OT (sort of): CBS revisited [Archive]

C J Campbell

February 3rd 04, 01:32 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
| > Now the FCC is investigating CBS for broadcasting obscene material.
| > BWAHAHAHA!
| >
| > I guess exposing a breast is obscene,
|
| What the hell is wrong with an entire country where showing a woman's
breast
| is "obscene"?
|
| The USA is such the embarassment to me sometimes; lately more often than
| not.

No matter where you draw the line of decency, there will be people who are
outraged by it. For you it is breasts. Perhaps you have some sort of
fixation? :-)

You have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, I think there is way too
much bare flesh as it is, for both men and women. Everyone seems to want to
go around dressed as some sort of prostitute. Selling sexy clothes, jewelry
and makeup to three year olds is a multi-billion dollar industry in this
country. Now, that really is embarrassing. We spend a fortune fighting child
porn on the one hand and dress kids as porn stars on the other. Talk about a
mixed message....

Maybe I'm just getting old and grouchy, but I long for the days when some
public decorum was expected. It might have been hypocritical on the part of
some, but at least you knew that there were lines you shouldn't cross.

Anyway, I suppose that now we will see it on TV more and more until it
becomes accepted. Then the yahoos will be complaining that it is
embarrassing that we don't allow hard core porn to be broadcast on TV. Allen
Bloom wrote once wrote that patriots made enormous sacrifices to protect
freedom, the best minds were marshaled to develop the most advanced
technology, loving parents scraped and sacrificed, and for what? So that
some eight year old can listen to a drag queen sing the praises of onanism
and murdering parents on his own CD player. What will future generations
think? Bloom noted that a society's greatest excesses always seem normal to
itself. Perhaps our television of today will seem as barbaric and
uncivilized to some future generation as the Roman circuses seem to us.

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 01:33 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
> What the hell is wrong with an entire country where showing a woman's
breast
> is "obscene"?

I'll be the first to say that a woman's breast doesn't not exactly offend me
under most circumstances.

However, it's obscene when you are watching the SuperBowl with a half-dozen
of your ten year-old's buddies and that kinda crap happens. After it was
over, the silence from those kids was deafening.

I want to introduce my son to the ways of women on my terms, not MTV's and
CBS's. I hope the FCC fines their asses into bankruptcy.

Damnit.

--
Jim Fisher

John Harlow

February 3rd 04, 01:47 AM

>>> Now the FCC is investigating CBS for broadcasting obscene material.
>>> BWAHAHAHA!
>>>
>>> I guess exposing a breast is obscene,
>>
>> What the hell is wrong with an entire country where showing a
>> woman's breast is "obscene"?
>>
>> The USA is such the embarassment to me sometimes; lately more often
>> than not.
>
> No matter where you draw the line of decency, there will be people
> who are outraged by it. For you it is breasts. Perhaps you have some
> sort of fixation? :-)

Lol - go back and read what I posted, then try again!

Snowbird

February 3rd 04, 03:03 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Now the FCC is investigating CBS for broadcasting obscene material.
> BWAHAHAHA!

> I guess exposing a breast is obscene, but inciting the public to violence
> against airplanes and pilots is not. I know! We will disguise all our
> airports as unmentionable body parts, and CBS will never be able to do a
> story on us again!

Well, I dunno if CBS was "inciting the public to violence against
airplanes and pilots". Inciting the public to think they should
restrict them more, yeah.

Now our local news station is promising an expose' on chemical plants
and storage tanks on the news later this week. Hold me back. I
wonder what poor SOB they misled and misquoted for that.

wrt the BBB (Bare Boobie Broohaha), I sure don't get it. I didn't
see the halftime show, but those rappers and hip-hop types have some
lyrics which are pretty ripe. Then there's standard TV programming,
which seems to have the goal of maximizing the gore and violence
per hour. It's OK to have a halftime show featuring some dude
wrapped in an American flag and singing all kinds of "nasty" but
a little tit has everyone in a tither?

I work with a lot of people from other countries, and the Europeans
typically seem to think it's totally bizarre that in US, it's not
considered "obscene" or improper to show someone being violently
torn to shreds on TV, but a little too much skin or too much
affection is "off limits".

Cheers,
Sydney

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 03:14 AM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
.. .
> However, it's obscene when you are watching the SuperBowl with a
half-dozen
> of your ten year-old's buddies and that kinda crap happens.

As if the rest of the half-time show was in any way suitable for ten year
old kids.

> I want to introduce my son to the ways of women on my terms, not MTV's and
> CBS's. I hope the FCC fines their asses into bankruptcy.

One exposed breast is NOT "the ways of women". And the sexuality seen in
the rest of the show (and similar performances, in music videos and the
like) is such an enormously obscene caricature of what really happens
between consenting adults, you'd better be well into the explanations by now
if your son is watching that crap.

The reaction of hundreds of millions of prudish adults speaks way more
loudly than a single breast would ever have a hope to. No kid would even
care, if it weren't for the fact that their parents are always having a fit
whenever any skin shows up. Of course, those parents usually don't have any
problem at all with their kids playing Halo and Mortal Kombat, or watching
people (bad guys and good) getting shot up and blown up on TV.

Now *that's* obscene.

Pete

Tarver Engineering

February 3rd 04, 03:27 AM

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Jim Fisher" >
>
> >I'll be the first to say that a woman's breast doesn't not exactly offend
me
> >under most circumstances.
>
> >However, it's obscene when you are watching the SuperBowl with a
half-dozen
> >of your ten year-old's buddies and that kinda crap happens. After it was
> >over, the silence from those kids was deafening.
>
> I'm surprised that everyone is fixated on a tit.
> I had a real problem with the "rap" number where a couple of ni...., er,
um, dark
> skinned urbanites, kept grabbing their dicks. Glad I don't have kids that
I have
> to explain that to.
> I don't remember much of the second half of the game. Everyone was
talking about
> what a disgusting piece of **** the halftime show was.

Kid Rock wearing the US flag with the blue on the right offended me. I
can't say I care about Janet's hooter.

G.R. Patterson III

February 3rd 04, 03:47 AM

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> I guess exposing a breast is obscene, but inciting the public to violence
> against airplanes and pilots is not.

My father told me about a similar bruhaha in the thirties. The local (Hickory, NC)
paper picked it up and announced that they wanted to do a survey. They printed a
photo of a breast on the front page, announced that they would print the name of
the owner the next week, and invited comments.

Much of the entire paper for the next week consisted of irate letters from various
righteous readers complaining about the "pornography". There was talk of closing
the paper down. Then came the weekend.

The photo was of Johnny Weismuller.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 04:46 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
you'd better be well into the explanations by now
> if your son is watching that crap.

That's just it, Peter, he does not watch that crap. He sure likes football
and the Panthers. Next year, I will definately plan some occupying events
for haltime . . . And keep MTV out of my house for a few more years.

> No kid would even
> care, if it weren't for the fact that their parents are always having a
fit
> whenever any skin shows up.

You are exposing your obtuse ignorance again, Pete. Of COURSE kids care
about that crap! Most would stare at naked pictures all day long if they
could. Even at ten years old. They would eat only ice cream, stay up late,
forgo school and live in a fort unless someone who has some semblance of
values tightens their reins and demonstrates boundaries of manners and
taste.

So how many kids do you have, Peter?

--
Jim Fisher

Dave Stadt

February 3rd 04, 05:03 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > Now the FCC is investigating CBS for broadcasting obscene material.
> > BWAHAHAHA!
> >
> > I guess exposing a breast is obscene,
>
> What the hell is wrong with an entire country where showing a woman's
breast
> is "obscene"?
>
> The USA is such the embarassment to me sometimes; lately more often than
> not.

And hardly a word about the guy that got killed by the SUV during the lunacy
in Boston. Pretty strange priorities if you ask me. A boob is more
newsworthy than a murder. Wanna bet CBS gets a stiffer sentence than the
murderer.

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 05:29 AM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
.. .
> That's just it, Peter, he does not watch that crap.

I don't get it. If he doesn't watch that crap, how'd he see the breast in
question?

> You are exposing your obtuse ignorance again, Pete. Of COURSE kids care
> about that crap! Most would stare at naked pictures all day long if they
> could. Even at ten years old.

I didn't say they wouldn't. I said it's primarily because of the way their
parents react to even the slightest hint of nudity. If you want to reply to
posts that weren't written, I'll just leave you to that and not even bother
trying to clear things up for you.

> So how many kids do you have, Peter?

One. What's that got to do with anything? You don't need to have a child
to understand how the way society in general reacts to, and allows to be
broadcast, any variety of potentially offensive subjects affects how
children (and people in general) react to those potentially offensive
subjects.

There are lots of societies where an exposed breast is no big deal, and
where children aren't shocked by them. The USA just doesn't happen to be
one of them.

Pete

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 05:30 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> [...] The photo was of Johnny Weismuller.

lol...

And if that story is actually true, it's even funnier. :)

C J Campbell

February 3rd 04, 06:03 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
|
| One exposed breast is NOT "the ways of women". And the sexuality seen in
| the rest of the show (and similar performances, in music videos and the
| like) is such an enormously obscene caricature of what really happens
| between consenting adults, you'd better be well into the explanations by
now
| if your son is watching that crap.
|

I did not watch that crap and I avoid it wherever it is on display. I doubt
if my son or daughter saw it, either.

| The reaction of hundreds of millions of prudish adults speaks way more
| loudly than a single breast would ever have a hope to. No kid would even
| care, if it weren't for the fact that their parents are always having a
fit
| whenever any skin shows up. Of course, those parents usually don't have
any
| problem at all with their kids playing Halo and Mortal Kombat, or watching
| people (bad guys and good) getting shot up and blown up on TV.

As a matter of fact, I do care about kids playing violent video games, and
my kids now care about their kids. Neither my kids nor their children even
own a video game player.

StellaStar

February 3rd 04, 06:17 AM

Sydney observes...
> It's OK to have a halftime show featuring some dude
>wrapped in an American flag and singing all kinds of "nasty" but
>a little tit has everyone in a tither?

Yup. What a humorous way to yank the news channels away from politics for a
day. Ya hire MTV to stage a spectacle and they put in rude behavior, bad
language, and scantily clad chickies? Well, knock me over with a feather! Next
year they'll retain Victoria's Secret to do the show, and never suspect there
may be underwear involved.

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 08:19 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> As a matter of fact, I do care about kids playing violent video games, and
> my kids now care about their kids. Neither my kids nor their children even
> own a video game player.

Which is great. You are one of those rare parents that supervises and
censors their children in a consistent manner. That has nothing to do with
how most parents raise their kids in this country, nor with the attitude
most people in this country have regarding sex and violence.

I applaud your hard-nosed, honorable approach to parenting. But the uproar
over the exposed breast is still absurd, given the context.

Pete

Thomas Borchert

February 3rd 04, 12:00 PM

C,

> You have to draw the line somewhere.
>

You do? What happened to the "land of the free" concept? There's an
off-switch on that TV, you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

February 3rd 04, 12:00 PM

Peter,

> Now *that's* obscene.
>

Fully agreed. Go to E3, the most important computer and video game
trade show in the world, and what you take with you from it is this
impression: "In the US, violence is ok any time, any way - sex isn't."
That indeed is obscene.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dave Stadt

February 3rd 04, 01:42 PM

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
> Sydney observes...
> > It's OK to have a halftime show featuring some dude
> >wrapped in an American flag and singing all kinds of "nasty" but
> >a little tit has everyone in a tither?
>
> Yup. What a humorous way to yank the news channels away from politics for
a
> day. Ya hire MTV to stage a spectacle and they put in rude behavior, bad
> language, and scantily clad chickies? Well, knock me over with a feather!
Next
> year they'll retain Victoria's Secret to do the show, and never suspect
there
> may be underwear involved.

Already been done. They called it the Lingerie Bowl.

Dennis O'Connor

February 3rd 04, 02:03 PM

Britain indeed understood what they were doing when they drove the puritans
out of the country...
denny
"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Peter,
>
> > Now *that's* obscene.
> >
>
> Fully agreed. Go to E3, the most important computer and video game
> trade show in the world, and what you take with you from it is this
> impression: "In the US, violence is ok any time, any way - sex isn't."
> That indeed is obscene.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Dennis O'Connor

February 3rd 04, 02:09 PM

The blue noses here in the USA would really choke if they walked past any
newstand in europe, or watched the tele after the childrens bedtime...
denny

.. But the uproar
> over the exposed breast is still absurd, given the context.
>
> Pete
>
>

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 04:15 PM

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> The blue noses here in the USA would really choke if they walked past any
> newstand in europe, or watched the tele after the childrens bedtime...

