t.A.T.u.

Want to share your enthusiasm for an artist or a band with other "My So-Called Life" fans? Post here. (Note: Please discuss the MSCL soundtrack in the "Show" forum)
User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Feb 13th 2003, 2:27 pm

I was talking more about selling drugs, murder, etc. I don't think the government should be in the business of regulating sexuality at all. Yes, rape, pedophilia, child porn, and incest should be illegal. I might have left some things out, but you get the point. Titillating videos and concerts are a long way from killing someone. I'm very liberal when it comes to social issues.

If the band is hurting the gay/lesbian community, the members of the community should not buy the tapes and protest at the band's concerts. I was thinking that the band might help to dispel notions that gays/lesbians are "different" from other people.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Feb 14th 2003, 6:26 am

fnordboy wrote:they are under age. I dont care if it was 2 guys, 2 girls, or a 5 couple orgy. They are underage.
Not where I live.

Here, what annoys me is that the BBC have chosen to censor the girls.

According to all the laws of the land, nobody is doing anything illegal. The BBC is a slightly odd fish as the public pays for it through a direct licence fee. I think that doesn't give the BBC the right to censor what we see (quite the opposite in fact). They should put things on later, but still show them. It's not particularly offensive.

I find it less offensive and shocking than a recent BBC drama which depicted a man and wife couple who were MI5 agents being caught and tortured. The terrorists heated a vat full of hot oil and dipped her hands in it. Then they told the husband that if he didn't start talking they'd dip her face in. He refused, so they did. So he started talking. Then they shot her anyway.

That was shown on prime time television on BBC1 (the most popular channel) without a warning about violence prior to the program.

Yet the Tatu video gets censored. Of course nobody has the guts to say it's been censored, they just 'choose' to show interrupted live performances.

That's what gets me so angry.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

discussion

Post by lance » Feb 14th 2003, 9:14 am

Hey all,

The thread continues to have great insight and thought.

Fnordboy

You bring up some interesting points. Thank you for bringing up the issue of gay marriage and adoption. My gay friends have been struggling with this for quite sometime. Good news: Just last week Cincinnati City Council passed legislation making crimes committed against the old, handicapped or Gay & Lesbians, because of who they are, hate crimes. This still has to survive a court challenge by our local right wing "Citzens for Community Values" but it is step in the right direction. Also thanks for bringing America's weird dichtomy of being obssessed with sex and yet trying to make it a taboo.

Starbug and other Europeans question:

As to censorship the observation has followed that in America sex is heavily censored while depictions of violence are not. In Europe sex is not censored but depictions of violence are. Outside of the BBC does this hold true to the best of your knowledge?

Thanks,

Lance Man

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Re: discussion

Post by starbug » Feb 14th 2003, 10:31 am

lance wrote:
As to censorship the observation has followed that in America sex is heavily censored while depictions of violence are not. In Europe sex is not censored but depictions of violence are. Outside of the BBC does this hold true to the best of your knowledge?
I think there's a difference between the 5 terrestrial channels that everyone can get, and the cable channels. I don't have cable or sky or anything so I'm not too sure, but from what I've seen while at other people's houses, cable are more relaxed about sex, certainly. I don't think any channel is particularly bothered about violence now; they just show it later.

Having said that, what could be described as 'soft porn' has been shown here on Channel 5, but it is on past 11pm on weekends. There is a great deal of disparity among the Channels.

Channel 4 (widely regarded as a maverick channel, and the second newest terrestrial) have what I believe is a policy that they don't cut scenes. They have shown some extremely violent films (I'm thinking Reservoir Dogs, 8MM, The Cook The Thief and the like) uncut. They put them on late (after 10pm) and they put a warning on. But they don't cut things. For sex or for violence. If it's too far beyond the pale, they don't show it at all. I don't know where that line is.

I think it's really hard to say what kicks off the censors here. Language no longer gets censored or bleeped, which makes watching the osbournes hilarious, but I think it has to be shown at later times.

I also don't think it's true that there's one position across the whole of Europe. Some nations are considerably more relaxed (or more uptight). I recently visited Italy for example and flew there on the state airline. It was 6am. On the plane, the 'entertainment' consisted of a 'comedy' show which was a sort of 'surprise joke candid camera' idea. Basically, they got a bunch of very scantily clad ladies to hid inside large objects (think freezer, large carboard box etc) and to jump out at passing men, baring their chests. Hilarious, I'm sure you'll agree... anyway, it went on for an hour. We were a little surprised to be tucking in to our breakfast and watching bouncing bosoms. :lol: And, you couldn't turn it off, even if you wanted to. The programme also featured an old guy 'mistakenly' wandering into women's changing rooms and seeing them in various states of undress.

Until a few years ago, Spain was run by a guy who had a very very strict policy on all forms of sex in culture. You couldn't buy a porn mag, or any of those naked holiday postcards you can now. Since he lost power however, things have gone to the other extreme and it's fairly prevalent I think...

I'd say that on balance censors are still more concerned about sex in the UK. Particularly if it isn't heterosexual sex. There was a drama called Queer as Folk shown on Channel 4 which certainly depicted gay sex but there were only bare chests and behinds that you could actually see. They still can't show an erect penis on TV.

