue/pool parties in their backyards. So naturally, we would too! I was thoroughly corrupted. :) When one of the American parents found out we skinny-dipped in our friends' pools, he was horrified.

I can understand not wanting topless women all over the media though. I'm not sure where the objectification of women starts and the nonchalance about nudity ends. Maybe if there were as many yummy naked men as women it would be ok.

[kittynh]

Hurray! It seems to all be nakey females and gay nakey men. For the average woman there really isn't that much...

oddly it's the eurodudes who tout the joys of naked WOMEN and breasts on the tv!

Penis prime time!!!!

That's what I want and NOT 2 guys doing it!

Not that I want to see Justin Timberlakes privates. ick...

I'm thinking someone like, oh...Brendan Fraiser (he's Canadian so they won't object)

[kalen]

Methinks it's a contest to see who can be the most uptight in the world. The Taliban was winning hands down for a while, so the US took them out. I'm not sure the US can claim 1st place at the moment, but they must be moving up fast considering new FCC indecency fines. John Asscrotch will be sorely missed in the upcoming season.

[kittynh]

Oh come on. You think those fines mean anything? It's great publicity!! This is the nation of PT Barnum!

Plus, let's face it, it got way more press overseas than here. It's old news here now.

I used to think the French were RUDE! I remember not wanting to even to go to France when we were living in Brussels. Finally I got tricked into going to see the end of the Tour de France. I spent the whole time in Paris wondering where the rude people were. I was expecting it from everyone. Everyone was very nice. Friendly. Helpful. Nicer than even in Belgium. When I was in France this Fall, everyone was so sweet. They were all saying stuff like,"Oh, I feel so sorry for you with Bush, we know you don't all feel that way...." (one cab driver pointed out that Bush supporters weren't vacationing in France anyway, so everyone knew we were "good guys"). If anything people went out of their way to be supportive.

I thought, "where did I get this idea that everyone in France is rude?" I'm serious, pretty much everyone in the US thinks so! Well, I got it from the AMERICAN MEDIA!!!! I got if from AMERICAN FILMS!!!! If one Frenchman was rude to one poor American you better believe it was played up. And the rude Frenchman is a staple of the American television and movie industy. It's a stereotype, used for an easy laugh.

I noticed that in Brussels they made jokes about the "Lazy Italians". It was their stereotype. I'm sure the Italians wouldn't agree.

So maybe the American cultural Puritan is the easy stereotype. I think every nation is guilty of it.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by kittynh
And the rude Frenchman is a staple of the American television and movie industy. It's a stereotype, used for an easy laugh.

I noticed that in Brussels they made jokes about the "Lazy Italians". It was their stereotype. I'm sure the Italians wouldn't agree.

So maybe the American cultural Puritan is the easy stereotype. I think every nation is guilty of it.

That's a great idea for a new thread. Thanks.

[crimresearch]

OK, this was thoroughly vetted before, so I'm acting on the presumption that there is a high level of trolling going on here.

Janet Jackson didn't cause vast public outrage for showing her breast on TV...she deliberately chose to ignore all the available outlets that would have been happy to let her disrobe, and chose to use deceit to get it aired during the few hours a day, and on the few channels, set aside for what is supposedly family programming.

So all of this supercilious commentary makes me wonder...

Is it really no big deal where you are, if an adult, paid to perform in front of children, ( a teen audience entertainer, or a newscaster, or a teacher, or a birthday party clown, lets say) whips out their breast, or their penis, or bends over and spreads their bare ass cheeks to the kiddies?

Because if you show me proof of that, I'll be glad to admit that you are more 'phisticated' than we are.

But if the response is just the same old 'Well, that's different', then let me borrow a line from Penn and Teller.

STFU!!!

[LW]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals.

Mind you, you should have either used a smiley after that or in some other way made clear that you are joking. Someone might take you seriously.

[jay gw]

Here's what Americans think about censorship and "decency" in the media:

# About 65% of respondents indicated overall support for First Amendment freedoms, while 30% said the First Amendment goes too far — a nine-point swing from last year and a dramatic change from the 2002 survey in which Americans were evenly divided on the question at 49% each.

# About 58% said that the current amount of government regulation of entertainment programming on television is “about right;� 16% said there is “too much,� while 21% said there is “too little.�

Broadcasters and producers should note, however, that 49% of respondents would have current daytime-and-early-evening regulations regarding references to sexual activity extended to cover all 24 hours; and 54% would extend those regulations to cable, which currently is not covered by such FCC rules.


Pay attention to the bolded parts. Half of Americans polled want the censorship of sexual references to extend to all television programming, not just 'family hours'. More than half want cable to be censored.

It's not a minority, it's the majority in some cases that's 'uptight'. It depends alot on the issue.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13573

[Thanz]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Is it really no big deal where you are, if an adult, paid to perform in front of children, ( a teen audience entertainer, or a newscaster, or a teacher, or a birthday party clown, lets say) whips out their breast, or their penis, or bends over and spreads their bare ass cheeks to the kiddies?

Because if you show me proof of that, I'll be glad to admit that you are more 'phisticated' than we are.
Well, there was this football game a little while back. In a performance in the middle of the game, one of the performers had a piece of her top ripped off, exposing her boob for about a second. And the reaction was a collective "Huh. Didn't expect that." And that's all. Don't you think that comparing the reactions to the same event is a little more informative than a made up hypothetical of a clown mooning a kids birthday party?

[crimresearch]

More than half want cable to be censored.
It's not a minority, it's the majority in some cases that's 'uptight'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Government officials should have the power to regulate during the late evening and overnight those cable television programs that contain references to sexual activity.

Strongly agree 23%
Mildly agree 22%
Mildly disagree 19%
Strongly disagree 34%
Don't know/refused to answer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when *over* half (53%) of the respondents to an ambiguously worded poll disagree with regulation of late night cable programming for sexual content, and only 45% agree, that means that a *majority* of Americans are uptight?

Do share with us the fantastic statistical method you used to make that extrapolation.
:rolleyes:

[American]

There is nothing so important as being a winner. You don't get there by sloth and personal corruption.

We have those people here too, but they don't get by very well because they don't deserve to. In europe, they keep bailing those losers out all the time and pretending they're good individuals. Here, those folks either get public sector jobs and leech off the taxpayer, or they get caught being the criminals they are and go to prison.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I think saying 'Americans are uptight' is a gross over generalization. I think that there are a group of terribly uptight Americans who give the rest of us a bad name.
Good point. It is a generalization. Why do the uptighties have so much power?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, there was this football game a little while back. In a performance in the middle of the game, one of the performers had a piece of her top ripped off, exposing her boob for about a second. And the reaction was a collective "Huh. Didn't expect that." And that's all. Don't you think that comparing the reactions to the same event is a little more informative than a made up hypothetical of a clown mooning a kids birthday party?

Not if you are trying to foist off the notion that only Americans are uptight about sex.

Why does it matter which piece of flesh the kiddies get to see dangling, or where they are when they see it, if it is no big deal for kiddies to see grownups dangly bits?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Not if you are trying to foist off the notion that only Americans are uptight about sex.

Why does it matter which piece of flesh the kiddies get to see dangling, or where they are when they see it, if it is no big deal for kiddies to see grownups dangly bits?
Why are you ignoring the actual facts in favour of your strawman argument? An incident happened. People in the US seemed to go apesh*t over it. The reaction in Canada was more of bemused interest in the reactions of the Americans than any outrage directed at Jackson. So I say that this incident shows Americans to be more uptight than Canadians, in a very generalized statement kind of way.

You seem to think that I should now agree that birthday clowns can whip it out whenever they like. And if I actually think that is different, I need to stfu. Whatever.

[crimresearch]

Flashing body parts in front of children is an accurate description of what Jackson did...

Your own uptightness about which body part, or which venue one uses to flash children is noted, as is your blatant hypocrisy.

[kittynh]

HELLOOOOO!!!

THe foreign PRESS went nuts about it!

The MEDIA went nuts about it, You better believe that Janet knew she was going to cause a stir. She would have been UPSET if nothing had happened. As it was, it wasn't that much of a stir. It was a flash in the pan and a slap on the wrist. You forget, American media is quite wealthy. Even such a "big" fine is nothing to them.

Now in Europe, where my husband is, he said the press is STILL bringing it up. Goodness, don't they know Brittney married an interesting bit of trailer trash? (see, I'm going with the whole stereotype that people that live in trailers are low class).

It makes everyone in Canada and Europe feel good that they are "superior" because you can flash boobies on tv.

IMPRTANT POINT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mind you don't go wearing your head scarf to your job in France! Or to school! That's a NONO! And that is a form of CENSORSHIP too. Heck, go topless to your job in France. Just don't cover up too much!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I really don't think that one European can speak for all of Europe. I'll bet there are people that would object, or do object to the nudity on television. Heck, I do remember visiting churches that seemed to have people in them when I was over there. I can't imagine the large ARab immigrant population is 100% in favor of nudity on television? But no, every European loves boobies 24 hours a day! It's true! Well I mean, not THOSE Europeans, but hey they only live here...but they are really Asian or Middle EAstern or some other group that really doesn't "fit in".

