More Disturbing...

[achilleus]

Sports Illustrated Article

I mean isn't it possible, that people just got upset at the strong sexual overtones? Especially, when a father sits down with his young son to watch football, and having to watch something clearly meant for adults.

They did this with the SuperBowl halftime show, saying that the real issue was race. A white man ripping off a black woman's clothing.

Maybe it's just the sex aspect. Just maybe the conservative part of the country really doesn't like seeing that...

Just maybe...

[darius]

Just maybe the conservative part of the country really doesn't like seeing that...

...but their kids can play video games like Madden, where your simulated versions of real-life players celebrate and stomp on their fallen opponents? What about the nearly-naked cheerleaders who are shown right before and after every commercial break?

There was nothing on that spot that hasn't been shown on prime-time television before. The NFL is *entertainment*, and tittilation has long been seen as a surefire path towards entertainment value. If you don't like it, don't watch, and don't let your kids watch...heck, take your kid outside with a football and play catch -- better use of your time anyway.

I wish we could go back in time and try the same spot with Peyton Manning, just to see if the outcry would have been different.

darius

[achilleus]

...but their kids can play video games like Madden, where your simulated versions of real-life players celebrate and stomp on their fallen opponents? What about the nearly-naked cheerleaders who are shown right before and after every commercial break?

There was nothing on that spot that hasn't been shown on prime-time television before. The NFL is *entertainment*, and tittilation has long been seen as a surefire path towards entertainment value. If you don't like it, don't watch, and don't let your kids watch...heck, take your kid outside with a football and play catch -- better use of your time anyway.

I wish we could go back in time and try the same spot with Peyton Manning, just to see if the outcry would have been different.

darius

Well, sometime ago I posted about how ridiculous it is that violence is OK, but nudity and sex are taboo in the US. Especially in movies, TV, etc..

I just find it ridiculous that some people want this to be racial. Personally, I think it's about conservative people and their families not wanting to see sex. Simple.

And yeah, it would be an interesting test. Maybe they should make another commercial same concept, different people, and see what happens to test out the theory.

[ls14evar]

I think if you were seriously offended by that commercial, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "Why am I such a anal retentive, pussy, little *****?"

[lochinvar]

The link is down. What was it?

[Gav]

Yeah, what's all the fuss about?

[Rogue]

I think the fuss is that when one tunes in to watch Football, they assume that it is safe from sexual innuendo or images. I realize there are cheerleaders but they aren’t propositioning people for sex.
I plan on monitoring my children’s TV viewing utilizing the rating system. How can I monitor it, if the networks place sexual seduction on a sports show? Where will they place sex next, cartoons?
I saw the ad and for and older teen and adult it was very innocuous but for children it only exposes them to promiscuous sex that much earlier.

[Gav]

I've always found the American viewing publics attiude to sex somewhath perplexing. It's very very bad to show a nipple (hardly sexual in the context of Ms Jackson) yet its ok to show people being blown up, shot, beaten verbally abused etc ( a la news stories, cop shows etc).

Rogue, from my point of view I wouldn't rely on the ratings systems that the channels are using. It's a matter of opinion what is offensive and you are handing over responsibility for this to the networks whose, lets face it, attitude will probably differ from yours.

PS [not aimed at Rogue] what is wrong with looking at the female form?

[Gav]

I'd really like to know what was in this ad that was so ... prevocative.

[noodle]

I've always found the American viewing publics attiude to sex somewhath perplexing. It's very very bad to show a nipple (hardly sexual in the context of Ms Jackson) yet its ok to show people being blown up, shot, beaten verbally abused etc ( a la news stories, cop shows etc).

woah now, i don't recall people being blown up or shot durring sex

i believe the controversy in question, since the link is dead, is the one over the commercial shown on monday night football on ABC. you can go watch it here on ifilm. watch it and form your own opinion. just know that there are a lot of people trying to get the FCC to fine ABC for it. (the commercial might be not safe for work if you work somewhere full of hypersensetive idiots)

but i might be going on about something that is totally irrelavent; if so, i apologise for the threadjacking.

[DJ Apostrophe]

For Gav (and anyone else who is non us-ian):

Basically Terrell Owens (Wide Reciever for Philadelphia Eagles) is sitting in the locker room. Enter Nicolette Sheridan (actress in ABC's new drama "Desperate Housewives" ABC also broadcasts monday night football), fresh from a shower... and tries to convince T.O. to miss the game for her, 'play a game with me instead,' or some such nonesense. and then drops the towel (which was shot from the back and completly above the waist) and jumps into his arms, and he says 'i guess i can be late' (or something similar).

It was all an ABC ratings ploy, they knew what they were doing when they did it, and I'm quite sure their desperate housewives show will have ratings off the chart next sunday night when it runs.