I'd only choke if my young kid was walking with me. Otherwise, the proper
term would be "gawking," not choking.

But I reckon that's just me.

--
Jim Fisher

C J Campbell

February 3rd 04, 04:33 PM

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
| Britain indeed understood what they were doing when they drove the
puritans
| out of the country...
| denny

Apparently, any standards of behavior above that of animals are too much for
some people.

Andrew Gideon

February 3rd 04, 04:57 PM

C J Campbell wrote:

> Apparently, any standards of behavior above that of animals are too much
> for some people.

I don't think too many species produce slash&gore videos. Cats probably
would if they could, though...

- Andrew

C J Campbell

February 3rd 04, 05:08 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| > Apparently, any standards of behavior above that of animals are too much
| > for some people.
|
| I don't think too many species produce slash&gore videos. Cats probably
| would if they could, though...

Perhaps true. But I despise the argument that porn is justified because we
have violent videos. It is like saying that we should repeal the laws
against rape because there are still people willing to commit murder.

Maule Driver

February 3rd 04, 05:11 PM

"C J Campbell" >
> Apparently, any standards of behavior above that of animals are too much
for
> some people.
>
That's a bit broad. I choose the standards that I think should be promoted
and consider many other standards silly.

Make love not war

Andrew Gideon

February 3rd 04, 05:20 PM

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> | C J Campbell wrote:
> |
> | > Apparently, any standards of behavior above that of animals are too
> | > much for some people.
> |
> | I don't think too many species produce slash&gore videos. Cats probably
> | would if they could, though...
>
> Perhaps true. But I despise the argument that porn is justified because we
> have violent videos. It is like saying that we should repeal the laws
> against rape because there are still people willing to commit murder.

But that's not really the argument. The argument is that naked bodies
(human, cat, etc.) aren't really something about which sane people should
be uptight. Consensual sex between adults isn't something about which sane
people should be uptight.

After all, we hope our children grow up to have bodies and be sexual beings
(ever wonder from where Grandkids come? {8^).

However, I at least hope that violence doesn't play a significant role in my
child's life. Thus, exposure to violence - esp. the nonsensical variations
so popular in the media today - is not welcome.

It's really two separate issues.

From where do you get the idea that the human body is something of which we
should be ashamed?

- Andrew

John Harlow

February 3rd 04, 05:44 PM

> You have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, I think there is way
> too much bare flesh as it is, for both men and women.

That's fine, if the exposed human body freaks you out, then by all means you
should shield yourself from it. Ironically, it's the religious zealots who
seem to be most afraid of looking at nudes as their bible says man was
created in his likeness - you'd think they would be the ones promoting us to
be in our most god-like state. Then again, what is yet another
contradiction?

> Everyone seems
> to want to go around dressed as some sort of prostitute. Selling sexy
> clothes, jewelry and makeup to three year olds is a multi-billion
> dollar industry in this country. Now, that really is embarrassing. We
> spend a fortune fighting child porn on the one hand and dress kids as
> porn stars on the other. Talk about a mixed message....

Perhaps if children were raised where the body weren't so taboo, people
wouldn't be so jazzed by it. Look at the tribes in Africa, do the kids
giggle and the oldsters scowl when a woman walks by in her natural state?

Children run around blissfully naked until they are taught it is "wrong".

FYI: as a teenager, the easiest chicks were the ones who's parents sent them
to to "girl only" schools. They just couldn't wait to find out what their
parents were "protecting" them from.

> Maybe I'm just getting old and grouchy, but I long for the days when
> some public decorum was expected. It might have been hypocritical on
> the part of some, but at least you knew that there were lines you
> shouldn't cross.

Maybe you are simply closed minded.

> Anyway, I suppose that now we will see it on TV more and more until it
> becomes accepted.

Every TV I've ever seen has a power switch.

Then the yahoos will be complaining that it is
> embarrassing that we don't allow hard core porn to be broadcast on
> TV. Allen Bloom wrote once wrote that patriots made enormous
> sacrifices to protect freedom, the best minds were marshaled to
> develop the most advanced technology, loving parents scraped and
> sacrificed, and for what? So that some eight year old can listen to a
> drag queen sing the praises of onanism and murdering parents on his
> own CD player. What will future generations think? Bloom noted that a
> society's greatest excesses always seem normal to itself. Perhaps our
> television of today will seem as barbaric and uncivilized to some
> future generation as the Roman circuses seem to us.

The "for what" is for personal gain, as is most exemplified in the USA.

Certainly most citizens don't give a rat's ass what "future generations"
think (as in saddling them with our debt with our current drunken sailor at
the helm) just as we don't care what our global neighbors think.

Geoffrey Barnes

February 3rd 04, 05:50 PM

> I don't think too many species produce slash&gore videos. Cats probably
> would if they could, though...

Shooting digitial video without opposable thumbs is a real bitch, ain't it!

Roger Tracy

February 3rd 04, 06:28 PM

I couldn't agree more. I'd rather my teenager would see naked people than
the violent crap on tv every day.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > Now the FCC is investigating CBS for broadcasting obscene material.
> > BWAHAHAHA!
> >
> > I guess exposing a breast is obscene,
>
> What the hell is wrong with an entire country where showing a woman's
breast
> is "obscene"?
>
> The USA is such the embarassment to me sometimes; lately more often than
> not.
>
>
>

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 06:36 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> I don't get it. If he doesn't watch that crap, how'd he see the breast in
> question?

'Case he was watching the SuperBowl - not MTV or the Victoria's Secret
lingerie show, wingnut! Are you dense or just being silly? I'll explain it
in clearer terms if you really want me to.

And, to be clear, this isn't about an exposed breast. It's about an
attack - right in my living room - on America's version of morality and
witnessed by my little boy.

> > You are exposing your obtuse ignorance again, Pete. Of COURSE kids care
> > about that crap!

> I didn't say they wouldn't.

Umm, I think your words were "They would not care . . ." but perhaps my
memory is not what it used to be.

I said it's primarily because of the way their
> parents react to even the slightest hint of nudity.

No, not the slightest. "Slightest" is perhaps an exposed belly button, a
thong-ish costume on the magician's assistant, an exposed cleavage. This is
typically called "suggestive" in case you are taking notes. That kinda
stuff was unacceptable during my parent's generation but society has evolved
(for good or bad) outside that version of morality.

A boob exposed rather forcefully by another man right on primetime TV is not
a "slight hint" in my Book of Morality.

And the parents present in the room didn't react at all at the time. We
were all too shocked and ****ed off. The halftime show went from bad
(disgracing the US flag) to worse (crotch grabbing) then to shocking
(Janet's goods). It wasn't like we all stood up in unison and spouted Bible
verses. The tiddy was the simply straw on the camel's back. It is only
hindsight that tells me that I should have turned the channel at the
beginning of halftime.

> > So how many kids do you have, Peter?
>
> One. What's that got to do with anything?

It has absolutely everything to do with it, silly! How old is the kid?
What did he think of the halftime show, Pete? Y'all did watch it, right?

>You don't need to have a child to understand
>how the way society in general reacts (. . .)

No, of course you don't. But having one sure changes most folks view on
silly things like morality and virtue. You are obviously an exception to
that.

> There are lots of societies where an exposed breast is no big deal, and
> where children aren't shocked by them. The USA just doesn't happen to be
> one of them.

My, that is an absolutely brilliant observation, Peter. The fact that the
United States has a slightly different set of societal rules from other
countries has never occurred to me.

So how would you have felt if ol' Justin and Janet stripped naked and "went
at it" in front of your kid right there on television, Pete? Just curious.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 06:48 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> From where do you get the idea that the human body is something of which
we
> should be ashamed?

It's hard to believe that folks don't understand the concept of boundaries
and morality . . . But allow me to share a thought or two.

Let's assume you and I are acquaintances for a moment.

Would you be shocked if I knocked on your front door a mooned your daughter
or your wife, Andrew?

Of course you would! You'd probably wanna kick my hairy butt. I couldn't
blame you.

The question is Why would you want to kick my hairy butt? We should be
proud of our bodies, right? Your daughter and wife should not be shocked
but should also respond in kind, right? They are proud of their bodies,
afterall, right?

Wrong, of course, but why is this wrong?

--
Jim Fisher

Andrew Gideon

February 3rd 04, 06:59 PM

Jim Fisher wrote:

> And the parents present in the room didn't react at all at the time. We
> were all too shocked and ****ed off.

Are you kidding? My 17-month old son knows very quickly what I'm feeling.
You think you can sit some older kids in a room with some "shocked and
****ed off" adults and hide the group reaction from the kids? Not
completely impossible, but also not terribly likely.

I didn't see the show myself (football doesn't play well in my home), but
your description is interesting. "Crotch grabbing"? *That* sounds bad.
I've only recently learned to be *very* careful how I hold Alex when he's
in a kicking mood. More lessons in that area he doesn't need.

But that's a "violence" issue; not a "body shame" issue.

Most amazing to me, though, is "disgracing the US flag". I've always
thought that the most jingoistic people were those likely to be avid
watchers of sports. If that's anywhere near the truth, this would be a
particularly stupid show to place before that audience.

I think that marketers have simply lost their minds. In a world of spam,
dinner-time phone solicitation, and pop-under ads, marketers have finally
decided that we're sheep to be shorn, and nothing more.

- Andrew

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 07:10 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > I don't get it. If he doesn't watch that crap, how'd he see the breast
in
> > question?
>
> 'Case he was watching the SuperBowl

"That crap" in my post to which you replied referred to the Super Bowl
halftime show. You replied that your son doesn't watch that crap. But
somehow he saw the breast in question. Which means he must have been
watching that crap.

> And, to be clear, this isn't about an exposed breast. It's about an
> attack - right in my living room - on America's version of morality and
> witnessed by my little boy.

There was no attack. 9/11, that's an attack. In any case, the exposed
breast was that least of the entire "attack" you've perceived. If the
exposed breast was an attack, then the entire halftime show is an all-out
war.

> > > You are exposing your obtuse ignorance again, Pete. Of COURSE kids
care
> > > about that crap!
>
> > I didn't say they wouldn't.
>
> Umm, I think your words were "They would not care . . ." but perhaps my
> memory is not what it used to be.

Note the use of the future perfect tense, to indicate a hypothetical
situation postulated by the following clause beginning with "if". You are
claiming kids will always react in this way, regardless of upbringing, while
my comment was respect to how they would behave given a different
upbringing.

> And the parents present in the room didn't react at all at the time. We
> were all too shocked and ****ed off. The halftime show went from bad
> (disgracing the US flag) to worse (crotch grabbing) then to shocking
> (Janet's goods).

And yet, you left it on, and allowed the children to remain in the room and
watch. But you don't get indignant until the breast comes out? Absurd.

In any case, I'm not talking about how you all reacted to this isolated
incident. I'm talking about what you teach your children generally. Years
of attudinal education led up to this and your reaction as well as the kids'
reaction.

> It has absolutely everything to do with it, silly! How old is the kid?
> What did he think of the halftime show, Pete? Y'all did watch it, right?

No, we don't watch that crap. Please keep up.

> No, of course you don't. But having one sure changes most folks view on
> silly things like morality and virtue. You are obviously an exception to
> that.

If your morality and virtue changed when you had a child, then YOU are the
exception. Most people teach their own children the very same things they
learned. Many people make a show of "cleaning up their act" when they have
kids, but it's just a veneer and their kids still wind up with all the same
character faults that their parents have. They are better at learning than
adults are at hiding.

> My, that is an absolutely brilliant observation, Peter. The fact that the
> United States has a slightly different set of societal rules from other
> countries has never occurred to me.

Well, that explains a lot. Your belief that children simply inherently act
one way or the other, for example, and that how they are raised cannot
affect that. Perhaps you should open your eyes a little more.

> So how would you have felt if ol' Justin and Janet stripped naked and
"went
> at it" in front of your kid right there on television, Pete? Just
curious.

Aren't you listening? We don't watch that crap.

Pete

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 07:16 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> [...] It is like saying that we should repeal the laws
> against rape because there are still people willing to commit murder.

No, it's like saying we should repeal the laws against sex because there are
still people willing to commit murder. Rape is a lot more like murder than
it is like sex.

Pete

Peter Duniho

February 3rd 04, 07:29 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> Would you be shocked if I knocked on your front door a mooned your
daughter
> or your wife, Andrew?

He would probably just laugh at your stupidity, as would I. Like any of us
care what your ass looks like, or where you choose to go waving it around.

However, your choice of example is certainly illuminating with respect to
your own views. The fact that you think any other random person would be
offended simply illustrates a) your own touchiness regarding the subject and
b) your inability to understand that not everyone sees the world the same
way you do.

Pete

Michael 182

February 3rd 04, 09:39 PM

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote
> If your morality and virtue changed when you had a child, then YOU are the
> exception. Most people teach their own children the very same things they
> learned. Many people make a show of "cleaning up their act" when they
have
> kids, but it's just a veneer and their kids still wind up with all the
same
> character faults that their parents have. They are better at learning
than
> adults are at hiding.

I don't think so. I know many parents, myself included, who changed their
lifestyles when faced with the responsibility of parenthood. I suspect my
parents did the same thing. Just my guess, but I bet a lot of people
experience parenthood as a life-altering event.

Michael

Larry Dighera

February 3rd 04, 09:49 PM

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:10:21 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Note the use of the future perfect tense, to indicate a hypothetical
>situation postulated by the following clause beginning with "if".

Was that in the subjunctive mood? :-)

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 09:51 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
You replied that your son doesn't watch that crap. But
> somehow he saw the breast in question. Which means he must have been
> watching that crap.

Yeah, I didn't think you got it the first and second time. I ain't
explaining it again, Pete. You'll just have to skip that question on the
test.

> the exposed
> breast was that least of the entire "attack" you've perceived. If the
> exposed breast was an attack, then the entire halftime show is an all-out
> war.

By golly, I think you might just be getting the point! I sure hope that it
is the beginning of a war. You may not give a damn about the kind of lessons
being taught to your kid but I damn sure do.

> Note the use of the future perfect tense, to indicate a hypothetical
> situation postulated by the following clause beginning with "if". You are
> claiming kids will always react in this way, regardless of upbringing,
while
> my comment was respect to how they would behave given a different
> upbringing.

<shwew> Damn! I read that twice and it still went right over my
close-minded little head, Pete! Do you write for the FAA on the side?

> And yet, you left it on, and allowed the children to remain in the room
and
> watch. But you don't get indignant until the breast comes out? Absurd.

Naw, I'd call it normal. I'm fairly slow to anger and quick with
retribution. By the time Justin violently ripped Janet's clothes off, it
was too late.

>In any case, I'm not talking about how you all reacted to this isolated
> incident.

You aren't? Okay, no fair. You can't switch gears without telling me.
Hate it when that happens.

> If your morality and virtue changed when you had a child, then YOU are the
> exception.

Hmm. You have a point. My point, however, was that before I had a kid, the
spectacle of Janet being forcefully declothed on stage would have been
laughed at, applauded and even celebrated or simply dismissed ("It's just a
nip, man!) - much as you are doing now. Having a kid changed (focused?)
that view along with many others.

Something you obviously wouldn't understand.

> Well, that explains a lot. Your belief that children simply inherently
act
> one way or the other, for example, and that how they are raised cannot
> affect that.

What?? Where the hell did that come from! You've lost it, buddy.

> > So how would you have felt if ol' Justin and Janet stripped naked and
> "went
> > at it" in front of your kid right there on television, Pete? Just
> curious.
>
> Aren't you listening? We don't watch that crap.

I see. Avoidance, eh? That's a handy tool in the pattern. Makes you a
coward in a debate, though.

Answer the question.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher

February 3rd 04, 10:10 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> He would probably just laugh at your stupidity, as would I.

Naw, I suspect (even without knowing whether he drives a low wing or high)
that Andrew actually has balls and would kick my ass.

The world awaits his response, though.

--
Jim Fisher

Snowbird

February 3rd 04, 11:23 PM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message >...
> "StellaStar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sydney observes...
> > > It's OK to have a halftime show featuring some dude
> > >wrapped in an American flag and singing all kinds of "nasty" but
> > >a little tit has everyone in a tither?

> > Yup. What a humorous way to yank the news channels away from politics for
> a
> > day. Ya hire MTV to stage a spectacle and they put in rude behavior, bad
> > language, and scantily clad chickies? Well, knock me over with a feather!
> Next
> > year they'll retain Victoria's Secret to do the show, and never suspect
> there
> > may be underwear involved.

> Already been done. They called it the Lingerie Bowl.

If you're talking about some other show where lingerie-clad models
paraded about, I take that to be Stella's point. Most people have
had sufficient exposure to MTV to know what it's about: rude
behavior, bad language, scantily clad chickies, push the limits,
defy rules and authority, and on from there. Most people have had
sufficient exposure to Victoria's Secret to know what it's about:
women's underwear.

So just what did the CBS and the Superbowl organizers *think* they
were going to get, when they put MTV in charge? Stella's right,
the flap about it is just as silly as if they'd hired Victoria's
Secret and then were shocked, shocked, to find out that the halftime
show involved models strutting about in underwear.

I was putting my daughter to bed and didn't see the halftime show,
but "produced by MTV" was all I needed to know to learn that if
she'd still been around, I'd hit the "off" switch.

OTOH, I can quite clearly recall one time when I was nursing my
daughter in a Red Lobster restaurant and she grabbed my clothes
in both tiny fists and gave the tables across from me a good
momentary view of a female breast. If there were any parents
there who were shocked and offended on behalf of their young children,
I'm afraid I think it's their priorities which "need further
review".

Cheers,
Sydney

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 03:39 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...

|
| > Anyway, I suppose that now we will see it on TV more and more until it
| > becomes accepted.
|
| Every TV I've ever seen has a power switch.
|

Yes, it does. I don't have to watch shows that are offensive. However, one
does not expect things like the Superbowl to offensive. Programs that are
billed as suitable for families should be just that -- suitable for
families.

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 04:21 AM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
|
| But that's not really the argument. The argument is that naked bodies
| (human, cat, etc.) aren't really something about which sane people should
| be uptight. Consensual sex between adults isn't something about which
sane
| people should be uptight.
|
| After all, we hope our children grow up to have bodies and be sexual
beings
| (ever wonder from where Grandkids come? {8^).
|
| However, I at least hope that violence doesn't play a significant role in
my
| child's life. Thus, exposure to violence - esp. the nonsensical
variations
| so popular in the media today - is not welcome.
|
| It's really two separate issues.
|
| From where do you get the idea that the human body is something of which
we
| should be ashamed?

Who said anything about shame? We are rapidly reaching the point where the
majority of children are being raised in fatherless households. This incurs
a tremendous social and economic cost. Drive through any apartment complex
and look at the two year olds wandering around unattended in soiled diapers,
rummaging through dumpsters. Their mothers cannot work and take care of them
at the same time. They cannot afford daycare. Sure, some of these mothers
are fined and imprisoned -- that really helps their kids, you know.

Or the women who are vulnerable to armed thugs who threaten their children
and force them to deal drugs and work as prostitutes.

Or the teenage son who takes advantage of his single mom's absence to pimp
for his younger sister.

Or the drug dealers who prey on these people.

Or the kids who are unable to identify with their families and so they join
gangs.

Or the young girls, some not yet even in their teens, who are so starved for
affection that they go out and get pregnant so that they will have someone
who loves them.

Or the crime that these kids grow up to commit.

I know these people. I deal with them every single day of every single year.
I know the cost of irresponsibility. We can try to build a social safety net
for them, but the fact is that the more of these people there are, the fewer
productive people we have to pay for that safety net. And we are well beyond
the limits of what any government can provide now by several orders of
magnitude. Well, we could send them all to prison -- we pretty much do that
now.

Many years ago black families in the United States were strong and had
strong religious ties. A black person could expect to grow to adulthood
without being murdered or sent to prison. Then people such as yourself
thought that these traditional families and religious ties were oppressive,
and social engineers sought to restructure black families. Welfare programs
made it impossible for fathers to be present in their homes, so most
children were raised without fathers. The illegitimate birth rate soared.
Once it reached 35%, the crime rate soared also. Social breakdown ensued and
now the United States has a higher percentage of its population in prison
than any other country. All because people like you thought that sexual
repression was a bad thing.

Now we see the same thing happening among all the other social groups in
this country. Just how much are you willing to spend to feed and clothe and
house and educate and imprison all these parentless children? Maybe it is
you that needs to start counting the social cost of social licentiousness.

My wife and I spend an average of 60 hours a week between us just working
with people who have destroyed their lives because they thought that
anything consenting adults do is harmless. The number 1 cause of poverty in
this country is divorce, as any of us "bean counters" can tell you. When you
have spent a few years dealing with the abject poverty, the disease, the
suicides, the abuse, the crime, the addictions, and everything else that
goes with social licentiousness, then you can come back and lecture me about
what consenting adults should be allowed to do. Until then, you can take
your idiotic social theories and *()@#$. And the horse you rode in on, too.

Still think it is not something that sane people should get uptight about?
Open your eyes. Sanity is a rare commodity in these days. A sane person
knows that there are consequences to what you do. A sane person knows that
whatever people do affects everybody else.

But, what the heck -- it is harmless, right? And who am I to judge what goes
on between consenting adults, no matter what it costs you, me, and everybody
else?

Morgans

February 4th 04, 04:29 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote
>
> But, what the heck -- it is harmless, right? And who am I to judge what
goes
> on between consenting adults, no matter what it costs you, me, and
everybody
> else?

Tell us what you REALLY thimk!
--
Jim in NC

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/30/04

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 04:39 AM

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
| The blue noses here in the USA would really choke if they walked past any
| newstand in europe, or watched the tele after the childrens bedtime...
| denny

You must have missed some of earlier posts expressing my opinion of
Europeans....

The fact that the Europeans tolerate this stuff is all the more reason for
my opposing it.

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 04:47 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
|
| Perhaps if children were raised where the body weren't so taboo, people
| wouldn't be so jazzed by it. Look at the tribes in Africa, do the kids
| giggle and the oldsters scowl when a woman walks by in her natural state?

Have you ever considered that maybe there is a reason that those groups that
run around naked have remained primitive tribes despite thousands of years
of progress by all their neighbors? Um, yeah. The kids giggle. There aren't
any oldsters.

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 05:08 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
|
| Children run around blissfully naked until they are taught it is "wrong".
|

They also play in the freeway, touch hot stoves, and eat poisonous
substances until they are taught those things are "wrong," too.

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 05:14 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
| > You have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, I think there is way
| > too much bare flesh as it is, for both men and women.
|
| That's fine, if the exposed human body freaks you out, then by all means
you
| should shield yourself from it. Ironically, it's the religious zealots
who
| seem to be most afraid of looking at nudes as their bible says man was
| created in his likeness - you'd think they would be the ones promoting us
to
| be in our most god-like state. Then again, what is yet another
| contradiction?

One might point out that God and Jesus Christ generally are depicted as
fully clothed, Michelangelo to the contrary. The Bible, since you brought it
up, makes a point of the fact that the very first thing that Adam and Eve
noticed after they learned the difference between right and wrong was that
they were naked. But then, what is forgetting yet another inconvenient fact
to the anti-religious zealot?

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 05:15 AM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
|
| The "for what" is for personal gain, as is most exemplified in the USA.
|
| Certainly most citizens don't give a rat's ass what "future generations"
| think (as in saddling them with our debt with our current drunken sailor
at
| the helm) just as we don't care what our global neighbors think.

And this is the funniest point of all -- apparently you think there is no
connection between social licentiousness and that huge debt. I beg to
differ....

Peter Duniho

February 4th 04, 06:49 AM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> > Aren't you listening? We don't watch that crap.
>
> I see. Avoidance, eh? That's a handy tool in the pattern. Makes you a
> coward in a debate, though.

You don't get it. For me, it's a non-issue simply because I would not have
been in that situation. You were foolish enough to let your kids watch all
the crap that preceded the exposed breast, in spite of the fact that every
minute before that was every bit as offensive as the exposed breast.

What difference would it have made if Janet and Justin had been naked? Even
clothed, their behavior was every bit as offensive.

> Answer the question.

Your question is stupid. It's like you asked me how would I feel if, while
at a strip club with my son, two of the strippers started performing
cunnilingus on each other.

Pete

Peter Duniho

February 4th 04, 06:51 AM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> Naw, I suspect (even without knowing whether he drives a low wing or high)
> that Andrew actually has balls and would kick my ass.

I would kick your ass if you did anything worth reacting that way. But
waving your naked butt in front of anyone, even my family, just doesn't
qualify. That would have reflected poorly on you (as if the stuff you write
here doesn't already reflect poorly enough on you), but it wouldn't hurt me
or my family any.

Why would I even waste time thinking about it, never mind have somebody's
bloody pulp of a body on my stoop to clean up?

Pete

Thomas Borchert

February 4th 04, 10:00 AM

C,

> Apparently, any standards of behavior above that of animals are too much for
> some people.
>

Apart from what others have said, do you happen to know where most porn movies
in the world are produced? Yes, it's L.A.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

February 4th 04, 10:00 AM

C,

> But I despise the argument that porn is justified because we
> have violent videos
>

Who's talkign about porn? Timberlake and Jackson was porn? Get a grip
on reality!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dennis O'Connor

February 4th 04, 01:37 PM

Take it easy CJ.... You are not the only person on this ng who has to deal
with medicaid mommas, derelict kids, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, etc.,
etc., every working day... Once you lose your objectivity you cease to be a
part of the solution...
And, this is not a disease exclusive to the USA... Much of europe has it in
varying forms.. Even lofty Canada, who delights in looking down her nose at
the USA, is developing the disease... And, I won't even begin to enumerate
the problems of the third world...
So CJ, you and the missus go back to patching the cracks and leaks in your
section of the dike and the rest of us will continue to do ours and perhaps
together we can stave off the flood a bit longer...
cheers ... denny

"C J Campbell" . Sanity is a rare commodity in these days. A sane person
> knows that there are consequences to what you do. A sane person knows that
> whatever people do affects everybody else.

Thomas Borchert

February 4th 04, 03:25 PM

Dennis,

> teen pregnancy
>

That, one might argue, is - among other factors - connected to how kids
are introduced to sex and how open a society deals with sex. Which
nicely brings us back to the topic.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

gross_arrow

February 4th 04, 03:34 PM

(Snowbird) wrote in message >...
>
> wrt the BBB (Bare Boobie Broohaha), I sure don't get it. I didn't
> see the halftime show, but those rappers and hip-hop types have some
> lyrics which are pretty ripe. Then there's standard TV programming,
> which seems to have the goal of maximizing the gore and violence
> per hour. It's OK to have a halftime show featuring some dude
> wrapped in an American flag and singing all kinds of "nasty" but
> a little tit has everyone in a tither?
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

i didn't see it either -- it was on, but i was looking at the computer
screen, mentally filtering out the rap. but i suspect that all those
complaining about the exposed breast are guilty of making a
mountain out of a molehill. :-)

g_a

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 04:15 PM

"gross_arrow" > wrote in message
om...
| (Snowbird) wrote in message
>...
|
|
| i didn't see it either -- it was on, but i was looking at the computer
| screen, mentally filtering out the rap. but i suspect that all those
| complaining about the exposed breast are guilty of making a
| mountain out of a molehill. :-)

You could not resist, could you?

John Harlow

February 4th 04, 04:43 PM

>> Every TV I've ever seen has a power switch.
>>
>
> Yes, it does. I don't have to watch shows that are offensive.
> However, one does not expect things like the Superbowl to offensive.
> Programs that are billed as suitable for families should be just that
> -- suitable for families.

So CBS has now given you at least 2 reasons to never watch them again. What
was Gomer Pyle's famous saying again? ;)

John Harlow

February 4th 04, 04:43 PM

C J Campbell wrote:
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Perhaps if children were raised where the body weren't so taboo,
>> people wouldn't be so jazzed by it. Look at the tribes in Africa,
>> do the kids giggle and the oldsters scowl when a woman walks by in
>> her natural state?
>
> Have you ever considered that maybe there is a reason that those
> groups that run around naked have remained primitive tribes despite
> thousands of years of progress by all their neighbors?

Maybe another way to think of it is they have successfully sustained whereas
other "progressive" neighbors come and go? ;)

Paul Sengupta

February 4th 04, 05:03 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis,
>
> > teen pregnancy
> >
>
> That, one might argue, is - among other factors - connected to how kids
> are introduced to sex and how open a society deals with sex. Which
> nicely brings us back to the topic.

http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/pregnancy.html

Paul Sengupta

February 4th 04, 05:05 PM

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > I don't think too many species produce slash&gore videos. Cats probably
> > would if they could, though...
>
> Shooting digitial video without opposable thumbs is a real bitch, ain't
it!

Analogue video is much easier then?

And I thought we were talking about cats, not bitches...

Paul

G.R. Patterson III

February 4th 04, 05:24 PM

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/pregnancy.html

So they pick four countries, point out that the U.S. has a higher teen pregnancy
rate than those four, and use that to support a headline that the rate is "highest
in the U.S.". If you pick your countries carefully, you can probably prove about
anything.

A major Norwegian paper was recently complaining that studies show that Norway
has the highest teen pregnancy rate. We can't both be the highest.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 06:05 PM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
| >> Every TV I've ever seen has a power switch.
| >>
| >
| > Yes, it does. I don't have to watch shows that are offensive.
| > However, one does not expect things like the Superbowl to offensive.
| > Programs that are billed as suitable for families should be just that
| > -- suitable for families.
|
| So CBS has now given you at least 2 reasons to never watch them again.
What
| was Gomer Pyle's famous saying again? ;)

I don't remember it. I'm sure it was both appropriate and funny.

No, I don't watch CBS any more. In fact, I probably have not watched
anything on CBS in over a year. They simply have not had any programs that I
found interesting. I think "Law and Order" was the last show they did that
held any interest for me at all, and I could hardly be called a regular
viewer of that. Didn't that show originate on A&E? I did not even watch the
Superbowl (for one thing, I don't have much time for TV, or even golf, for
that matter). I can't remember when the last time was I got to enjoy the
Superbowl, but it has been several years, maybe decades.

Broadcast television mostly annoys me because of the abundance of
commercials. Granted, the commercials are usually better than the shows, but
after you have watched the Gecko park his little sports car in the "Employee
of the Month" parking space about a thousand times you begin to wish for a
little originality.

Besides, I hold GEICO in about the same low esteem as I do Farmers: a lot of
bragging about low cost and good service, neither of which are true, and
never a mention of how quick they are to deny a claim and cancel your
insurance. I mean, who wants an insurance company that will cancel you if
you have a radar detector in your car (not that I actually have a radar
detector, you understand -- everybody tells me I drive like an old woman,
but it is the principle of the thing)?

John Harlow

February 4th 04, 06:56 PM

>>
>> So CBS has now given you at least 2 reasons to never watch them
>> again. What was Gomer Pyle's famous saying again? ;)
>
> I don't remember it. I'm sure it was both appropriate and funny.

Lol - it was something to the effect of :
"fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me!"

> No, I don't watch CBS any more. In fact, I probably have not watched
> anything on CBS in over a year. They simply have not had any programs
> that I found interesting. I think "Law and Order" was the last show
> they did that held any interest for me at all, and I could hardly be
> called a regular viewer of that. Didn't that show originate on A&E? I
> did not even watch the Superbowl (for one thing, I don't have much
> time for TV, or even golf, for that matter). I can't remember when
> the last time was I got to enjoy the Superbowl, but it has been
> several years, maybe decades.
>
> Broadcast television mostly annoys me because of the abundance of
> commercials. Granted, the commercials are usually better than the
> shows, but after you have watched the Gecko park his little sports
> car in the "Employee of the Month" parking space about a thousand
> times you begin to wish for a little originality.
>
> Besides, I hold GEICO in about the same low esteem as I do Farmers: a
> lot of bragging about low cost and good service, neither of which are
> true, and never a mention of how quick they are to deny a claim and
> cancel your insurance. I mean, who wants an insurance company that
> will cancel you if you have a radar detector in your car (not that I
> actually have a radar detector, you understand -- everybody tells me
> I drive like an old woman, but it is the principle of the thing)?

And let's not forget the constant barrage of "ask your doctor about..." ads
from the drug companies. Isn't the doctor's job to tell YOU what to take?
Lol!

I disconnected cable a long time ago and never looked back. Nowadays I
usually only turn the TV on for new "Simpsons" episodes, and "Red Green" on
PBS ;)

Paul Sengupta

February 4th 04, 07:34 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Paul Sengupta wrote:
> >
> > http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/pregnancy.html
>
> So they pick four countries, point out that the U.S. has a higher teen
pregnancy
> rate than those four, and use that to support a headline that the rate is
"highest
> in the U.S.". If you pick your countries carefully, you can probably prove
about
> anything.

I think it was supposed to reflect the countries with the closest
social structure, maybe picking ones with a more "relaxed" attitude
to the human body and sex. While Sweden is often quoted, the
most "open" countries in this respect are more like The Netherlands,
Germany and Denmark.

It's oft-quoted here in the UK that with their very liberal attitudes
towards sex in The Netherlands, they have a much lower teenage
pregnancy rate than in the UK, possibly the lowest in Europe. The
UK has the highest...and probably the "stuffiest" attitude towards
sex.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with liberal attitudes to sex, or saying
they're good for society, just that there appears to be a relation
to the immediate question, if not to the original one.

http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.0103/msg00008.html

> A major Norwegian paper was recently complaining that studies show that
Norway
> has the highest teen pregnancy rate. We can't both be the highest.

As for Norway vs. the US, here are some figures from:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 98.0
United Kingdom 46.6
Norway 40.2
Canada 38.6
Finland 32.1
Sweden 28.3
Denmark 27.9
Netherlands 12.1
Japan 10.5

These figures roughly agree with the ones here:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/gr030303.html

There's a graph of teenage births here:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.famplan.html

Sorry, I don't have any agenda or political point here, so if I've
quoted any politically biased sites for the figures, I apologise, I
was just googling for the figures.

Paul

Frank

February 4th 04, 09:17 PM

John Harlow wrote:

<snip>
>
>> Anyway, I suppose that now we will see it on TV more and more until it
>> becomes accepted.
>
> Every TV I've ever seen has a power switch.

They also have a brightness control, but it never seems to work.....

($1 to Gallager)

<snip>
--
Frank....H

Andrew Gideon

February 5th 04, 08:42 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Naw, I suspect (even without knowing whether he drives a low wing or
>> high) that Andrew actually has balls and would kick my ass.
>
> I would kick your ass if you did anything worth reacting that way. But
> waving your naked butt in front of anyone, even my family, just doesn't
> qualify. That would have reflected poorly on you (as if the stuff you
> write here doesn't already reflect poorly enough on you), but it wouldn't
> hurt me or my family any.

I have to say I gave this some serious though. I think that having this
occur would leave me completely disabled for at least a minute or too.
Once I got my breath back from laughing, I'm not sure what would occur.
But I'd certainly need that moment.

I suppose I shouldn't admit this, and it's pretty childish. And, I could be
wrong. But I expect that that would be my reaction.

- Andrew

P.S. If it were halloween, though, I'd probably just smile and
say "nice costume; where do you want your treat".

Andrew Gideon

February 5th 04, 09:03 PM

C J Campbell wrote:

> But, what the heck -- it is harmless, right? And who am I to judge what
> goes on between consenting adults, no matter what it costs you, me, and
> everybody else?

I'm trying to figure out how you went from naked bodies and sex to drugs and
welfare. I think that you're trying to establish a causality. If so, I'm
missing the reasoning.

But I still see this as a shame issue, and you've provided no evidence to
the contrary. If you're not hiding your body, or your eyes from the bodies
of others, out of shame, then what is your motivation?

Now, there are things of which one should be ashamed. Violence is one such.
And this seems to play a large role in your tirade. Perhaps you should
look to the violence to which people are subjected through the media as a
possible cause for the types of abuses you're describing. Because you seem
to be describing a bunch of people acting violently. I don't see you
describing the collapse of society as a game of strip poker.

You're so busy trying to get people to be ashamed of their bodies...think of
what you could accompish if you tried instead to get people to be ashamed
of violence.

- Andrew