[Thanz]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Flashing body parts in front of children is an accurate description of what Jackson did...
Flashing body parts in front of adults is an accurate description of what Jackson did. You are twisting the incident to try and support your strawman, but it keeps falling over.
Your own uptightness about which body part, or which venue one uses to flash children is noted, as is your blatant hypocrisy. You are the one who appears outraged by Jackson. That would be YOUR uptightness, my good fellow. And please, explain my "blatant hypocrisy" to me. I am quite interested how you came to that particular conclusion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Tell me, and specifically address the examples in the OP, how cultural diversity is related.

C'mon, it's not that hard to understand what he's saying. I don't take Jocko's post as an attack on cultural diversity, you seem to.

Which cultures are and are not offended by nipples and rolling joints and why?

Stoner culture, liberal culture, and youth culture are cultures that immediately come to mind as ones not offended by nipples. I'd say fundy christian and muslim cultures, conservative culture, and certain schools of feminist culture would find offense with a nip slip.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals. Ad hominem comes to mind.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz
Flashing body parts in front of adults is an accurate description of what Jackson did. My children were watching. Does that count? FWIW I have a nude on my wall and my children are subjected to a naked breast daily. Please don't tell the moral majority on me.

[crimresearch]

"Flashing body parts in front of adults is an accurate description of what Jackson did. You are twisting the incident to try and support your strawman, but it keeps falling over."


The only strawman here is the one you keep fabricating.

If Jackson had done her disrobing on cable TV, in Playboy, on video, on the internet. etc. there would have been no outcry, no FCC investigation, no fines, and so forth.

ONLY because she chose to use deceit to get it aired during the legally defined *family programming* hours ( in other words, in a venue *reserved* for child appropriate viewing), did she risk government censure...and *that* was the controversy...her criminal behavior, not her wardrobe.

She illegally flashed children, plain and simple.

So the falsehood that the majority of Americans were so shocked *merely* at the sight of a female breast is a fabrication...
they were upset because they didn't want it being sprung illegally on their children without warning.

And you are a hypocrite because you object to hypothetical scenarios involving the same behavior (i.e. using trickery to flash YOUR children without parental consent))...but a real life example involving Americans and their children is cause for much ridicule.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan
My children were watching. Does that count?
I was trying to point out that crimresearch was manipulating the event to his own ends, to try and make the incident the same as the birthday clown. I was showing that I could "accurately describe" the incident in a way that does not invlove kids. If you think that my description is not fair, well, neither is crim's.FWIW I have a nude on my wall and my children are subjected to a naked breast daily. Please don't tell the moral majority on me. Your secret is safe with me. Is it a photo or a painting? Or, have you hired a performance artist?

[crimresearch]

"I was showing that I could "accurately describe" the incident in a way that does not invlove kids."

Sure you were...arranging for a wardrobe 'malfunction' to occur at the peak of the *legally mandated* family hour doesn't involve kids in any way, shape, or form.

Riiiiiight.
:rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Tony
C'mon, it's not that hard to understand what he's saying. I don't take Jocko's post as an attack on cultural diversity... Then you need to read what he said againOriginally posted by Jocko
America's obsession with celebrating diversity has led inevitably to not one line, but a thousand lines that can be crossed on any given issue/race/creed/orientation/etc.
Stoner culture, liberal culture, and youth culture are cultures that immediately come to mind as ones not offended by nipples. I'd say fundy christian and muslim cultures, conservative culture, and certain schools of feminist culture would find offense with a nip slip. "Stoner culture? feminist culture"? life is simple when words mean whatever you want them to mean. Yup when people refer to cultural diversity, they are including the "Stoner culture". whatever...:rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by jay gw
Here's what Americans think about censorship and "decency" in the media:

# About 65% of respondents indicated overall support for First Amendment freedoms, while 30% said the First Amendment goes too far — a nine-point swing from last year and a dramatic change from the 2002 survey in which Americans were evenly divided on the question at 49% each.

# About 58% said that the current amount of government regulation of entertainment programming on television is “about right;� 16% said there is “too much,� while 21% said there is “too little.�

Broadcasters and producers should note, however, that 49% of respondents would have current daytime-and-early-evening regulations regarding references to sexual activity extended to cover all 24 hours; and 54% would extend those regulations to cable, which currently is not covered by such FCC rules.


Pay attention to the bolded parts. Half of Americans polled want the censorship of sexual references to extend to all television programming, not just 'family hours'. More than half want cable to be censored.

It's not a minority, it's the majority in some cases that's 'uptight'. It depends alot on the issue.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13573 A lot of conservative/Republicans around here are in denial about their party. They want to think atheists/agnostics are part of the vibrant mainstream. They want to think their "liberal" views on personal morality are mainstream Republican values. Poll after Poll (today's example) (http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/224727-2012-010.html) , election after election have shown, religion and it's morality are the norm, the mainstream.

The Internet allows us access to more information then we could ever possibly digest. Ignoring that which we disagree with is one way of dealing with it I suppose.

PS Mainstream Democratic positions on morality aren't a lot different then their Republicans counterparts. I don't believe, however, that Democratic leaning people are in the same level of denial. All IHMO of course :)

[Number Six]

Originally posted by crimresearch
OK, this was thoroughly vetted before, so I'm acting on the presumption that there is a high level of trolling going on here.

Janet Jackson didn't cause vast public outrage for showing her breast on TV...she deliberately chose to ignore all the available outlets that would have been happy to let her disrobe, and chose to use deceit to get it aired during the few hours a day, and on the few channels, set aside for what is supposedly family programming.

So all of this supercilious commentary makes me wonder...

Is it really no big deal where you are, if an adult, paid to perform in front of children, ( a teen audience entertainer, or a newscaster, or a teacher, or a birthday party clown, lets say) whips out their breast, or their penis, or bends over and spreads their bare ass cheeks to the kiddies?

Because if you show me proof of that, I'll be glad to admit that you are more 'phisticated' than we are.

But if the response is just the same old 'Well, that's different', then let me borrow a line from Penn and Teller.

STFU!!!

This post says it all. Nipplegate had _nothing_ do do with what was shown and _everything_ to do with when and where it was shown. Stuff just as risque or even moreso is already all over virtually every medium in the US and nobody bats an eye.

The clown analogy is accurate on the pertient point. If you hire a clown (which incidentally isn't too far from what Janet Jackson is IMO) for a kids party then you're expecting certain things. Everyone knows what a clown delivers and if your particular clown delivers something that it knows is outside the bounds of normal clown behavior then it has broken a trust. And if the clown objects to your being angry afterwards by saying that you're just being uptight and close-minded by not letting it do anything it wanted then you slap the clown for being such a smart ass because the clown _knew_ that's not what you wanted but did it anyway.

Now if the clown tells you _beoforehand_ that it plans to do X, Y and Z even though such things are out of the ordinary for a clown then that's fine because you can make a decision on the basis of that information as to whether to have the clown perform. But if it just springs unexpectedly then it's being deceitful.

The same goes for Janet Jackson's nipple or if Janet Jackson decided to give a political speech during the Super Bowl show or if Janet Jackson decided to give the crowd the finger. She's breaking a trust with the audience. If the whole thing wasn't truly an accident then whatever group of people planned it pulled a trick on 100 million people and that is why it became such a big deal.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"Flashing body parts in front of adults is an accurate description of what Jackson did. You are twisting the incident to try and support your strawman, but it keeps falling over."


The only strawman here is the one you keep fabricating.

If Jackson had done her disrobing on cable TV, in Playboy, on video, on the internet. etc. there would have been no outcry, no FCC investigation, no fines, and so forth.

ONLY because she chose to use deceit to get it aired during the legally defined *family programming* hours ( in other words, in a venue *reserved* for child appropriate viewing), did she risk government censure...and *that* was the controversy...her criminal behavior, not her wardrobe.

She illegally flashed children, plain and simple.
Well, not so plain and simple. The superbowl is watched more by adults than by children. Your equating this to behaviour that is SOLELY directed at children is spurious at best.
So the falsehood that the majority of Americans were so shocked *merely* at the sight of a female breast is a fabrication...
they were upset because they didn't want it being sprung illegally on their children without warning.
Won't someone think of the children??? Do you really think that the flash of boob that was so brief that if you blinked you missed it has any corrupting influence? By that point, any damage had already been done. The pop out was just the icing on the awful cake. Do I think it was a stupid thing for her to do? Yes. But I also think that the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.
And you are a hypocrite because you object to hypothetical scenarios involving the same behavior (i.e. using trickery to flash YOUR children without parental consent))...but a real life example involving Americans and their children is cause for much ridicule.
Sorry, but it just isn't the same behaviour no matter how many times you say it.