Some reactions to this add:
FCC "dissapointed" in ABC for showing it
Tony Dungy (Head coach of the Indianapolis Colts) thought it was "Racially offensive" (He is black, as is Terrell Owens)
Lovie Smith (Head coach of the Chicago Bears) found it "pornographic"

me: I don't care and think its all overblown, and that the ABC execs are sitting in their offices cackling and loving how much they are charging for a 30-second spot on the next desperate housewives.

if you need/want more details, just ask.

-w

[Gav]

i'll watch the ad from home - I am in a managerially sensitive PC viewing position ...

By the sounds of this - what is the fuss? I've seen far worse on other adverts.

I'll post a proper comment once I've seen the offending advert. it sounds dispointing from the contrived "oh dear oh dear" aspect.

[esskreemr]

Yeah, what's all the fuss about?

The term I heard was "implied nudity", WTF?!


Synopsis: A player is in the locker room, a woman disrobes (they show her back from the waist up). No contact from what I know.


I think it's because a bunch of uptight, fat, conservatives find skinny bodies offensive.

[achilleus]

By the sounds of this - what is the fuss? I've seen far worse on other adverts.

I'll post a proper comment once I've seen the offending advert. it sounds dispointing from the contrived "oh dear oh dear" aspect.

It's rather lame to be offended by such a thing, but what really gets me is people turning this into race.

Sure, racism exists, but given the 'moral value' votes, and the way the US has been going, it just seems that we have a bunch of uptight conservatives.

[Inquartata]

Certain people are simply obsessed with race, and they see racism everywhere, even where it isn't. Seems as though maybe the writer is one of them. Everyone to whom I've talked about the ad---well, those who took exception to it---were either upset at the sexual content or vexed that it was trying to push a soap opera during football. Not one mentioned race...

[mrbiggs]

I don't think that this ad is a good example, but some of the ads on TV are just plain ridiculous.

Anyone else watch the world series? With a commercial for Viagra, or Levitra, or something almost every inning? And crappy innuendo that a smart 5-year-old could see through. I understand that advertisements need to be allowed, but why during the World Series? There are ALOT of families watching the World Series, and it's not fair to them to have to sit through that crap with their kids.

My two cents.

[Rogue]

Rogue, from my point of view I wouldn't rely on the ratings systems that the channels are using. It's a matter of opinion what is offensive and you are handing over responsibility for this to the networks whose, lets face it, attitude will probably differ from yours.

PS [not aimed at Rogue] what is wrong with looking at the female form?

True, one shouldn't rely on someone else's judgment especially when it comes to your children. My intention is not to solely rely on the ratings system, but use it as one part of a parental TV supervisory system.

The female form, I love it. I think the concern is when the female form, or sexuality in general, is the main idea promoted on the broadcast, commercials, sports programs...
While sexuality is important/fun, it, IMO, should not be the focus of ones existence and be interjected into every situation.

[Rogue]

I think it's because a bunch of uptight, fat, conservatives find skinny bodies offensive.

Very insightful.

[The0ne]

a more important discussion. . . whoever that woman is, she's quite good looking!!!

[morael]

For all the talk about "family values" there is absolutely no interest in this culture in protecting children's minds or bodies. It's as if we're actually taking aim at them; well, I guess we are, when you look at all the garbage we sell through and to kids. Our children live in a harsh, exploitative world; if their parents don't take care of what they see and do, no one else gives a damn.

Think of the way that children learn: everything is just poured into their minds. They sense innuendo and what's going on with the adults around them, but they don't have the experience and maturity to judge which is good and which is bad. They can't "say no" to what is coming at them. They eat up what is fed to them by people they trust (their parents, in front of the TV).

Americans don't seem to get the vast difference between nudity and sexual exploitation. A family can have a wholesome time on a beach nude or mostly nude. The scantily clad cheerleaders are no different from scantily clad circus performers, a cheerful (pun intended) part of the scenery. Their sex appeal is there only for those who have the inclination to enjoy it.

The commercial is different, though. If a child sees a woman blatantly offering herself up for a man's pleasure, in a locker room, yet, what is the message she or he learns? It makes no difference whether there's actual contact, whether she's clothed or unclothed, back shown or front shown, the beauty of "the female form" has nothing to do with it. It's the scenario that's the problem, and the placement of the ad (during the game).

For the record, I'm not a fat conservative; I'm a fit liberal (who is irritated that protecting children is taken to be a "conservative" trait). Maybe the innocence of the innocents is a lost cause, but I sympathize with parents who feel ambushed by adult advertising on what is supposed to be family TV.

Okay, I've made my annual trip to the water cooler. Next time, maybe I should just say: Don't get me started!