why are americans so obssessed with...
- Thread starter madamefifi
- Start date
Um . . . I'd just like to point out that the original poster used the phrase, "remming it down our throats" when the topic is about sex.
OKAY! Now that that's out of the way, people's sex lives don't really interest me. They're certainly not newsworthy. (Unless there's a pedophilia scare in there somewhere.) Like someone said, if I wanted a sex scene, I'd watch a movie or read something. I don't need it in the news.
I remember I used to work at Macy*s, and I made a joke about Dubya not being too bright. Someone who was a Dubya supporter heard that and didn't find that too funny. So she tries to insult ******* by bringing up the Lewinsky thing. I was like, "Psssht! So?"
People act like the ******* thing was such a scandal. But really, what's worse: Lying about sexual indescretions or lying about weapons of mass destruction? The Kennedy men were a bunch of whores and nobody cared! Nobody even found out until a long time later!
OKAY! Now that that's out of the way, people's sex lives don't really interest me. They're certainly not newsworthy. (Unless there's a pedophilia scare in there somewhere.) Like someone said, if I wanted a sex scene, I'd watch a movie or read something. I don't need it in the news.
I remember I used to work at Macy*s, and I made a joke about Dubya not being too bright. Someone who was a Dubya supporter heard that and didn't find that too funny. So she tries to insult ******* by bringing up the Lewinsky thing. I was like, "Psssht! So?"
People act like the ******* thing was such a scandal. But really, what's worse: Lying about sexual indescretions or lying about weapons of mass destruction? The Kennedy men were a bunch of whores and nobody cared! Nobody even found out until a long time later!
And about the stereotype that homosexuals have a reputation for pedophilia: I think there's a big difference between a relationship between a 22 year old and a 17 year old (if it's consentual, mind you) and a relationship between a 22 year old and a 14 year old or a relationship between a 40 year old and a 17 year old.
The first one is okay to me, the second two are not. If there's a BIG age difference, or if the younger person is younger than 16 that kind of says 'pedophilia' to me.
The first one is okay to me, the second two are not. If there's a BIG age difference, or if the younger person is younger than 16 that kind of says 'pedophilia' to me.
Yes, I have to sadly agree that that is the case, we even have daily newspaper dedicated to no news but just pics of naked woman.
I'm sure US can't beat these:
1) The Sun with stories of how a lottery winner blew his money to fulfil his 'posh totty' threesome sexual fantasy
2) News of the World with stories of an MP (congressman equivalent) going to swinging clubs.
3) Daily and Sunday Sport, the worst of the lot because it is just pictures of naked women who like to call themselves 'glamour' models.
Some commentators are saying that things like it is so severe in Britain because there can be no censorship on any ground (not even security grounds). So consider yourselves lucky that your freedom of speech is limited!
Yeah, I'd say the British are more obsessed with sex than Americans.
But in Britain's defense, they're much more liberal on what can and cannot be shown on television. As long as it's after 9:00 at night, they can pretty much show whatever they want. It's the same thing in Canada, except that before the show comes back on after a commercial break, there's always a warning and 'Viewer discretion advised.' (I was watching Not Another Teen Movie uncut two weeks ago! On network tv!)
In America, the only way you can see an uncut movie is to watch it on Showtime or HBO or on Comedy Central, on Saturday night, at 2:00 in the morning. (It was called the Secret Stash.)
When it comes to what can and cannot be shown on television, America is a lot more puritanical when it comes to that stuff.
What would be ideal is if America would stop talking about sex in the news and became a bit more liberal when it comes to sex on tv.
But in Britain's defense, they're much more liberal on what can and cannot be shown on television. As long as it's after 9:00 at night, they can pretty much show whatever they want. It's the same thing in Canada, except that before the show comes back on after a commercial break, there's always a warning and 'Viewer discretion advised.' (I was watching Not Another Teen Movie uncut two weeks ago! On network tv!)
In America, the only way you can see an uncut movie is to watch it on Showtime or HBO or on Comedy Central, on Saturday night, at 2:00 in the morning. (It was called the Secret Stash.)
When it comes to what can and cannot be shown on television, America is a lot more puritanical when it comes to that stuff.
What would be ideal is if America would stop talking about sex in the news and became a bit more liberal when it comes to sex on tv.
The British have different views on violence, though, which I like. (I think children with early access to violence is much more damaging.)
There was a scene in Starsky & Hutch, where that child is throwing knives at Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. In the commentary, the director said the child was originally going to be throwing ninja stars, but that would've given the movie an R rating in England.
There was a scene in Starsky & Hutch, where that child is throwing knives at Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. In the commentary, the director said the child was originally going to be throwing ninja stars, but that would've given the movie an R rating in England.
I don't care about what politicians do on the side, as long as it doesn't involve hurting or exploiting others. What is going on with Foley now is payback, IMO, for what the Repubs did to ******* while he was in office. Is it right? No, there are far worthier news stories that should be on the front page, but I do admit that I am a bit titillated (I love this word!) by the fact that Foley had previously spoken out against the very thing he did with these young boys.
I agree, what an ass! Earlier, when the news hit the airwaves, Foley's camp put out a press release that he was getting treatment for alcoholism. Umm, I've been drunk before (but not on a daily basis
) and I have never felt the urge to hit on a girl. Being a drunk does not turn you gay, nor does being molested by a priest. Foley is looking for any reason to excuse his behavior, other than a simple "I am stupid and irresponsible."
I only think it's legit to care if the politician in charge is making bold statements that he (it's usually a "he") then undermines - eg, the Tory party's "Back to Basics"/Victorian values debacle in the pre-Labour days, or the ********** party's stance on gay marriage.
(edit to add) If a politician from either party is later found out to be breaking rules they'd like to enforce on us, the people who pay them with our taxes - THAT'S news!
Cx
(edit to add) If a politician from either party is later found out to be breaking rules they'd like to enforce on us, the people who pay them with our taxes - THAT'S news!
Cx
The other thing is that you can't unnecessarily gross people out on British television. If something disturbing is going to be shown on television, it has to have some educational value to it.
The BBC has gotten in trouble because it showed things that were not seen to have any educational value whatsoever: A woman making a pate out of her placenta and serving it with focaccia bread to guests. It was on an episode of TV Dinners, and the complaint was that showing something like that on television had no redeeming values and it was ruled "offensive to the public."
Here's a link to the article: BBC News | Entertainment | Channel 4 rapped for serving placenta)
The BBC did recieve many complaints, however, when it decided to air a televised autopsy, but the ITC (Independant Televison Commission) ruled that "Although the subject matter and content of the programme approached the limits of what is allowed by the programme code, those limits were not exceeded."
(Here's a link to the article: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | TV and Radio | Watchdog clears TV autopsy)
The BBC has gotten in trouble because it showed things that were not seen to have any educational value whatsoever: A woman making a pate out of her placenta and serving it with focaccia bread to guests. It was on an episode of TV Dinners, and the complaint was that showing something like that on television had no redeeming values and it was ruled "offensive to the public."
Here's a link to the article: BBC News | Entertainment | Channel 4 rapped for serving placenta)
The BBC did recieve many complaints, however, when it decided to air a televised autopsy, but the ITC (Independant Televison Commission) ruled that "Although the subject matter and content of the programme approached the limits of what is allowed by the programme code, those limits were not exceeded."
(Here's a link to the article: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | TV and Radio | Watchdog clears TV autopsy)
<shrugs>BTW, these two programmes are not BBC's. Channel 4 is an independent TV station. The reason BBC never ever think of doing these things because there is a tax called 'license fees' of $200 equivalent a year to fund the BBC corporation (and this adds up to billions) so it has to tread carefully otherwise it will not get a government approval to raise the license fees. I suppose the nice thing about this compulsory tax is that there is no advert/commercial on the BBC together with the nature programmes and occasional period dramas like Pride and Prejudice.
But TV autopsy thing, whilst educational to a certain extent was a bit of a joke because of the selection of the doctors performing the autopsy.
EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to add for catlin that full frontal male nudity is allowed after 9pm
(example: Mark Anthony bathing outside in HBO/BBC 'Rome' collaboration)Okay, I have more. 
Let's suppose I represented your local political party and a broad part of our policy was to oppose marrying your goat.
Doesn't matter if you're cute, but just a bit goaty, or your goat's just so darned cute! - or you just have really long winters, and no local bars....
No Goat Marriage! is the message banged out by your party.
But you happen to secretly be schlepping it to your goat.
And, you think no-one will know as you continue to give your goaty lover the pink meaty carrot.
THAT'S why it matters what politicians whose parties make a moral stance, do with their boy parts.
It's not an "obsession" - it's a natural desire to root out hypocrisy!
Okay, pass the goat, I'm through here.... <baaaah>
Cx
Let's suppose I represented your local political party and a broad part of our policy was to oppose marrying your goat.
Doesn't matter if you're cute, but just a bit goaty, or your goat's just so darned cute! - or you just have really long winters, and no local bars....
No Goat Marriage! is the message banged out by your party.
But you happen to secretly be schlepping it to your goat.
And, you think no-one will know as you continue to give your goaty lover the pink meaty carrot.
THAT'S why it matters what politicians whose parties make a moral stance, do with their boy parts.
It's not an "obsession" - it's a natural desire to root out hypocrisy!
Okay, pass the goat, I'm through here.... <baaaah>
Cx
No Goat Marriage! is the message banged out by your party.
But you happen to secretly be schlepping it to your goat.
And, you think no-one will know as you continue to give your goaty lover the pink meaty carrot.
THAT'S why it matters what politicians whose parties make a moral stance,
oh, man, "you think no one will know as you continue to give your goaty lover the pink meaty carrot."
This post has to be the funniest that I have read on TPF. Absoflockinglutely priceless!