It seems to me that you are one of the uptight Americans that I was talking about. You probably led the charge against PeeWee Herman merchandise after Paul Ruebens was caught in the adult theatre as well. So, I have direct quesiton that you haven't addressed yet: Have you looked at the bit that I linked to in the OP, with Pierre Berton rolling a joint? What would your reaction be if that was aired on NBC at 8:00?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Stoner culture? feminist culture"?

So you're denying there are cultures built up around feminism and weed And that said cultures play a part in the "cultral diversity"?

[Ralph]

Perhaps as much as 0.01 percent of the population.



I think a similar % of the population belongs to the "it's hip to call Americans unsophisticated prudes because they're uptight about the human body".

A sweaty fat guy reading a newspaper at a nudist camp isn't going to be taken as sexual by too many people outside of the RR crowd....

A man in a 3 piece business suit dry-humping a woman in a burkha is.........and that's what most people objected to.

A man tearing open a womans clothing to expose a breast is about sex---not about nudity.

Most people, Americans & non-Americans--tend to feel that children & sex don't mix well.

My wife & I have been "caught" by our kids a few times in the past. We didn't make a big deal about----we didn't lose any sleep worring that we damaged their little psyches........but we didn't just walk into the living room and start doing it in front of them either.


I think the only people that went "ape###t" over this were the media and the nut jobs like the RR bunch.....

Most people just thought it was stupid & inappropriate.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz
Is it a photo or a painting? Or, have you hired a performance artist? It's a Vargas lithograph that was printed in playboy.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Of course I view any society who would even question the appearance of nude women on their electronic altar, as backwards.

I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals.

How about a society that does not allow sex acts on public TV, are they dimwitted Neanderthals too? Why or Why not? Why does sensoring one aspect of sexuality from public TV normal, but another aspect, dimwittedness?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by billydkid
This is where I really get confused. In New York, for example, it has been recognized that women have the same right as men to be topless on public lands, but somehow, they can not be topless on their own lawns should anyone catch a glimpse of them or on television. Another thing that I find really mind boggling is the fact that the police will arrest people for things that are not crimes - going topless on a publicly owned NY beach for example - and that person can further be convicted of something that is not a crime. It has happened that the police have arrested individuals for not being deferential enough - certainly not a crime - and on occasion these people are convicted for this non-crime and fined or jailed simply because the judge didn't like a persons attitude.

funny story, there were a couple of completely naked women running through the streets of some back east state that defined nakedness as being able to see the individuals genitals.

The lawyer had one question, "Did you see their genitals?"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Thanz
Why are you ignoring the actual facts in favour of your strawman argument? An incident happened. People in the US seemed to go apesh*t over it. The reaction in Canada was more of bemused interest in the reactions of the Americans than any outrage directed at Jackson. So I say that this incident shows Americans to be more uptight than Canadians, in a very generalized statement kind of way.


I notice that janet jackson protested by disrobing in a canadian performance and reaveling, *gasp*, a nude colored body suit. Why the body suit?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Thanz
So, I have direct quesiton that you haven't addressed yet: Have you looked at the bit that I linked to in the OP, with Pierre Berton rolling a joint? What would your reaction be if that was aired on NBC at 8:00?

Why the hangup on the joint? I get the impression that a lot of people have no clue about the society and culture inside america. I've seen someone rolling a joint hundreds of times on TV, hell, the mascott of the toasted sub place down the street is a giant rolled joint.

[TragicMonkey]

There is a difference between sex and nudity.

In some cultures, the nudity taboo is so entrenched that any nudity automatically becomes linked to sex, and therefore inherits that culture's taboos on sex.

[renata]

I think people mistake feelings about nudity and sex with general openness of society. Many places in the US are more conservative when it comes to sexuality than Europe. But they much less uptight about say, gun ownership. Should there be a thread about why Europeans are so uptight about guns?

Someone here wrote if their PMs prayed in public, they would be shocked. Well, I would be shocked if US had a state sanctioned religion. Perhaps our leaders choosing to show themselves praying has no more significance that state religions elsewhere.

Theatrical gasping and generalizing is silly.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by crimresearch
OK, this was thoroughly vetted before, so I'm acting on the presumption that there is a high level of trolling going on here.

Janet Jackson didn't cause vast public outrage for showing her breast on TV...she deliberately chose to ignore all the available outlets that would have been happy to let her disrobe, and chose to use deceit to get it aired during the few hours a day, and on the few channels, set aside for what is supposedly family programming.

So all of this supercilious commentary makes me wonder...
...
STFU!!! Um...I don't know why you'd be so critical about people talking about this, but yes, it was about her breast. Americans are more uptight about nudity. Like my example with the skinny-dipping, the Europeans did it all the time and thought nothing of it, but none of the American parents did it, and they were disappointed in us and horrified that we would do such a thing too. There was nothing sexual, just nakedness. More than once I heard gossip among school parents about the foreign parents about their parties, and it was usually hinting at some moral deficit on their part. We had to bring magazines into art class to give us models for different assignments; all the magazines the foreign students brought in to art class had topless women in ads, none of the magazines the Americans brought did. Even Madonna remarked about the nudity in British media outlets! So no, I don't think our society is the same as theirs regarding nudity. Ours is either more uptight, or theirs more objectifying of women. As I doubt our society is much more enlightened about treating women's bodies as sexual objects, I would judge their societies as being more open about nudity.

I also wouldn't judge the superbowl as a family show. Sure lots of kids watch it, but it is sexualized like many other sports games are, with scantily clad women dancing and cheering on the sidelines.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RussDill
I notice that janet jackson protested by disrobing in a canadian performance and reaveling, *gasp*, a nude colored body suit. Why the body suit?
What are you talking about? Link please.

[kittynh]

I asked my Canadian relatives. Have you seen the Canadian MTV? No contest US WINS!

They just laughed, Canada has way tighter standards and laws!

No boobies or "violent" toys for Canadian kiddie tv!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by renata
I think people mistake feelings about nudity and sex with general openness of society. Many places in the US are more conservative when it comes to sexuality than Europe. But they much less uptight about say, gun ownership. Should there be a thread about why Europeans are so uptight about guns? Start one if you like. I don't think that the differing attitudes towards guns have been covered here.... :p

However, I will comment that I find the differing attitudes towards sex and violence in entertainment disturbing. For the movie Team America: World Police, the MPAA refused to give the film an 'R' (instead of NC-17) because of simulated puppet sex. Basically, puppets (with no naughty bits) getting mashed together. From here (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1320095,00.html)
Parker pointed to the differences between the MPAAs treatment of simulated violence and simulated sex. Team America features violent scenes in which a Tim Robbins puppet is set on fire and a Susan Sarandon puppet is dropped off a 20-story building - all acts that passed MPAA muster.

"We blow Janeane Garofalo's head clean off, [but for the MPAA] it's all about the positions of the dolls having sex," Parker said. "It's not funny - it's tragic."

[crimresearch]

OK, I'll rephrase my challenge...

If anyone thinks that Americans are the only ones uptight over nudity during family programming, then post a link to footage of XuXa doing an all nude version of her popular show.

Particularly one with long lingering closeups and slow motion footage, and a little vaseline around the edges of the lens....

Go ahead, post it, I dare you!


:p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by kimiko
Um...I don't know why you'd be so critical about people talking about this, but yes, it was about her breast. Americans are more uptight about nudity. Like my example with the skinny-dipping, the Europeans did it all the time and thought nothing of it, but none of the American parents did it, and they were disappointed in us and horrified that we would do such a thing too. There was nothing sexual, just nakedness. More than once I heard gossip among school parents about the foreign parents about their parties, and it was usually hinting at some moral deficit on their part. We had to bring magazines into art class to give us models for different assignments; all the magazines the foreign students brought in to art class had topless women in ads, none of the magazines the Americans brought did. Even Madonna remarked about the nudity in British media outlets! So no, I don't think our society is the same as theirs regarding nudity. Ours is either more uptight, or theirs more objectifying of women. As I doubt our society is much more enlightened about treating women's bodies as sexual objects, I would judge their societies as being more open about nudity.


so european societies are more open because they use boobies to sell things.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Thanz
What are you talking about? Link please.

My bad, Alanis protesting the boob incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3603179.stm

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz
Start one if you like. I don't think that the differing attitudes towards guns have been covered here.... :p

However, I will comment that I find the differing attitudes towards sex and violence in entertainment disturbing. For the movie Team America: World Police, the MPAA refused to give the film an 'R' (instead of NC-17) because of simulated puppet sex. Basically, puppets (with no naughty bits) getting mashed together. From here (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1320095,00.html)


My point, my sweet (boy, it has been a long time since we interacted) is that I tend to abhor generalizations, particularly cherrypicked ones. One can easily pick a few examples and blow up a caricature vision of a society one has a variety of reasons to dislike.

