FUCKING PURITANICAL VIEWS IN AMERICA!!!!!!!

[The Postmaster General]

Goddamned Puritans not letting us see tits, ass, cock, and poon-tang on TV!!!????

Has anyone seen these alledged "naughty" commercials on this "Too Sexy For TV - The World's Hottest Commercials"?

All these commercials be is harmless and innocent fun that HAPPEN to contain naked people. Woo-Hoo! Sounds great!

Not here in the states, no. The most we get are the fucking twins.

Allright, yeah ALLUSIONS of 3-way sex and incest. Woo-Hoo! That's the American way. Get the phone and call Jerry!!

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

We can't have girls disrobing on a hot day, because the sand is too hot, and the girl wants to use her clothes to step on the sand and go get a Pepsi --- TOO CUTE!!!

Yeah, we can't have that here, but we have Mr. Personality, or MASQURADE SLUT GANGBANG and also we get Joe Millionare or WHO CAN FUCK THE RICH COCK FIRST?

No, we can't show nudity, but we can degradate the sanctamony of marriage while adding to America's embarassing divorce rate.

Why the fuck is it that we can't show nudity... And when we do, it is made into a bigger deal than it really is with the use of black bars and fuzzy stuff? Pretty soon people are going to be conditioned to "get off" at the sight of fuzziness. I'm almost there myself. Whenever the projector goes out of focus at the theater, I nearly get the urge to masturbate. The last PT anderson flick was almost a disaster!!

That's beside the point, and personal!

The reason, I think, that media establishments aren't pushing to show more real nudity is because SEX SELLS, and they want to sell it to us with a low overhead, those cheap ass mutherfuckers. Face it, America, you ignorant swine, it is much cheaper to have actresses, and models who don't do nudity than it is to get actresses and models who do strip bare.

Companies don't want to pay TV actresses top dollar to bare it all, so instead they stick by the decency of practices act. Haven't you ever considered why this thing get's pushed to limits with shows like South Park, but no one ever flatout challenges the act, and the thing is so loose that the only two things it will not tolerate are cussing and nudity?

So instead, they sell us cheap sex using amateurs behind fuzzy bars (Mmmm) and whenever a real actor does something naughty, they can market that all the way to the bank.

America pays top dollar for amateur shit, and is getting ripped off, since you're asking.

Jerry Springer is the lowest of the low, because that often times sells sex, and uses the undertow of American dignity as it's calling card.

And many fuckers eat it up to. They purchase TOO HOT FOR TV, GIRLS GONE WILD and other nonsense.

In the meantime to porn industry has been degraded to the point where even rock stars can produce porn more effectively than the master baiters.

This is all because the mass media, hiding behind the puritanical foundation of America, has tricked the masses into thinking that they should not be seeing this stuff, and that is bullshit.

Really stop and think about the examples I have given of things that are on free TV that are considered okay, because they contain no nudity. (If, these Clarol Herbal Essence commercials were shot wide, they would be eligible for the gangbang market.)

So wise up America, and stop paying for the shit that you can see for free elsewhere.

Call and write your local congressman, and ask that he push for a bill to update the standards in decency practices.

They are teaching are kids that it is okay to pay 9.99 to see boobs at Mardi Gras, and it's okay to have incest if you talk about it and get a final thought.....

....we don't want this crap!!

We want nudity! We want nudity!

[countchocula]

Textbook rant, Bubba! I can't count how many Girls Gone Wild commercials I've seen late at night. It's a good thing that those drunken college chicks are blanketed in "fuzz." Otherwise, the commercials may invoke sexual thoughts!

[electriclite]

I always love that little trick they do in The New Times and The Village Voice with those ads in the back with topless women where they just put a star over the nipple. Because as we all know if you cover the nipple the breast no longer exists:rolleyes:

[notchreturns]

Wow.

[Jon Lyrik]

I could not have said it better. I'm speechless.

Bubba Strangelove for president!!!

