"LONDON (Reuters) - A British breakfast television show was rapped by standards watchdogs Thursday for a feature on sex toys.
GMTV argued that its piece was a serious examination of sexual problems for its housewife audience and had taken place after 9 a.m. when most children would have left for school, the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) said.
But the BSC said it "took the view that the content was unsuitably explicit and had exceeded acceptable boundaries for the time of broadcast."
It dismissed another complaint about TV illusionist Derren Brown's Russian roulette stunt on Channel 4 in October.
"The Committee noted the significant level of warnings that had been given, the careful treatment of the issues of potential glamorization or copycat incidents, and considered that the program did not promote gun culture, nor make light of suicide," it said."
Why is sex so bad? If you don't want to watch it, don't. If you don't want your kids to watch it, don't let them. All this controversy over sex completely diminishes the value in it. Sex is a natural thing, I don't see what's so offensive about it. There are commercials about diarrhea, constipation, yeast infection, etc.- all things common but personal. How is sex any different? Why is talking about sex so stigmatized? I'm not advocating any sort of casual uniformity directed at sex. Though sex is a very natural thing, it shouldn't be made completely casual. Constant commonplace discussion of sex would take away from the romance, just as condoms and contraceptive pills and other devices aimed at controlling sex take away from the passion (I'm not saying these things are bad, just that they lessen the romance of sex).
[i]"This constant battle with the reproductive process, a war in which her only allies were pharmaceutical robots, alien agents whose artificial assistance seemed more treacherous than trustworthy, was gnawing with plastic teeth at her very concepts of love. Was it entirely paranoid to suspect that all those stoppers, thingamajigs, and substances devised to prevent conception were intended not to liberate womankind from the biological and social penalties imposed on her natural passions but, rather, at the insidious design of capitalistic puritans, were supposed to technologize sex, to dilute its dark juices, to contain its wilder fires, to censor its sweet nastiness, to scrub it clean (clean as a laboratory autoclave, clean as a hospital bed), to order it uniform, to render it safe; to eliminate the risk of uncontrollable feelings, illogical commitments, and deep involvements (substituting for those risks the less mysterious, tamer risks of infection, hemorrhage, cancer, and hormone imbalance); yes, to make sexual love so secure and same and sanitary, so slick and frolicsome, so[/i] casual [i]that it is not a manifestation of love at all, but a near anonymous, near autonomous, hedonistic scratching of a bunny itch, an itch far removed from any direct relation to the feverish enigmas of Life and Death, and a scratching programmed so that it would in no way interfere with the real purpose of human beings in a capitalistic, puritanical society, which is to produce goods and consume them?"[/i] -from [u]Still Life With Woodpecker[/u]
posted by: mOi (reply)
post date: 12.05.03 (1:36 pm)
hi...
u see u were right bout sex is natural and everythin.im a muslim (just to let u no)
sex is supposed to be private and come on watchin naked people?!!!
its like searchin fr porn or somethin:S
....
posted by: mOi (reply)
post date: 12.05.03 (1:37 pm)
hi...
u see u were right bout sex is natural and everythin.im a muslim (just to let u no)
sex is supposed to be private and come on watchin naked people?!!!
its like searchin fr porn or somethin:S
....
Reply to: mOi
Who said anything about watching naked people?
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