Now I will bow out of this thread, so send me note of unconditional surrender via PM.

[jay gw]

The Arab and other Muslim populations in Europe are the fastest growing. Pretty soon, tolerance for nudity/porn will not be there. Already, I've heard that people who were openly gay are now hiding it if they live in Arab parts of the city.

Everything changes.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RussDill
My bad, Alanis protesting the boob incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3603179.stm It was a joke. A satirical skit. She was wearing a body suit, complete with nipples and pubic hair. A "producer" came out to tell her that they can't show nipples or pubic hair on national tv, so she peeled them off.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by RussDill
so european societies are more open because they use boobies to sell things. We do too, but they allow much more of it. But I doubt we are significantly more egalitarian than western europe, so open seems to be what's left. There could be another reason instead, but I'll go with open.

[rustypouch]

Just something I would like to mention as an example.

I did not see the Janet Jackson incident live, but I saw it the next day, uncensored, on the CBC news.

All the American stations I saw it on, the naughty bit was pixelated.

[IIRichard]

Heavily Edited quote

Originally posted by Thanz
After the whole Janet Jackson nipple fiasco, I began to wonder why the citizens of the USA are so darn uptight.

Can you imagine anything of the sort happening with Bush?

It is quite funny, and shows just how laid back most Canadians are in contrast to Americans. It can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/

My question is, why? Why such a huge difference in attitudes? Any thoughts?

OK, I wasn't gonna let the cat out of the bag but I have to defend my country.

Thanz, America is one 24/7 365 days ayear party place. You name it , we got it. The reason there are border crossings is to keep all the tourists and visitors away from the party. Actually, thousands of parties. The "people" whom the visitor sees working, commuting, running border crossings, etc. are automatons, robots if you will. American technology at its finest.

Interesting visitors are secretly invited to join the party if they wish. That is why so many european countries are not gaining population or actually shrinking.

One thing I can guarantee, you will never, ever get an invitation.

Gotta run, champaign tasting two doors down. :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Thanz
It was a joke. A satirical skit. She was wearing a body suit, complete with nipples and pubic hair. A "producer" came out to tell her that they can't show nipples or pubic hair on national tv, so she peeled them off.

wait, you can't show nipples on canadian national tv? What a backwards society, neanderthals.

[TragicMonkey]

Why are male nipples acceptable for television and public, but female nipples not? Are they that different?

And it's not as if nipples are actual sex organs.

Perhaps some sort of Freudian breast-feeding complex would account for this rather senseless taboo?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Just something I would like to mention as an example.

I did not see the Janet Jackson incident live, but I saw it the next day, uncensored, on the CBC news.

All the American stations I saw it on, the naughty bit was pixelated.

try drudge.

[crimresearch]

I want the naked XUXA video, dammmmit!! :o

[RussDill]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And it's not as if nipples are actual sex organs.


Why, because they are not essential for reproduction? Is the clitoris therefore not a sex organ?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I want the naked XUXA video, dammmmit!! :o

Me too, preferably with naked Katherine Zeta Jones as a guest star.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RussDill
Why, because they are not essential for reproduction? Is the clitoris therefore not a sex organ?

Is the tongue a sex organ?

Just because you use something in sex, doesn't make it a sexual organ.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Why are male nipples acceptable for television and public, but female nipples not? Are they that different? Intelectually I would say no. However male nipples lack a certain je ne sais quoi. Don't get me wrong. The male body is beautiful and I am secure enough in my sexuality to admit to looking at and apreciating naked men and especially their chests. But the interest is more artistic than erotic.

Great question.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I want the naked XUXA video, dammmmit!! :o I used to get up early on Saturday to watch XUXA on her childrens show. Much better than scrambled porn if you ask me. Funny thing though, I now like to watch the Wiggles and Teletubies. Odd.

[kittynh]

Originally posted by jay gw
The Arab and other Muslim populations in Europe are the fastest growing. Pretty soon, tolerance for nudity/porn will not be there. Already, I've heard that people who were openly gay are now hiding it if they live in Arab parts of the city.

Everything changes.

MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!

Europe is changing.

They may be open about FEMALE sex on tv, but the censorship for other things is over the top.

You aren't going to find anyone in the Arab neighborhood where I did my shopping in Brussels accepting nudes on tv. Let's see what it's like in 20 years.

[Frank Newgent]

The US is overrun with vehicles sporting little red, white, and blue magnetic ribbons on the trunk or tailgate stating: GOD BLESS THE USA. Usually with a matching yellow SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

The more rigorously aligned these two, the more uptight the driver the way I see it. "Made-in-China"... who cares?

Have been thinking about having matching yellow stickers with the simple words GAY MARRIAGE printed. Perfect for overlay... SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE. What's wrong with that? Should I wear Kevlar?

Nothing to do with any comparative analysis of aureole diameter, of course.

[kittynh]

You haven't been to Vermont have you?

"I'm Straight, but I'm Not Narrow"

Rainbow stickers?

"Keep Civil Unions Civil"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Is the tongue a sex organ?

Just because you use something in sex, doesn't make it a sexual organ.

Alright then, what defines a sex organ then? If all female sex organs are technically internal, what prevents a female being spread eagle on your local news?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RussDill
Alright then, what defines a sex organ then? If all female sex organs are technically internal, what prevents a female being spread eagle on your local news?

I'm not trying to define a sex organ. I'm pointing out that male nipples are acceptable, and female nipples are not. Why? Apart from the ability to lactate after giving birth, what's the difference?

And I never said a thing about female sex organs. It's not a subject I know a lot about. But I couldn't care less if they were spread-eagled on my local news. It would be a considerable step up in journalistic quality, as well as a boost in the ratings.

The question is, what inherent quality of the female nipple makes it unfit for television?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm not trying to define a sex organ. I'm pointing out that male nipples are acceptable, and female nipples are not. Why? Apart from the ability to lactate after giving birth, what's the difference?

And I never said a thing about female sex organs. It's not a subject I know a lot about. But I couldn't care less if they were spread-eagled on my local news. It would be a considerable step up in journalistic quality, as well as a boost in the ratings.

The question is, what inherent quality of the female nipple makes it unfit for television?

Point being is that there isn't a black and white line that defines what is or is not a sex organ. There isn't a magic line that says what is and what isn't indecent. I think the majority of people do not want indecency on public TV. The difference is, how do you define indecency.

Court of law in the US at least says that its defined per community. Which probably means what doesn't offend (in the context of indecency) greater than x% of the population, where x is some percentage less than 25 probably.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RussDill
Point being is that there isn't a black and white line that defines what is or is not a sex organ. There isn't a magic line that says what is and what isn't indecent. I think the majority of people do not want indecency on public TV. The difference is, how do you define indecency.

Court of law in the US at least says that its defined per community. Which probably means what doesn't offend (in the context of indecency) greater than x% of the population, where x is some percentage less than 25 probably.

The Taliban thought seeing a woman's hands was indecent. It's all just a product of the culture, which means, it's just a bunch of arbitrary crap anyway.

As for community standards, there are tons of problems with trying to make laws around that. Compare the communities of say, that town in Pennsylvania where they have to teach Intelligent Design in public schools to, say, Las Vegas. Then give them the exact same product, on national tv.

The problem of allowing indecency to be defined by "community standards" is that everything national will have to be tailored to fit to the decency guidelines of the most restrictive community in the country, or else be in violation.

The other problem is that people don't call up the FCC to say they aren't offended. The only voices heard are the ones complaining. Just like you don't get many compliments in the Complaints Department, and doctors don't get patients who come in to just to say they feel fine.

[gethane]

1) Nipples are not genitals and therefore not analagous to male dangly bits. Breast taboos/sexuality are culturally based. But that does not make them genitals in fact. An anecdote I've read: A group of Muslim women are sitting in a room at a hospital feeding their children. A male doctor walks in. The women scramble to cover up.... their faces. They leave their breasts out and continue feeding their children. The fact that their culture makes faces taboo, does not make faces genitals.

2) Americans even get uptight if women bare their breast for their intended purpose, breastfeeding.

Children are not warped from seeing nipples. They might, however, have been warped from seeing the ridiculous hysteria that nipple caused. Now millions of little children are running around thinking that nipples are BAD. My son, would beg to differ. Mmmm, got milk?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Thanz
After the whole Janet Jackson nipple fiasco, I began to wonder why the citizens of the USA are so darn uptight.

We have Jerry Springer, but you think we are uptight? We have O'Reilly that you Canadians won't even allow your people to watch!

I think you are making this thread up in a bored moment, but if you want an explanation; that was a lousy bit of entertainment anyway, in the biggest sporting event of the year, and then the b*tch and her sidekick hijack the show with a stupid bit of personal grandstanding that added nothing of value. People felt insulted for that, not because the fool woman exposed herself.

[elle_inquisitor]

The last time I checked "we" Canadians are allowed to watch O'Reilly, and yes, Jerry Springer is an American icon of sorts. Both of these shows thrive on sensationalism and have entertainment value. I don't, however, see how they merit as a defence of American openmindedness in the media.

[kittynh]

No, but they show the openmindedness of the censors.

:D

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
We have Jerry Springer, but you think we are uptight? There's a difference with Jerry Springer. The people on there are commonly acknowledged to be deviant and the subject of ridicule. It's funny because it allows people to watch them as a spectacle and think how much more intelligent/well-off/normal they themselves are. And the show is censored; you have to buy the DVDs to see nudity.

[ingoa]

One thing I don´t understand:

If a kid is too young to see a flashed nipple without psychological damage, how can the parents allow that the same kid watches American football? Violence is okay but nipples are not? Bear in mind, that almost the first thing a kid sees in life, is a nipple. ;)

This is was many Europeans consider strange. Tolerance of violence and on the same time intolerance of sexuality.

One could describe it that way:
- American parents complain about boobs in family TV but tolerate quite a lot of violence.
- European parents complain about violence in TV but tolerate quite a lot of boobs.

Of course this is an oversimplication... Or maybe not....

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by ingoa

One could describe it that way:
- American parents complain about boobs in family TV but tolerate quite a lot of violence.
- European parents complain about violence in TV but tolerate quite a lot of boobs.


That is pretty close to it, yes. I guess you can put Canada (especially Quebec) with the Europeans.

[kittynh]

Which is a form of censorship!

Why not let parents decide for themselves? A lot of families already do that. They get the Playboy channel, but don't turn it on when the kids are around. They don't let their kids watch hockey. Hey, I have seen lovely shots of the fans going wild at soccer games! Or the Brussels riot police beating the crap out of the British football hooligans before loading them on Army transport planes to send them HOME! My neighbors cheered when they saw that on tv, in front of all our kids! (I kind of agreed).

Censorship is bad. No matter of what. Heck, just throw out your tv, or turn it off. But, freedom of speech should be protected.

That includes violence and nudity and religion.

Why is a government making moral choices good?

Like the whole smoking thing. You find little regulation of smoking iin Europe right now. People can choose to eat where there is smoking or not. Yet, Europe seems to be headed down the same over regulation of smoking that the US went down. I don't smoke, I don't like my daughter with asthma around smoking. But, it's a choice people make.

Instead, governments seem bent on imposing their belief system on everyone.

Turn the channel. Turn it off. And for goodness sake everyone in Europe, go out to eat and smoke while you still can!

[crimresearch]

"...Why not let parents decide for themselves? A lot of families already do that. They get the Playboy channel, but don't turn it on when the kids are around. They don't let their kids watch hockey."

And how exactly are parents 'allowed' to decide, if they turn on the TV to watch the prime time Super Bowl halftime show, with its vaunted 'super-commercials' and teen entertainers, and get nudity?

That sounds like taking the decision *away* from the parents, and that is the reason that protests were lodged with, and fines levied by, the FCC.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Jorghnassen
That is pretty close to it, yes. I guess you can put Canada (especially Quebec) with the Europeans.

Then why the body suit on alanis?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by kittynh
Like the whole smoking thing. You find little regulation of smoking iin Europe right now. People can choose to eat where there is smoking or not. Yet, Europe seems to be headed down the same over regulation of smoking that the US went down. I don't smoke, I don't like my daughter with asthma around smoking. But, it's a choice people make.


Find me a non-smoking bowling alley.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by LW
Mind you, you should have either used a smiley after that or in some other way made clear that you are joking. Someone might take you seriously.
I wasn't joking. I was however being crude. I apologize.

I usually only have a few hours per day to attend this board and it has been my experience that puting a bit of an edge on my post will enhance the rate of replies.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ad hominem comes to mind.
If so, it does so without any basis.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
How about a society that does not allow sex acts on public TV, are they dimwitted Neanderthals too? Why or Why not? Why does sensoring one aspect of sexuality from public TV normal, but another aspect, dimwittedness?
Not quite sure of your point, but can you give me one good reason for censoring nudity or sexual acts on public TV? Kindly provide links to credible studies showing how it is harmful in your reply.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Not quite sure of your point, but can you give me one good reason for censoring nudity or sexual acts on public TV? Kindly provide links to credible studies showing how it is harmful in your reply.

I'm so sorry that there is no hardcore pornography with your evening news. It must be horrible for you.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
I'm so sorry that there is no hardcore pornography with your evening news. It must be horrible for you.
No answer, eh?

[Elind]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Not quite sure of your point, but can you give me one good reason for censoring nudity or sexual acts on public TV? Kindly provide links to credible studies showing how it is harmful in your reply.

Are you serious? Sounds like a troll question.

It offends many people obviously. That's a good reason, whether you can show that it's harmful or not.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Elind
Are you serious? Sounds like a troll question.

It offends many people obviously. That's a good reason, whether you can show that it's harmful or not.
No answer as well? Come on, give me a challenge here!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No answer, eh?

I'd rather divide the content, if you want pornographic material, mark it as such, otherwise, you just have advertisers and producers shoving pornography into everything they can in an attempt to raise ratings. When I want to watch pornography, I switch to a channel that has it, or I rent it.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
I'd rather divide the content, if you want pornographic material, mark it as such, otherwise, you just have advertisers and producers shoving pornography into everything they can in an attempt to raise ratings. When I want to watch pornography, I switch to a channel that has it, or I rent it.
Something wrong with shoving pornography into everything? If you don't like it, watch something else.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Something wrong with shoving pornography into everything? If you don't like it, watch something else.

Do you have children?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
Do you have children?
No. Does it matter?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No. Does it matter?

Yes. I find that most people without children are completely narrowminded when it comes to issues involving children.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
Yes. I find that most people without children are completely narrowminded when it comes to issues involving children.
And I find that people with children are often insufferable.

Actually I don't, but I hope you understand my point. ("Think of the children!")

So, when are you going to reply to my question with some substance?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And I find that people with children are often insufferable.

Actually I don't, but I hope you understand my point. ("Think of the children!")

So, when are you going to reply to my question with some substance?

seriously, think of the children. You say that people with children are insufferable, too bad, you were once a child too. I'm sorry, exposing children to pornography is not only a crime, but it's also scicologically damaging.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
seriously, think of the children. You say that people with children are insufferable, too bad, you were once a child too. I'm sorry, exposing children to pornography is not only a crime, but it's also scicologically damaging.
As I said many posts ago, please provide studies validating your view.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As I said many posts ago, please provide studies validating your view.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was debating with someone who thinks its ok to show pornography to children. Not worth my time.

[Elind]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No answer as well? Come on, give me a challenge here!

Troll confirmed! Take cover.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Elind
Troll confirmed! Take cover.
Good grief.

Get some balls, Elind.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RussDill
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was debating with someone who thinks its ok to show pornography to children. Not worth my time.
Sorry, I didn't realize I was debating with someone who had no evidence for their weird stance.

[gethane]

I'm trying to figure out where the brief flash of a nipple turned into pornography.

If I am breastfeeding my son in public, and he pulls off and lifts my shirt to gaze lovingly at my breasts, as he likes to do, and another child witnesses this, it is pornography?

A nipple is not pornography. Maybe I missed something.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by gethane
I'm trying to figure out where the brief flash of a nipple turned into pornography.

If I am breastfeeding my son in public, and he pulls off and lifts my shirt to gaze lovingly at my breasts, as he likes to do, and another child witnesses this, it is pornography?

A nipple is not pornography. Maybe I missed something.
Apparently, for the super Puritans any display of female body parts not sanctioned by the Pope is not only sinful but terribly harmful to children. For some reason, the same doesn't apply to showing death, violence and blood.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If so, it does so without any basis. Let's see...

DD
I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals. You are attacking the individuals and not logic or reason. This is just abuse disguised as argument. Those who don't see the world as you do are dumb and it is up to the person you are debating to prove that they are not.

There couldn't be a better example of Argument Ad Hominem. I think it best to memorialize your post. We can refer to it as an object lesson. Thank you.

Ad Hominem (http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/fallacies/ad_hominem.html)

Ad Hominem, "against the man", is a class of fallacies in which conclusions depend on the identity a person associated with the arguments instead of being purely a function of the arguments.Example: But then you wouldn't understand that because you are a dimwitted Neanderthal.

Abusive ad hominem (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm)
Ad Hominem Fallacies of Relevance Again, Ad Hominem comes to mind.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let's see...

You are attacking the individuals and not logic or reason. This is just abuse disguised as argument. Those who don't see the world as you do are dumb and it is up to the person you are debating to prove that they are not.

There couldn't be a better example of Argument Ad Hominem. I think it best to memorialize your post. We can refer to it as an object lesson. Thank you.

Example: But then you wouldn't understand that because you are a dimwitted Neanderthal.

Again, Ad Hominem comes to mind.
If I was going for an Ad Hominem, I would say that someone's argument was no good because that person was an &%#hole. I have done no such thing.

I have simply characterized a society with certain attributes as being a primitive society.

Now, try and address the question, without the crap.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If I was going for an Ad Hominem, I would say that someone's argument was no good because that person was an &%#hole. I have done no such thing. That is just one form of ad hominem. There is an entire class. You made a conclusion that attacked individuals rather than address any logic or reason.

I have simply characterized a society with certain attributes as being a primitive society. And dimwitted, dumb. You "attacked the person". My links clearly show why this is ad hominem.

Now, try and address the question, without the crap. What question? That was rhetoric. If asked why one could not conclude that they are being irrational then I could agree with you. But attacking their intelligence is just abusive ad hominem. I'll leave that to you.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is just one form of ad hominem. There is an entire class. You made a conclusion that attacked individuals rather than address any logic or reason.

And dimwitted, dumb. You "attacked the person". My links clearly show why this is ad hominem.
I clearly did not attack a person or group of persons who provided an argument.

I charcterized a society. The topic of the thread, in fact.
What question? That was rhetoric. If asked why one could not conclude that they are being irrational then I could agree with you. But attacking their intelligence is just abusive ad hominem. I'll leave that to you.
The question of why a naked breast or (horror) pornography should be detrimental to a child.

Get with the program.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry, I didn't realize I was debating with someone who had no evidence for their weird stance.

and

Something wrong with shoving pornography into everything?

In response, you have had it pointed out to you that some people find it offensive (which should not even be an issue in a thread with this title), and you seem to have rejected that without explanaton as to why your wishes should supercede the parent's.

OK, that still leaves the question of whether or not it is in any way harmful (or given the duty of care to children, I would submit, possibly harmful)

Since you have chosen such broad strokes, *your* two sets (children and porn) clearly include the subset of 4 to 8 year old children, and the subset of rape, torture, or snuff porno films.

Do you have anything to offer in the way of evidence that comingling those two subsets is a *good* or even a neutral thing?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
In response, you have had it pointed out to you that some people find it offensive (which should not even be an issue in a thread with this title), and you seem to have rejected that without explanaton as to why your wishes should supercede the parent's.
On the contrary, no one has yet provided any reason why "some people being offended" should supercede the Bill of Rights.
OK, that still leaves the question of whether or not it is in any way harmful (or given the duty of care to children, I would submit, possibly harmful)

Since you have chosen such broad strokes, *your* two sets (children and porn) clearly include the subset of 4 to 8 year old children, and the subset of rape, torture, or snuff porno films.
Obviously not. Rape, torture and snuff is violence.
Do you have anything to offer in the way of evidence that comingling those two subsets is a *good* or even a neutral thing?
Do you have any relevant studies to provide? Otherwise I'll see this as yet another "no answer".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I clearly did not attack a person or group of persons who provided an argument.

I charcterized a society. The topic of the thread, in fact.There is nothing that says that Ad Hominem has to be directed at a person who provides an argument. Where did you get that idea?

Ad Hominem, "against the man", is a class of fallacies in which conclusions depend on the identity a person ASSOCIATED with the arguments instead of being purely a function of the arguments. Please note that it does not say a person making arguments.

But in any event it is clear that anyone who disagrees with your position is a dimwit and has to prove why they are not a dimwit. This is also known as poisoning the well.

The question of why a naked breast or (horror) pornography should be detrimental to a child. You and I are in agreement but calling anyone who disagrees with us dimwits does not address their argument does it? It only attacks the person. Dressing it up with euphemistic adjectives won't change that. I'm guessing that fact won't keep you from trying though, will it?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
There is nothing that says that Ad Hominem has to be directed at a person who provides an argument. Where did you get that idea?

Please note that it does not say a person making arguments.

But in any event it is clear that anyone who disagrees with your position is a dimwit and has to prove why they are not a dimwit. This is also known as poisoning the well.
Good grief. Ever heard the term strawman?

We can both play this pointless game.
You and I are in agreement but calling anyone who disagrees with us dimwits does not address their argument does it? It only attacks the person. Dressing it up with euphemistic adjectives won't change that. I'm guessing that fact won't keep you from trying though, will it?
Glad to hear we are in agreement.

[crimresearch]

Obviously not. Rape, torture and snuff is violence

Moving the goalposts noted.

You specified pornography, not 'just porn that isn't harmful'.
Violent porn is a lucrative market, and you have made the case that it should be allowed on TV, etc. without restriction, in front of 'children', again without restriction...
It is incumbent upon you to support that extraodinary assertion with some studies of your own, yet you have failed.

I on the other hand, have made no such assertion, so your cry of 'no answer' is more intellectual dishonesty.

Thanks for losing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Good grief. Ever heard the term strawman?Yes, I have heard of a straw man. I'm sorry Danish but I have a bur up my a$$ when it comes to fallacy. And yes I am guilty of it from time to time. Your argument is fallacious.

I'll play devil's advocate. I lied when I told you I agreed with you.

Originally posted by RussDill
You seem to view the banning of topless women from public TV as going over the "top" as it were. I could see how a society banning all images and apearences of topless women as a problem though.

DanishDynamite
I would love to hear your reason why such a society would not automatically be a society of dimwitted Neanderthals. I argue that such a society is correct in their thinking.

Now, does that automatically make me a dimwitted Neanderthal?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RussDill
seriously, think of the children. You say that people with children are insufferable, too bad, you were once a child too. I'm sorry, exposing children to pornography is not only a crime, but it's also scicologically damaging.

Well, that's the question isn't it. Is the sex act pornographic? When is the sex act pornographic? Is it the context? Is it the attitude of the people involved? I remember seeing some strange sex manual as a teenager. It was supposed to be instructive - I guess for people who marry who have the first clue. The people involved in the photographs were so obviously doing a job as opposed to making love or even having sex - is was absolutely, completely unerotic and could hardly be called pornographic either. It was like the sex equivalent of a computor manual.

Look how critical context is in terms of whether something is considered pornographic or even sexual - a woman goes to a gynocologist and the doctor inserts a finger to examine her and it is completely unsexual (generally). In another context (and even with the glove) on it could be considered highly sexual.
Take something like an enema (which I understand are fairly erotic for some) in a certain context it is purely clinical. In another it is extremely "dirty". And breasts are only erotic or sexual in a certain context.

There are all these critical element which must add up in order to make something either sexual or erotic or pornographic. The real question is, what is it that makes something "dirty". The act of intercourse itself can be considered beautiful or innocent or filthy or even banal all determined the context and the attitudes of those involved. This, to me, is why it all gets so confusing. Clearly, breasts can not, in and of themselves, be considered obscene, but in certain contexts and to some people they are. The human body itself can not reasonably be considered to be obscene, yet, in certain contexts it bothers some people tremendously to see one. I remember that line from Annie Hall when the psychiatrist asks Woody Allen if he thinks sex is dirty and he answers "if it's any good it is." The thing to remember is that it is all upstairs. People think they are being offended by a bare tit, when in fact it is something else altogether that is offending them.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by billydkid
It was like the sex equivalent of a computor manual.


Um, I don't think Janet and Justin's performance that night in any way resembled a computer manual. In fact, it more or less resembled sexual assault.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Bruce
Um, I don't think Janet and Justin's performance that night in any way resembled a computer manual. In fact, it more or less resembled sexual assault.

Um, where did that come from? Did I say anything like that? But you are making my point - a breast, per se', can not reasonbly be considered "obscene", but the perception of that breast is dependent on the context and the attitude those in vicinity of the breast.

[kittynh]

note the sad lack of European and Canadian skepchicks talking about how much they love the objectification of women on tv and stuff. Oh yeah, it's liberating.

The thoughts of the women I spoke to after the Janet episode is that
A) Janet did not expose her breast, Justin did

B)at the time it did not look like Janet had agreed to said showing, it looked like he just reached over and ripped her top

C)most children that saw it thought Justin was being "mean" One mom said her child said, "Oh Justin is hurting Janet"


We teach our children that there are "Private parts" that should not be touched unless by mommy or daddy or a doctor or nurse. Justin was touching the private part without asking permission. Sure adults got it, but the 6 year old watching the superbowl did not. The kids weren't upset about the breast. MOst of the m didn't even catch the boob. They were upset he reached over and ripped her pretty costume.

Still, it did make parents sit down and talk with their children (always a good thing). The same thing happened YEARS ago when Joe Theisman did the "snapping like a chicken wing" thing with his leg while playing football. I mean, I've never seen anything that looked that BAD. Kids were very upset that saw it.

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
On the contrary, no one has yet provided any reason why "some people being offended" should supercede the Bill of Rights.
*****snip


Well, the BOR doesn't apply in Denmark. The argument for censoring broadcast TV runs something like this:

A. The broadcast spectrum is a public good that is a legitimate subject of regulation, much like parks, roads and public buildings.

