XPost: alt.fan.britney-spears, alt.fan.madonna, alt.music.gangsta.rap   
   XPost: alt.music.weird-al, alt.politics, rec.music.country.western   
   XPost: soc.culture.jewish   
   From: neal413@spamrcn.com   
      
   On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:51:31 -0500, Jonathan h   
    wrote:   
      
   > it is pretty stupid that while there is nothing wrong with building up   
   > ideals in our children that they have to pick a side and solve problems   
   > with   
   > violence,   
   > it's horrible if they see a completely natural thing like a nude body.   
   > And   
   > violent tv shows (which i do like) can show squibs, stabbings, hell, CSI   
   > goes inside people's wounds.  and sometimes you see nude dead bodies.   
   > but   
   > it's okay then.  It's not sexy, it's violent.  and violence is better   
   > then   
   > love, right?   
      
   That's fine if we're talking about a piece of entertainment where parents   
   are warned and aware. I fully agree, I'd sooner give permission for a kid   
   to see tit than a gunshot.   
      
   But that's not the context, is it? It's the context of an unannounced   
   exposure which at least circumstantially appears planned, with no advance   
   warning. By your logic, if Justin chopped off Janet's head (again, with no   
   prior warning to the audience) that would have caused less of an uproar,   
   and I simply don't agree. I think such an action, even if Penn-and-Teller   
   fake, would have produced much more of an outcry, providing it was as   
   explicit as the dangling boobie we were treated to.   
      
   I think the major problem most people have isn't the titty on TV, it was   
   the unannounced titty on TV. I think Americans would be fine with the   
   broadcast of a lot more so long as they are aware and can choose to keep   
   their kids away from it if desired.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)