South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 22, 2019, 14:20:23 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Boobies on TV

 (Read 4999 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3122



« on: May 11, 2011, 11:45:12 AM »

So I hear another Religious fervour is being whipped up about E-tv deciding to air the "Naked news", featuring (afaik completely) naked women reading the news. I would assume they only air this very late at night.

I would like to think I'm objective about this since I don't "have" any kind of broadcast TV at my house, so I couldn't care less either way...

Now, I get all upset when Christians whip up a stink about something like this based on them "being christian", and trying to impose their view on the rest of the country.... Some dude last night on 5fm I think, was saying sure, so a Christian organisation with about 5million members objects to this and demands it ceases. But then what about the other (thumbsuck)40 million people of the country? Should they just abide by the rules of a single group? Of course not. They claim it demeans women, which I think they're simply using as a "sounds pretty secular" argument to hide the real religious/puritanical motive.

However I like to think about stuff like this from 2 angles so... Is there a case to stop this on other grounds? Forget for a moment that there's been outright porn on E for years.... Is it a good idea to leave something like this on un-blockable public TV where your kids can view it? What if your kids had a TV in their room? What if you went out for an evening, and they're not toddlers, so you leave them alone? Do you care? Do you mind if someone else cares?

The DSTV thing that played out recently just made NO sense because people had to special order the channel and decoders can easily block it for minors. But in this case, is there a case?
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2011, 12:05:57 PM »

You would have to persuade me that there is something inherently immoral about exposing parts of the human anatomy for me to sympathise with any argument for banning this.  I'm sure the bible brigade will be able to point to some chapter and verse that will say showing boobies is anathema to the lord and a sure road to hell etc., but in a multicultural society no one culture has the right, without good, demonstrable reasons, to impose their taboos on anyone else.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2011, 12:12:34 PM »

having been brought up in a very xtian house, i never even received the birds-and-bees talk from my folks.  'sheltered childhood' is an understatement.
in my mind, bring on the porn.  at least, the etv porn, is very mild, and, in general, quite lovey and kissy-kissy.  a lot of love going on.  i wish i had been exposed to that kind of stuff when i was a youngster, would have opened my eyes to shit i had to learn the hard way when i left the nest.
and, really now, with access to the interwebs on fones, any kid with half a brain, has checked on downloaded pron.  and the kind that demeams women right proper.
yes, the women on the naked news, is well, nekkid.  so what of it?  it's late at night,  what is your kid doing up that night?  if you are an attentive parent, they would be in bed.  which brings me to a point:  parents are too lazy too give attention to their offspring, and schmear them off on the tele, computer and xbox, then cant understand when they find an immense stash of pron on there.  or give them R500, and drop them off at the mall.  I blame parents.  I really, really do.  If you spend time with your kid, and so stuff right, then they will still look at pron,  but will know the rights and wrongs, and be able to discern between pron, and actual, consentual. loving sex.  legions of kids venture into the world, expecting their girlfriends to drop knickers at a thought, and be ready to spread 'em.  because the pron on the interwebs shows, that is how women are.  and then they blame their girlfriends, and call them 'frigid', because they are not tearing up the bedsheets at the boyfriend's complete ineptness.  and so on and so forth.
for the xtians to be up in a frenzy.  bitch please!  i'm not sure on this, but there are a fair amount of doctrine that they dont follow, as in dudes not shaving or cutting their hair, not mixing fabrics, blah blah blah.  and yet!  a nekkid woman.  omfg!  
they are not in an uproar when it cleavage day,  or miss sa where the boobies are all over.  they dont freak out when they show tv programs where teenagers have sexual inuendo and seduce guys at random.  even their beloved soapies have people hopping from bed to bed.
IMHO, boobies are awesome.  i have no issue with a nice pair of tits on the tele.  within context, ofcourse.  and at the correct time.  after 11pm, and it's fair game. deal with it.
i find nakedness beautifull and liberating.  the more nakedness there is, the less inhibitions and self-esteem issues people will have.  you cant hide behind your iphone and versace when you are starkers.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2114



« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2011, 13:25:36 PM »

Well, personally, I find the whole concept tacky, but then, if I find it tacky, I wouldnt bother paying attention to it and therefore I wouldnt be watching it, not even once out of curiosity.

If you get off listening to the current affairs bulletin whilst ogling some chick with boobies, well, I'm pleased you're at home doing this then, and if you happen to be married, the wife might be pleased about it as well.

As for the kiddies, well, if they're up and about at 10pm or whatever "late night" means, then you're probably not doing the job quite as well as expected and if you feel you are, then you'll most likely have some way to explain to them what they're witnessing. 

Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2011, 16:25:19 PM »

You would have to persuade me that there is something inherently immoral about exposing parts of the human anatomy for me to sympathise with any argument for banning this.
I agree.  If children can see naked statues and paintings, why should they be barred from seeing nudity in electronic format?
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2011, 16:36:25 PM »

people make such a fuss about nakedness, that kids think there is something wrong with their bodies, that it shouldnt be shown.
in afrikaans some people call it 'die verkeerde plek'.  WTF!!  it's the 'nether regions', 'down there'.  i have yet to see a parent telling their kids that their genitals is beautifull and something to be proud of.
when lighties have a hard-on, they get lambasted.  when little girls discover they have a vagina, they get a hiding when they want to explore it. i mean, really!
sexuality and sexual identity seems to be such a terrible thing.  mind-sets like that makes the porn markets boom, and kids look for crap in the internet on the sly, instead of dad giving his kids stuff to look at, because they are educated and enlightened.
instead of mommy and daddy having sex on the sly, talk openly that mommy and daddy loves each other.  makes a helluva difference in a kid's mind.  if your parents never talk about sex, then it must be something so wrong and evil!
pish!
where the schools give kids the nitty gritty of anatomically correctness, parents should teach their kids that sex is natural, that their bodies are beautifull and perfectly ok.
then nakedness wouldn't be such a huge hoo-hah when some schmuck wants to put it on tele.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3122



« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2011, 17:52:48 PM »

On any other day I would agree with the above. But I'm feeling a bit contrary today, so I'm playing devil's advocate.

As one group has no right to impose it's restrictions on another. Is it not then true that no one group has the right to impose it's lack of restrictions on another?
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3122



« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2011, 18:05:14 PM »

Prof Amanda Gouws of the department of political science at the University of Stellenbosch has said that news is serious business.

"Constant exposure to nudity lead to men viewing and treating women as mere sexual objects," says Gouws.


I'd like to see the facts supporting that though....  WTF!!
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2011, 18:37:53 PM »

ehm... no.  i would imagine, at first, dudes would be horny as hell, then the nudity would get old.  just like cleavage would have sent a victorian man into a frenzy (or an ankle), but now, it's like, meh, cleavage, whatever.
i daresay, that sheer clothes will become fashion at some point.  then nudity, or mininal coverings will be normal.  in nudist camps, it's considered rather rude to walk around with a stiffy.  you are there to enjoy being naked, not to ogle. you are allso not allowed to have sex in the open where others can see you. 
i wonder, these parents, they get in a huffy because there are boobies on e-tv.  late night mind you.  how about all the shows on national geographic where men and women alike cruize around starkers, with penis lifted away from the scrotum so that balls are nicely on display?  and shots of same native climing a ladder, and you have a very nice upskirt shot.
it's bollocks.
literally.
they are upset, because these women on e-tv are beautifull.  fuckable.  and then their own flaws in their sex-lives (and own bodies) are exposed.  their wives don't look like that.  and the wives are pissed off, coz they can see the men drooling, and she is too lazy to get her fat ass off the couch for long enough to get out of the tracksuit and have her hair did.
it boils down, IMHO, to jealousy, and plain old hypocracy.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3756


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2011, 18:41:50 PM »

“Imposing a lack of restrictions” is self-contradictory.

'Luthon64
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2011, 19:16:01 PM »

I don't care at all if people want their news reported in the flesh, as it were, but the whole concept is rather bizarre to me. "Check this clip of the taxi full of schoolkids after it pranged the bus head-on. Look at the body parts strewn across the tar. Have you ever seen so much blood? BTW how do you like this new tattoo on my pert little arse?"

 Huh?
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2011, 06:44:23 AM »

On any other day I would agree with the above. But I'm feeling a bit contrary today, so I'm playing devil's advocate.

As one group has no right to impose it's restrictions on another. Is it not then true that no one group has the right to impose it's lack of restrictions on another?
No, but no one is forcing you to watch it if you find it offensive.  You still have choice.  The banners want to remove your choice by forbidding everyone from seeing it.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2114



« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2011, 07:21:38 AM »

Prof Amanda Gouws of the department of political science at the University of Stellenbosch has said that news is serious business.

"Constant exposure to nudity lead to men viewing and treating women as mere sexual objects," says Gouws.


I'd like to see the facts supporting that though....  WTF!!


Yar, and on the headlines of the Beeld today:

"LERAAR: HULLE IS ONS GELYKE"

http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Jesus-nie-man-is-hoof-van-huis-20110511

So who is objectifying women - boobies on tv or the religious conservative?

Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3122



« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2011, 09:47:46 AM »

You guys just won't let me argue the opposing side badly. I guess I just don't believe in that argument enough... But I WAS hoping to hear a better argument for the other side from someone else, oh well.

Me, I'm of the opinion people should be able to walk around naked on the street if they wish. Maybe not an entirely good idea for those who look bad enough wearing ski-pants (usually those who are the last people that should).

And to maybe engage in a bit of TMI, but I would love to watch the news being read by nekked chicks. I mean just think about it, it's the ultimate in time optimisation! You can roll two evening activities into one! Hopefully freeing up some more time to do the dishes! (Hopefully after washing your hands.   Evil )

Sinodegangers het ’n video gekyk waarin ’n sielkundige wat in Kaapse voorstede soos Durbanville en Welgemoed werk, vertel hoe fisieke en emosionele geweld teen vroue in sessie ná sessie met haar kliënte ter sprake kom.

Hulle is byna almal lidmate van die NG Kerk en baie van die mans speel leiersrolle in hul gemeentes, het sy gesê.


Isn't it interesting how those who are usually first to object to something, are almost certainly guilty of it? It exposes the religious schpiel as based almost entirely on that concept....
"I would not be able to stop myself if God wasn't watching me, and there weren't strict rules, (even though that doesn't seem to work but....) therefore you can't either."

It makes perfect sense, these blokes have seen their wives naked thousands of times and ended up abusing them. I mean surely correlation is causation in this case!

ps. I'm never sarcastic.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2114



« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2011, 10:43:01 AM »

ps. I'm never sarcastic.

Noted.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.81 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 16, 2019, 22:43:20 PM
Privacy Policy