B. That portion of the spectrum reserved for television is best utilized by making regulations that insure the broadest possible participation of the population.

C. Unrestricted pornography,violence, nudity and sex acts would lead to a lot of happy Danes and Germans but a lot of pissed off Americans, therefore, regulations prohibiting porn make sense. Likewise, requiring certain portions of the spectrum be reserved for non-commercial use.

My recollection is that Danish TV does not show porn in the early evening but I could be mistaken.

That is also the reason you can get porn on cable TV, it's not a public forum or resource.

We have 300,000,000 more or less over here of every possible language and ethnic group. We compromise a lot.

Personally, I find porn very boring. Johns Hopkins medical school used to have a required course on pornography that was required. It consisted of a series of slide over the course of several days of pornography of every sort (except child porn), heterosexual, homosexual and with other species. Most of the students were mind-numbingly bored after the first day.
:slp:

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Obviously not. Rape, torture and snuff is violence

Moving the goalposts noted.


Porn doesn't have to be violent. I consider non-violent porn to be normal porn. It doesn't harm or lower anyone.


ps. I do get the impression that porn in the US is more violent than in the EU.......wierd.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Obviously not. Rape, torture and snuff is violence

Moving the goalposts noted.

You specified pornography, not 'just porn that isn't harmful'.
Violent porn is a lucrative market, and you have made the case that it should be allowed on TV, etc. without restriction, in front of 'children', again without restriction...
It is incumbent upon you to support that extraodinary assertion with some studies of your own, yet you have failed.

I on the other hand, have made no such assertion, so your cry of 'no answer' is more intellectual dishonesty.

Thanks for losing.
No moving of goalposts involved. If I had specified that "eating" was OK with me I presume you would accuse me of not thinking of bulimia victims or the obese.

So, for those who find that nudety on public TV is harmful to children, can I please get an accepted study and not general crap. Thanks.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by RussDill . . . . I'm sorry, exposing children to pornography is not only a crime, but it's also scicologically damaging. [/B]Any uptightness I experience seems to stem from my feeling of being deserted and misled by a federal government that's been sold to groups whose only interest in this country is in extracting maximum monetary profit from it with little regard for its future or the commonweal (especially persons who can't afford to buy legislation).

As far as pornography and kids goes, I'd think explaining to kids what sex is all about and how porn appeals to our natural interest in it will lessen the risk of sociological or psychological side effects (not sure which area the poster was thinking of).

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No moving of goalposts involved. If I had specified that "eating" was OK with me I presume you would accuse me of not thinking of bulimia victims or the obese.

So, for those who find that nudety on public TV is harmful to children, can I please get an accepted study and not general crap. Thanks.

If you were making the assertion that there should be no government restrictions on what children can eat, and claiming that parents who want to monitor what their chidren eat are 'uptight', and not supported by scientific research, then Yes, I would certainly point out obesity.

But now you only want studies showing that something *not* harmful to children IS harmful?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
If you were making the assertion that there should be no government restrictions on what children can eat, and claiming that parents who want to monitor what their chidren eat are 'uptight', and not supported by scientific research, then Yes, I would certainly point out obesity.

But now you only want studies showing that something *not* harmful to children IS harmful?
I want studies that support the ridiculous assertion that nudity or even sexual intercourse on television is harmful to children.

Start providing them or spare us from your fake emotional outrage.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by IIRichard
Well, the BOR doesn't apply in Denmark.
No it doesn't, but we have something similar. I don't see how this is relevant, though.
The argument for censoring broadcast TV runs something like this:

A. The broadcast spectrum is a public good that is a legitimate subject of regulation, much like parks, roads and public buildings.
I don't necessarily disagree.
B. That portion of the spectrum reserved for television is best utilized by making regulations that insure the broadest possible participation of the population.
No idea what this means.
C. Unrestricted pornography,violence, nudity and sex acts would lead to a lot of happy Danes and Germans but a lot of pissed off Americans, therefore, regulations prohibiting porn make sense. Likewise, requiring certain portions of the spectrum be reserved for non-commercial use.
Why would pissing off some American citizens supercede the Bill of Rights? Or commen sense, for that matter?
My recollection is that Danish TV does not show porn in the early evening but I could be mistaken.
True, it usually starts after midnight. Although, if there is some porn related news story, the news will usually show a clip.
That is also the reason you can get porn on cable TV, it's not a public forum or resource.
Which is sorta the stuff we are talking about. Why should nudity be sensored? I'm still waiting for a good reason.
We have 300,000,000 more or less over here of every possible language and ethnic group. We compromise a lot.
Please don't try and impresss me with "compromise". The Danish type of government does nothing but compromise.
Personally, I find porn very boring. Johns Hopkins medical school used to have a required course on pornography that was required. It consisted of a series of slide over the course of several days of pornography of every sort (except child porn), heterosexual, homosexual and with other species. Most of the students were mind-numbingly bored after the first day.
:slp:
Thanks for the info.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I want studies that support the ridiculous assertion that nudity or even sexual intercourse on television is harmful to children.

Start providing them or spare us from your fake emotional outrage.

One might reasonably argue that a hysterical/puritanical attitude toward sex and nudity is more likely to be harmful to the psychology of a child than exposure to the uncovered human body or to the reality of the birds and the bees. Hysteria over sexuality has its roots in our religions. The nature type religions, those displaced largely displaced by Judaism and Christianity and Islam, were all inclined to celebrate nature and the earthly joys of living. At the core of the dominant western religions is the eternal conflict between God and nature. God is good, nature is bad. Pleasure is bad. What is natural is bad. Self denial is good. Spirit versus flesh - that is the basic tension in western religioins.

The south sea islands, for example, had no qwalms about nudity and sexuality until the Europeans got ahold of them. I think people need to get a better perspective on what is just pure indoctrination which has its roots in religion and things that are legitimate moral considerations. Given a choice between the arbitrary whims of a non-existant god (in other words, the moral conceits of a bunch of distorted perverts - Martin Luther, for example, who believed sex was God's only mistake and that is was a sin even in marriage - that is a perverted attitude in my book.) and natural reality I will choose nature.

[billydkid]

I don't see any connection at all between nudity and pornography.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
I don't see any connection at all between nudity and pornography. But what is pornography? One man's porn is anothers bare brest.

por·nog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)
n.[list=1] Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.
Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era� (Morris Dickstein).
[/list=1] A womans neck is pornography in many muslim countries.

Then there is the attempt to define "hard-core" pornography.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . " We just need to assign someone to decide what is and is not pornography.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
We just need to assign someone to decide what is and is not pornography.
No. We just need the US in general, or at least those in power, to stop being so terribly uptight.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I want studies that support the ridiculous assertion that nudity or even sexual intercourse on television is harmful to children.

Start providing them or spare us from your fake emotional outrage.

I've already shown that I wasn't making any such assertions...and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Come to think of it, you haven't provided any evidence at all...just name calling, strawman assertions, moving goalposts, and demands that others provide evidence to support your deceptions.

:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No. We just need the US in general, or at least those in power, to stop being so terribly uptight. I hope you don't think I was serious? I accept using community standards as a guide. FWIW, Larry Flynt's defense was based in part on the "community standards" principle.

I get soft-core porn on HBO and Cinemax and I can order hard-core porn through Pay Per View.

Social change happens in spurts sometimes. The car significantly changed sexual habits. Playboy and the upheaval of the 60's in part changed attitudes about what was appropriate. The Green Door and Hustler further changed attitudes. The Video tape brought porn out of small theaters into homes by the millions. And now the walls are being blown out via the internet. Hard-core porn is a computer and phone line away. You don't even have to go behind those swinging doors at the video store anymore.

Not all Americans are uptight. There is a lot of sex being sold to the American public, lots. There is a segment of our society that see a loss of tradition and value. Intuitively I understand the feelings. Those days are over.

[Dorian Gray]

The horse is dead.

Can we talk about why European countries' taxes are so damn high now? Can we also talk about how the most famous Danish are the ones people have for breakfast? How the only Great Danes are large canines? Yeah, that's what I thought. In fact, the only thing Danes are accomplishing is preventing Germany from having an uninterrupted coastline.

[IIRichard]

In response to my observation:

"My recollection is that Danish TV does not show porn in the early evening but I could be mistaken."

Danish Dynamite wrote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
********snip
True, it usually starts after midnight. Although, if there is some porn related news story, the news will usually show a clip.

Thanks for the info.

OK, so whay are Danes so uptight?:p

and, You're welcome.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by gethane
I'm trying to figure out where the brief flash of a nipple turned into pornography.

If I am breastfeeding my son in public, and he pulls off and lifts my shirt to gaze lovingly at my breasts, as he likes to do, and another child witnesses this, it is pornography?

A nipple is not pornography. Maybe I missed something.