[quoth_the_raven]

Bubba rants again: son of rant

:D:D

as i am not american, i dont feel it is my place to comment over much without saying the material in question...i'm kinding of seeing your point though bubba, you ranting loon :D

[Tom Samborski]

A very well written up point Bubba, and you should be president. I hate all those right-ring conservatives like Bob Dole saying that nudity and sex on T.V are evil or some shit like that.

[Indiana Sev]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
A very well written up point Bubba, and you should be president. I hate all those right-ring conservatives like Bob Dole saying that nudity and sex on T.V are evil or some shit like that.

Bob Dole said that!!!!

The same 70-something year old man who talks about viagra and his goddamn erections on TV.

What a hypocrite!

Bubba for president!

BubbaStrangelove, not the other one, Clinton's already done his two terms and supported nudity and sex and adultery and God knows what else?:D

[The Postmaster General]

Hmmm....

I wonder if we can start a SCHMOE Political party.

LOL!

Instead of an elephant, or donkey, we could use the Joblo icon.

[Jon Lyrik]

Go nudity! Go sex! Woo-hoo!

[Tom Samborski]

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Bob Dole said that!!!!

No, he didn't actually say that. That is something he would say in my opinion, after hearing about his attack on Hollywood.

[Justin Harris]

I'm not one that likes to censor things, but I was thinking yesterday (yeah I can think, wanna fight about it).

I saw that natural mens enhancement product and though it doesn't really show it, it has a lot of sexual inuendo that I think it pretty damn inappropriate, especially when it's being played in plain sights of children.

I do think certain things should be censored, but in most cases, like profanity? Come on, walk down the streets. I don't care where the fuck you live, you ain't gonna hear people talking about 'enlightenment' or 'purity'.

[Jim H]

The "sex is bad, violence is good" mentallity is a big problem in the American pscye. I work part time at a video game store, and you'd be amazed at the number of mothers who buy games like Grand Theft Auto for 6 year olds. We'll tell them what the game is like (extreme violence, gore, swearing, drug use, prostituition) and then they'll ask "But there's no nudity?" and we'll say "Not REALLY". And they'll be like OK!!! It blows my mind sometimes.

[MarkItZero]

I'm with you Bubba

We need more nudity in the good ol' US of A
Those damn puritans are ruining everyones fun.
It seems unhealthy to live in such a sexaully surpressed society.

And this isnt the only case where America's puritanical background is making a big deal out of something that shouldnt really be a problem. Take drinking for instance. Here in the States they make such a big deal about cracking down on underage drinking. There is (I believe) a nationally set minimum drinking age of 21. Yet in many European countries (or at least the ones I have visited) the rules on youth drinking are much less strict. And from what I understand, this hasnt caused all of the European youths to die from alchohol poisoning, in fact, I would guess that it probably eliminates some of the alchohol abuse problems. Mainly, because drinking isnt so taboo the way it is in the US.

[Lynn7]

Ok, I'll be the sole dissenter. I like it when stuff is kept "clean" within reason- not puritanical but maybe more old fashioned. I don't even like nude scnes in movies although I will still watch them. It's embarrassing to wantch movies with family members and there is nudity and sex going on. I like it when stuff is left to the imagination- much more sexy than the actual thing, IMO but i'm a woman so I know guys think differently about this.

I hate those late night ads and Girls Gone Wild ads, etc. I think that stuff should be on pay tv or at the video stores for people to rent, but I dont want to see it.

[Jim H]

Yet in many European countries (or at least the ones I have visited) the rules on youth drinking are much less strict. And from what I understand, this hasnt caused all of the European youths to die from alchohol poisoning, in fact, I would guess that it probably eliminates some of the alchohol abuse problems.

The minimum drinking age is at a state level, from my understanding. I think almost every state has it set at 21, but from my understanding you can buy drinks at 18 in Nevada. I didn't used to think this until recently, references from a TV show then conversations with other people about it, but it could be wrong of course.

And yes, many European countries have lower drinking ages. I believe France's is 5 for wine. Point in fact, many doctors believe the heavy wine drinking is why French people and Italian people live so long, despite heavy smoking in France and very oily diets in Italy. They don't have as many drunk driving problems for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is MUCH heavier punishments for it. In a lot of bars in Europe, they'll still serve you if you're underage, and they don't crack down on that a lot.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by Jim H


In a lot of bars in Europe, they'll still serve you if you're underage, and they don't crack down on that a lot.


sometimes its very hard to tell someones age. god knows, i have been getting served with alcohol since i was about 15 ( i am 20 now...legal age is 18 over here).


i dont know what the point of that was. it just felt good...:D

[Raymond Babbit]

I agree, but I think your rant was missing one complaint:

Why is it that a guy's bare chest can be shown in a PG or PG-13 movie, but a woman's bare chest automatically makes it R? Isn't that just a little sexist?

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn --

I actually think you point goes hand-in-hand with mine. Since you say "down with nudity", and I'm saying "go nude", I think it might be difficult for me to fully explain what I'm talking about, but here it goes.....

(Wrote a song 'bout it. Like to hear it? Here is goes...)


Okay, no song


The thing is that these things that I speak of don't prevent awareness of things that are naughty -- It only covers them up with the least amount of tact.

We are being forced to make nudity seem more inappropriate than things like incest. A little kid can watch Springer, and then come to you and say, "What is incest?" You can easily explain what it is, and how it is wrong.

However, a little kid watches Jerry, and then asks, "Why are her boobies blurry?" What are you going to say? 6 year olds have a hard time grasping the concept of the Standards of Decency Act. Trust me, I'm 9, and still can barely understand it. ;)

So....

Here is where our hands brush against one another in the mixer known as Discussion.....

Why not just have the occassional boob, mixed in with all of this incest, S & M, and other things I've learned about through the internet -- Take these things and just put them on LATE AT NIGHT. That is how many of us got this information, by staying up late at night.

Now this stuff is on at 2pm, but of course there are beeps and blurs, but even the 6 year olds know what's behind those.

With that it mind, I'm still not sure if you want to join this congo line here, but keep in mind nudity isn't necessary. Just not looked down upon.

[Jim H]

but a woman's bare chest automatically makes it R?

It doesn't. Try watching Titanic. I've seen a few PG (and this is after PG-13 was invented) movies with very mild boobies in them.

I believe genitalia makes it an automatic R, and an erect penis = automatic NC-17. That's why the president/CEO/leader guy of the MPAA says South Park shold of been NC-17 - it was a mistake on there part. Saddam's "dildo" is really a scanned picture from a porno mag, I remember they talked about it in some interview when they were bashing the MPAA.

[The Postmaster General]

It makes me wonder if the MPAA drug tests their employees.

[FeverDog420]

Originally posted by Jim H
It doesn't. Try watching Titanic. I've seen a few PG (and this is after PG-13 was invented) movies with very mild boobies in them.

I believe genitalia makes it an automatic R, and an erect penis = automatic NC-17. That's why the president/CEO/leader guy of the MPAA says South Park should of been NC-17 - it was a mistake on their part. Saddam's "dildo" is really a scanned picture from a porno mag, I remember they talked about it in some interview when they were bashing the MPAA.

Yeah, the PG Airplane! has that classic shot of those wonderful bare breasts jiggling, and I also remember a nude body double for Jane Curtin in How to Beat the High Cost of Living (also from 1980). This country was so less uptight back then, it seems - what happened???

As far as I know, two spoken nonsexual "fuck"s ("You fucked up.") get an R, while only one sexual ("Are you fucking my wife?") does.

But I don't know about erections - they're so rare in cinema I can't remember the last time I saw one in a movie (Angels & Insects, maybe?). How many movies have hard-ons, anyway?

[Jim H]

Very few have them. But I know it is an automatic NC-17. There was a French film that's name escaped me that had a lot of sex in it and none of it was faked.

While nothing is scene, according to the IMDB, from Boxcar Bertha

"According to both David Carradine and Barbara Hershey, their sex scene was not faked."

BTW, you probably shouldn't mention movies from that early - PG-13 didn't exist when Airplane came out (which is what it would probably get today... Close to it anyways), same with the other one.

[Lynn7]

Hey Bubba,
I was looking forward to hearing your song, LOL!
Yes, I do know what you are saying about the hypocrisy that exists on TV. I watch Entertainment Tonight and sometimes they might show a pictorial of a Playboy model and she is totally nude except for those little blurs and that is a family show! It's pretty weird.
I guess I'm not against it existing but I wish they would keep it to pay tv. As far as kids asking questions about what they see on Tv- I've had to explain things to them that I never even knew existed until I was in my late teens. Pretty depressing to have to cover adult issues with little kids. "Mommy, what is oral sex?" " What is an orgy?" "What is Girls Gone Wild?"

[Iacon5]

Originally posted by Jim H
- PG-13 didn't exist when Airplane came out (which is what it would probably get today... Close to it anyways), same with the other one.

don't you remember? in airplane there is a brief tit shot. while that isn't anything big, it would probubly be enough to give the film an R

[Jim H]

don't you remember? in airplane there is a brief tit shot. while that isn't anything big, it would probubly be enough to give the film an R

As I said before, haven't you seen Titanic?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
"What is Girls Gone Wild?" \




See son, when girls take their shirts off, that means...

THEY'VE GONE WILD!!

[BakeTheMooCow]

Hey Bubba, couldja summarize your rant? In a few sentences. I'm getting a headache reading all that.

[SIREN30]

Well, I think that the media is seriously screwed up anyway. The rating system is stupid etc. However, I do know if I saw a commercial or something on primetime tv like a sex act or a naked chick, I'd be mad because I guess I'm old fashioned and would prefer keep my little boy innocent for a while. If it's a show that I know the contents of, I can avoid it but if it's a commercial or something...it's like 'hold on to your potatoes Dr Jones!' I like to feel a little in control when it comes to such things. The world is just TOOOOOOO obsessed w/ sex as it is. Why feed the frenzy?


But maybe that's just me?:confused:

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Jim H
Very few have them. But I know it is an automatic NC-17. There was a French film that's name escaped me that had a lot of sex in it and none of it was faked.





"Romance":rolleyes:

[The Postmaster General]

Well Siren, I think censorship is an extention of that obsession.

(Bake, this is for you too)

See, they make nudity into a bigger than it really is. Sure, there are some forms of nudity that is clearly obscene -- However, I've found in many of the foreign commercials that contain nudity, the content is very innocent, and not at all sexual.

However, by censoring it, I feel they are making it sexual.

Then at the same time, they don't censor they really dirty stuff -- as long as there is no nudity or cussing.

And if Airplane was rated R, I'm sure it was for more than the boobies.

[Jim H]

As I've said before, Airplane has a maybe 2 or 3 second tit shot. That's it. There's no graphic violence, and no swearing to speak of. It would barely be PG-13. I direct you to Titanic, which is one of the hardest PG-13 movies I've ever seen. 30 seconds plus of a chest shot, lots of violence, some mild swearing, drinking, tons of dead bodies, people dying, etc. If that hadn't been a huge studio film that applied lots of pressure and influence on the MPAA, it probably would of gotten R.

However, by censoring it, I feel they are making it sexual.

I agree. It is worth mentioning that most of these more open countries have very low rates of sexual problems, very low teen pregnancy rates, etc - whereas the US is one of the worst for all kinds of those problems. Which one is cause and which one is effect is up in the air though - I think the "puritan" (which isn't as bad as some would say - the Puritans were actually better then many other religious groups at the time, and they even allowed divorces under some circumstances and other things like that) mindset is the cause of our problems, and the censoring is the effect.

[Tom Samborski]

Originally posted by Iacon5
in airplane there is a brief tit shot.

LOL, I almost forgot about that scene! It happens in a scene when everyone is in panic on the airplane, and we see a woman with bare boobs appear out of nowhere. They also had a tit shot in National Lampoon's Europeon Vacation, and that was PG-13.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Jim H
the Puritans were actually better then many other religious groups at the time, and they even allowed divorces under some circumstances and other things like that) mindset is the cause of our problems, and the censoring is the effect.

Sorry to get off-topic, but the Puritans were huge hypocrites. They came over here for religious freedom, but weren't very tolerant of other beliefs. Also, they were the ones who did the Salem witch trials. I think many of the "Puritanical"people now are also hypocrites.

[Jim H]

Puritan has become a very vague term. It was originally just a single group, but came to mean all the extreme religious groups prior to around 1700. The ones I'm refering to did not do the Salem Witch Trials. I'm not saying they were great, or anything.

but the Puritans were huge hypocrites. They came over here for religious freedom, but weren't very tolerant of other beliefs.

It isn't hypocritical - they were only interested in escaping persecution, they didn't really decry the Church of England for persecuting them, they just left to go at it their own way. If they'd said they wanted religious freedom for all, then it would be hypocritical. They never said they wanted everyone to be able to have their own religion - just themselves.

What they did to many people is wrong, there is no denying that though.

[areyoubeingserved]

And rather there not be any adds at all. I avoid the commercial channels as much as I can.

I think nudity is great, but I like it in its true context. Hire porn.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Well Siren, I think censorship is an extention of that obsession.

(Bake, this is for you too)

See, they make nudity into a bigger than it really is. Sure, there are some forms of nudity that is clearly obscene -- However, I've found in many of the foreign commercials that contain nudity, the content is very innocent, and not at all sexual.

However, by censoring it, I feel they are making it sexual.

Then at the same time, they don't censor they really dirty stuff -- as long as there is no nudity or cussing.

And if Airplane was rated R, I'm sure it was for more than the boobies.

I understand your point but I also feel that nudity is unnecessary. I feel that when nudity is flaunted, for the most part, it IS in a sexual way and I like to know that my little boy isnt going to walk into the living room during prime time and see some girls' rack staring him in the face.

I think it's beautiful and I've posed for nude paintings and painted some nudes myself. I think it can be very tasteful in photography as well. But in advertising, most companies make no pretenses about selling 'sex' and I view that as different. The femal (sorry, male nudes are just very utilitarian and odd looking :D ) form is just not viewed the same in those circumstances as it is in the art world. When the female body is being exploited for sexuality's sake, I just don't approve.

[Jim H]

I like to know that my little boy isnt going to walk into the living room during prime time and see some girls' rack staring him in the face.

Something I've never quite understood: How do you think that would hurt your child?

I've heard a lot of people say they don't want their young kids seeing nudity, but I've never heard how it would hurt them.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Jim H
Something I've never quite understood: How do you think that would hurt your child?

I've heard a lot of people say they don't want their young kids seeing nudity, but I've never heard how it would hurt them.

You misread by post. Once again, I have no problem w/ nudity. It is sexual exploitation I have a problem with and most of the time the nudity in advertising (even partial ) is done in a sexual way...

If nudity hurt my child he would be quite injured because we have nude paintings and I walk around naked quite a bit. I just feel that my child is too young to have to deal w/ the world's twisted view of females and sex. I also don't condone promiscuity and if I see that reflected on tv (whether nude or not) I turn it because I don't want my child to develop the warped attitude that I feel is so common. I mean, if my son developes the idea now that big hooters are all that's acceptable and that they are the *best* part of a woman then woe to him when he reaches maturity!

[Paterfamilias]

Originally posted by SIREN30
... and I walk around naked quite a bit.


OK, it's gettin hot in here!!;)

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
OK, it's gettin hot in here!!;)


Yep, time for me to walk around nekkidd!:D

[Jim H]

You misread by post. Once again, I have no problem w/ nudity. It is sexual exploitation I have a problem with and most of the time the nudity in advertising (even partial ) is done in a sexual way...

I didn't get that from the other post.. I do understand your meaning now though, and I don't disagree with that point at all. It is worth noting that a lot of the nudity in other cultures (it isn't just Europe) on television is often non-sexual.

Just America is exceptionally warped.

World capital of serial killers for decades!

WE'RE #1!!!

[The Postmaster General]

oops

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by SIREN30
I understand your point but I also feel that nudity is unnecessary. I feel that when nudity is flaunted, for the most part, it IS in a sexual way and I like to know that my little boy isnt going to walk into the living room during prime time and see some girls' rack staring him in the face.

I think it's beautiful and I've posed for nude paintings and painted some nudes myself. I think it can be very tasteful in photography as well. But in advertising, most companies make no pretenses about selling 'sex' and I view that as different. The femal (sorry, male nudes are just very utilitarian and odd looking :D ) form is just not viewed the same in those circumstances as it is in the art world. When the female body is being exploited for sexuality's sake, I just don't approve.



Ah yes. Exploitation irks me as equally as censorship.

I think, though, that if you saw the particular commercials I was commenting on, you might not feel that it was explotitive.

That was were I was drawing the lines -- these commericals seemed very innocent, and nonsexual to me (many, not all of them).

I think it's only exploitive when there is no substance behind it. Explotitive - Boobies for no apparent reason. Not exploitive - A woman getting nude because she's playing head games with a guy by the pool.

I know that opens up a whole new topic, but hey -- that's the point isn't it? :D


Yes, believe me. It has been widely commented on in my life that I will often not invite people by, because I simply don't want to put my clothes back on.

Of course, I ALWAYS make sure that I am wearing either fuzz over my privates, or if not that, then some black bars.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I was desperately trying to place this rant and I realised that it bears resemblance to something Bill Hicks said in the Relentless album. I tried to find a transcript online, but the one I found wasn't word-to-word from the album. He talks about pornography and commercials and he even uses the word 'puritans' at one point. Maybe you should buy the CD, Bubba.. I think his style of humor will appeal to you.

[electriclite]

originally posted by BubbaStrangeLove
Yes, believe me. It has been widely commented on in my life that I will often not invite people by, because I simply don't want to put my clothes back on.



Oh my God, that reminds me of what I was going through last summer. My mother had moved into a one bedroom apartment with my sister so they shared the same bedroom. My sister has a boyfriend and he would always come over after my mother and I came home from work, and it used to piss me off because I slept in the same bedroom and had my clothes there, and there he and my sister would be watching Tv and playing games when I wanted to change!

I've always been bitchy about guests coming over or being over, because I hate worrying if what I'm wearing, or not wearing, is respectable enough for guests. ESPECIALLY on a weekend. That's my time dammit!

[Jim H]

I've always been bitchy about guests coming over or being over, because I hate worrying if what I'm wearing, or not wearing, is respectable enough for guests. ESPECIALLY on a weekend. That's my time dammit!

Just do what I do - ignore social custom. Of course, I'm at worse wearing underwear as I'm not a big nudist like many of you. ;)

[The Postmaster General]

Yes, one of the UK schmoes often quoted Bill Hicks, and always mentioned that I should check more into the fellow.

Two strong recomendations from two respected and stand-up people....

....sounds like a sure thing.

Thanks Bake!

[Grim H.]

Sex and nudity kick ass!!! And let's face it, some innocent nudity isn't nearly as bad as people on Fear Factor diving into a vat of cow's blood and bobbing for rings. Call me crazy, but I think the nudity would probably be better on people than the latter. But, maybe that's just me...