Anyway, I wonder what other Europeans could add to my mainly guesswork analysis.

:)

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Feb 14th 2003, 10:48 am

Censorship by media companies in the US will continue to decline. That's a good thing. It's hard to say you live in the land of free speech when people filter media content using arbitrary standards.

Megs mentioned the fact that many of Madonna's videos were deemed inappropriate for MTV back in the day. By today's standards, all of those videos would seem tame.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Re: discussion

Post by fnordboy » Feb 14th 2003, 12:26 pm

starbug wrote: Channel 4 (widely regarded as a maverick channel, and the second newest terrestrial) have what I believe is a policy that they don't cut scenes. They have shown some extremely violent films (I'm thinking Reservoir Dogs, 8MM, The Cook The Thief and the like) uncut. They put them on late (after 10pm) and they put a warning on. But they don't cut things. For sex or for violence. If it's too far beyond the pale, they don't show it at all. I don't know where that line is.
Wow I can't believe they showed The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover on 'network' TV over there. That is soemthing that sadly will probably never be shown on the regular channels here, hell it is rarely ever on the cable channels. Which is sad. Peter Greenaway is one of my favorite all time directors.

Starbug, that really astounds me that they censored it over there. Especially if they are 'legal' there. I am even more surprised that MTV hasn't censored it, yet. I am sure some conservative group will get on their ass and make them stop playing it.

I just can't wait for the VH1 Behind the Music in a few years when it comes out that their manager forced them into this "life of debauchery" and stole all their money :twisted:

As far as sexy videos... nothing can beat Billy Idol's "Rock the Cradle of Love" :twisted: :twisted: ;)

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Feb 14th 2003, 1:23 pm

You are so right about Billy Idol's "Cradle of Love." That's got to be one of the hottest videos ever! I remember my jaw dropping to the floor. It came out in 1990. Hard to believe it's been so long.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Feb 14th 2003, 1:59 pm

TomSpeed wrote:You are so right about Billy Idol's "Cradle of Love." That's got to be one of the hottest videos ever! I remember my jaw dropping to the floor. It came out in 1990. Hard to believe it's been so long.
Wow already been 13 years :shock: jeeeeeeeesus!

I was mesmerized when that first aired, now its all just rump shaking (not that I am complaining ;) too much)

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Feb 14th 2003, 2:42 pm

TomSpeed wrote:Megs mentioned the fact that many of Madonna's videos were deemed inappropriate for MTV back in the day. By today's standards, all of those videos would seem tame.
Actually, her videos were controversial ("Like a Prayer") but only "Justify My Love" was banned (although MTV didn't claim they were banning it - they said they were airing it after midnight to make sure young kids didn't see it, then only showed it a few times).
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Re: discussion

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Feb 14th 2003, 2:50 pm

starbug wrote:I think there's a difference between the 5 terrestrial channels that everyone can get, and the cable channels. I don't have cable or sky or anything so I'm not too sure, but from what I've seen while at other people's houses, cable are more relaxed about sex, certainly. I don't think any channel is particularly bothered about violence now; they just show it later.

Having said that, what could be described as 'soft porn' has been shown here on Channel 5, but it is on past 11pm on weekends. There is a great deal of disparity among the Channels.
I totally understand what you're saying here - there is a huge difference between network tv that everyone gets (even if they don't have basic cable) and pay channels on cable. A great example is HBO - one of the reasons that people love Sex and the City and the Sopranos is that they are realistic in their depictions of language and violence. HBO gets away with it because the shows air on a pay channel. Now that both shows are ending, HBO asked the four major networks if they would like to air the Sex and the City (obviously with a lot of bleeping) but so far three have declined. They know they can't get away with showing that kind of stuff without getting familiy rights advocates all riled up, complaining to advertisers, boycotting, etc.

Even among cable channels, there is a difference in what each channel deems appropriate for viewing at what time. At this point, "The Breakfast Club" has been shown on various network and cable channels, but the language is always censored. Each channel decides how they want to dub over the swearing - on a lot of channels the word "forget" is used a lot (as in "forget you Claire!"). "Wench" was used as a substitute for "bitch" years ago but now they don't bother with that.

Funny to think about George Carlin's 7 Words You Can't Say on Television - how much longer before they are aired on prime time network television?
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

censorship

Post by lance » Feb 14th 2003, 6:39 pm

Candygirl,

Yea, I too have noticed how the language censors have slowly relaxed. Remember when damn was not allowed? Darn this and darn that. Now you don't think twice when you hear it on network tv.

Lance Man

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Feb 14th 2003, 6:45 pm

Heck, now they say "asshole" and "dickhead" on NYPD Blue - network tv, did you ever think that day would come?
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
SanDeE*
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Feb 14th 2003, 7:28 pm

America is one hypocritical country. On the one hand, look at the women on TV, in movies, and in the music industry. I can only think of a couple of extremely popular and sucessful female musicians off the top of my head right now that were overweight: Aretha Franklin and Mama Cass Elliot. Janis Joplin was slim, but was hurt by reviewers saying she wasn't pretty. What about her amazing singing? I hate that. Then you see Britney and Christina, a ton of other YOUNG and physically perfect girls in the music industry. And American Idol 1 is a good example too. The girls in the top thirty? All thin and beautiful. At least AI2 is more open to different "looks." It's just SEX SEX SEX all the time, and women are sort of expected to project that in RL, too.