No, that's not pornography, I think the superbowl flash was an example of indecency, whereas breast feeding is not, unless you are somehow purposely trying to get a rise of someone, which I don't think ever actually happens.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RussDill
No, that's not pornography, I think the superbowl flash was an example of indecency, whereas breast feeding is not, unless you are somehow purposely trying to get a rise of someone, which I don't think ever actually happens.

Indecency - now there's a subjective notion. So, the crucial issue is what is going on in the mind of the breast exposer? Suppose someone thought really lurid thoughts and wiggled their tongue around in suggestive way - would that be indecent? Is looking lustfully and wantonly at a woman in an elevator indecent?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RandFan
But what is pornography? One man's porn is anothers bare brest.

A womans neck is pornography in many muslim countries.

Then there is the attempt to define "hard-core" pornography.

We just need to assign someone to decide what is and is not pornography.

Yes, all of this is true. However the problem is that people who are so concerned with pornography are invariably most interested in what YOU are allowed to see. Obviously, if they were merely concerned about what they were exposed to there would not really be any issue. Of course, the Janet Jackson thing is open to debate - I didn't expect to see her tit on the superbowl either. To me, the notion of breast being indecent is exactly as arbitrary as a neck being indecent. My real problem with the whole "moral values" bunch is their overriding interest not in their own moral values, but in yours and mine.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by billydkid
Yes, all of this is true. However the problem is that people who are so concerned with pornography are invariably most interested in what YOU are allowed to see....
(SNIP)
...My real problem with the whole "moral values" bunch is their overriding interest not in their own moral values, but in yours and mine.

Amen!!! I couldn't have summed up Danish Dynamite's position better in my own words.
He wants to dictate that US parent's shouldn't be allowed to control what their children watch, when it turns out that Danish TV has a similar 'not before midnight' policy, which was the basis for the Janet Jackson fines.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by billydkid
Indecency - now there's a subjective notion. So, the crucial issue is what is going on in the mind of the breast exposer? Suppose someone thought really lurid thoughts and wiggled their tongue around in suggestive way - would that be indecent? Is looking lustfully and wantonly at a woman in an elevator indecent?

I could definately be considered sexual harrasment, which is, in a form, another type of indecency. It'll most certainly get you fired, or even a restraining order.

[Edited to add, I'm assuming you are meaning that you are standing in an elevator, with a woman, wiggling your tongue at her, and giving her lots of suggestive gazes. ]

[Dorian Gray]

Here is a basic rule of thumb: If a baby is breastfeeding in public, it's not indecent. If I am sucking on the other breast, it is.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Here is a basic rule of thumb: If a baby is breastfeeding in public, it's not indecent. If I am sucking on the other breast, it is.

But is that really indecent, or simply bad taste?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But is that really indecent, or simply bad taste?

Maybe it just leaves one with a bad taste in their mouth?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RussDill
Maybe it just leaves one with a bad taste in their mouth?

I admit I haven't been keeping abreast of the court rulings about nursing in public. Is there an age limit for the child?

[crimresearch]

I don't know, but the increase in New Age parenting seems to have included 4 to 5 year old nursing, strollers, and diapers along with 'We don't vaccinate' and midwifery..

Bleeecchhh!!!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I admit I haven't been keeping abreast of the court rulings about nursing in public. Is there an age limit for the child?

There are some health nuts that order breast milk on the internet for consumption. Course, it just isn't as natural as directly from the source.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I've already shown that I wasn't making any such assertions...and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
You have? Must have missed them. In any case I don't see the relevance.

To repeat what I've said many times before, if you have a problem with nudity or sex on public TV, please provide evidence that they have any sort of harmful effect. I'd especially like evidence that shows their detrimental effect on those poor children.
Come to think of it, you haven't provided any evidence at all...just name calling, strawman assertions, moving goalposts, and demands that others provide evidence to support your deceptions.

:rolleyes:
Huh? Why would I need to provide evidence for a claim you endorse?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
I hope you don't think I was serious? I accept using community standards as a guide. FWIW, Larry Flynt's defense was based in part on the "community standards" principle.

I get soft-core porn on HBO and Cinemax and I can order hard-core porn through Pay Per View.

Social change happens in spurts sometimes. The car significantly changed sexual habits. Playboy and the upheaval of the 60's in part changed attitudes about what was appropriate. The Green Door and Hustler further changed attitudes. The Video tape brought porn out of small theaters into homes by the millions. And now the walls are being blown out via the internet. Hard-core porn is a computer and phone line away. You don't even have to go behind those swinging doors at the video store anymore.

Not all Americans are uptight. There is a lot of sex being sold to the American public, lots. There is a segment of our society that see a loss of tradition and value. Intuitively I understand the feelings. Those days are over.
I know that all not Americans are uptight. I also know that TV stations were fined for the heinous crime of allowing a boob to be shown. Clearly, the ones making the rules on when to fine somebody are seriously uptight. My question is, how are the people who make such Prudish rules elected?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
The horse is dead.

Can we talk about why European countries' taxes are so damn high now? Can we also talk about how the most famous Danish are the ones people have for breakfast? How the only Great Danes are large canines? Yeah, that's what I thought. In fact, the only thing Danes are accomplishing is preventing Germany from having an uninterrupted coastline.
Sure we talk about these things. I suggest you start a thread where they are relevant.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by IIRichard
In response to my observation:

"My recollection is that Danish TV does not show porn in the early evening but I could be mistaken."

Danish Dynamite wrote:



OK, so whay are Danes so uptight?:p

and, You're welcome.
Uptight, how? And compared to whom?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Amen!!! I couldn't have summed up Danish Dynamite's position better in my own words.
Which bit?
He wants to dictate that US parent's shouldn't be allowed to control what their children watch, when it turns out that Danish TV has a similar 'not before midnight' policy, which was the basis for the Janet Jackson fines.
Amazing. I don't want to dictate anything. I just don't want other people to dictate what is morally right or not to transmit on the airwaves. I have the choice to shut of my TV if I want. So does everyone else.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You have? Must have missed them. In any case I don't see the relevance.

To repeat what I've said many times before, if you have a problem with nudity or sex on public TV, please provide evidence that they have any sort of harmful effect. I'd especially like evidence that shows their detrimental effect on those poor children.

Huh? Why would I need to provide evidence for a claim you endorse?

How would you like to quit running away from this, and answer honestly, instead of playing juvenile games?

Show me where I 'endorsed' those 'claims'

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
How would you like to quit running away from this, and answer honestly, instead of playing juvenile games?

Show me where I 'endorsed' those 'claims'
Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

Please tell me whether you are in opposition to nudity and sex being displayed on national channels.

Sorry, but I just don't know where you stand.

[LW]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Uptight, how? And compared to whom?

Uptight because they don't show porn during the day and early evening. A truly liberated people would show everything everytime.

See, for the whole thread you have been calling everybody and their dogs Neanderthals because the tv can't show bare breasts during the prime-time. As an evidence why this is so you give the Danish tv where breasts are not shown during the prime-time (for some value of prime-time). So it seems that you live among the Neanderthals, by your own definition.

And of course, if you really thought about the matter you might realize that your choice of insults is not perhaps the best one since modesty was in the past something that only the rich could afford. People who have only one set of clothes are not in a position to develop too much sensitivies about seeing naked bodies and being seen naked.

And could you perhaps give some proof for your claim that "at most 0.01% of Danes are prudes"?

I live in Finland. I believe that our general attitude to nudity is rather similar here as it is in Denmark, with no large variations to either direction. I remember two or three times when there some tv program has hit the headlines because it was deemed to be unsuitable for the time it was aired. One of them was some kind of documentary (I didn't see it myself) that contained samples of hard porn and that was aired at 19:00 - 19:30. The scale of the outrage was much smaller than the perceived scale of the Jackson incident, consisting mainly of angry letters on the letters to editors columns of news papers. The end result was that some high-ranking guy from the tv company said something on the effect that the allocated time slot might not have been the best time to show it.

[AWPrime]

They aren't uptight because they (danes) don't think that a boob-flash is porn.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by AWPrime
They aren't uptight because they (danes) don't think that a boob-flash is porn.

who has ever said it is porn?

[gethane]

Originally posted by RussDill
who has ever said it is porn?

I don't know. How did the wardrobe malfunction and the conversation about pornography become synonomous in this thread?

Ridiculous if you ask me. In my opinion, it isn't the fact they got fined for the nipple flash that's the problem. I think communities do have the right to set standards of acceptable behavior. And a naked nipple in prime time with no expectation of that is against our (U.S) particular community standard.

The problem was the HYSTERIA around it. That is what signifies that yes indeed, Americans might be uptight. i don't think Americans are particularly uptight IN PRIVATE, but the people who get heard are certainly uptight.

I certainly don't understand why so many people got so MAD in this thread either. Its funny. It's amusing to discuss. But then I forget, this is JREF, and its so often not the content that people like to pick apart but each.... individual.... word..... choice..... Even if content was pretty clear.