On the other hand, it's taboo to talk about sex or enjoy it or see it on TV. Kids are so embarrassed when their parents bring it up. It took me a year before I had the courage to talk to my mother about getting birth control pills and a diapraghm, and we have always had an open communication about sex and everything else. Then why was I so embarrassed?

Being a woman, there is so much pressure on you to be thinner, be more beautiful, wear makeup (because your bare face isn't pretty enough), wear tight and revealing clothing, and have bigger breasts. Well, maybe the breast thing isn't so important. Models usually have small chests. I have a sizeable chest but I'm slim and often it's hard for me to find a t-shirt or dress that fits. Either the bust is way too small but it fits everywhere else, or the bust fits and it's too big everywhere else. What I'm saying is that there is so much emphasis placed on looking perfect, and it's impossible. It's no wonder so many women have low self-esteem and are needy of compliments from their boyfriends and husbands.

I would let my future children watch sex scenes after they are a certain age. I would talk with them openly about it like my mother has with me. I look at sex as a natural human activity. The violence I'd be less comfortable with them seeing (before a certain age), especially realistic violence, like in 8MM and Fight Club and American History X. They'll see it eventually, but I'd educate them on what's real and why it happens and what it's all about. Violence against another human being is not a natural act. There is violence in Jurassic Park, but it's unrealistic. A t-rex is not going to chase you into a jungle. But there is child molestation and abuse, there are bare-knuckled fist fights and race/hate crimes. The main thing is that people need to know the difference between reality and fantasy. Remember that kid who accidentally killed his younger sister after watching a Power Ranger show? Why didn't the parents talk to this kid about violence?
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.

~~Kristin~~

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Feb 14th 2003, 7:59 pm

Kristin wrote:The main thing is that people need to know the difference between reality and fantasy. Remember that kid who accidentally killed his younger sister after watching a Power Ranger show? Why didn't the parents talk to this kid about violence?
This is another thing that really bugs me - parents need to take responsibility for their actions (or lack thereof), which includes monitoring what their kids watch on tv and talking to them about what is right and wrong. Previous to the Jackass accidents (and I won't go into that too much since a lot of them involve kids who are old enough to know better) and the Power Ranger incident, there was a HUGE issue with Beavis and Butt-head because some five year old set his trailer on fire that killed his two year old sister. His mom claimed he did it because he heard Beavis saying, "FIRE! FIRE!" constantly on the show.

Now first of all, what kind of mother lets her five year old watch Beavis and Butt-head? If she knew it was inappropriate for him to watch (and although I watched the show, I will be the first to say that toddlers shouldn't be watching it), then she should not have let him watch. And what kind of mother leaves a lighter accessible to a five year old? When you have kids, you babyproof the house AND keep an eye on them (two entirely separate issues).

The best part of the story was when the truth came out - the trailer park where they lived wasn't even wired for cable, so the kid had not seen the show. He had set previous fires when he was three years old (before the show aired). AND the night that the fire in question occurred, the mother had left the five year old alone with the two year old - no babysitter, no adult supervision - while she was out on a date. She refused to acknowledge that she bore any responsibility for what happened.

That is the kind of thing that makes me so angry - a mother who insisted on blaming other people for the tragic death of her child. If she had done only one of several possible options (stayed at home, hired a babysitter, put away the lighters), it never would have happened. Instead of admitting that she is the one who put her children's lives in danger by leaving them unsupervised (especially when she knew the older child had a history of starting fires), she pointed her finger at cartoon characters. As a result, MTV removed every instance of Beavis using the word "fire," moved the show to a later time slot, and even insisted that Mike Judge use an animated fire for the yule log in the Christmas episode.

I admit that the media plays a large role in children's lives - the images that they see define their ideas of what is attractive, what is cool, and ultimately play a part in their self esteem. We do have ridiculous notions of what a pop star should look like and sometimes the image is emphasized more than the talent. That said, parents and educators need to take a more active role and talk to kids about what is real, what is correct, what is acceptable instead of turning a blind eye to it until it's too late and they have bulimic daughters and young kids jumping off roofs.
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Feb 14th 2003, 11:00 pm

It's up to parents to broach taboo subjects like sex, drugs, and violence with their children. They need to provide information. They need to help dispel the fears that children have about things. Sure, it's easy to park kids in front of the TV. However, you can't let TV raise your child. You also can't depend on the schools to teach kids what's right and wrong.

I want to have children. I plan on my wife, who hasn't been found yet (but you never know when a good candidate will be discovered), and I being active parts of those children's lives. In many ways, I'm glad that I haven't had any children yet. I've finally started to get my own life under control. Hopefully, we will be able to produce and nurture beautiful and well-informed children. I know that I will try to do my very best. The kids will deserve no less.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests