 |
|
Topic started on 12-4-2004 @ 12:52 PM by JediMaster
|
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Victoria's Secret is dropping its nationally televised fashion show this year, at least partly because of criticism following Janet
Jackson's breast-baring faux pas at the Super Bowl.
Article
This whole country is being turned into a nanny state. Some goverment worker should not decide for me or the rest of the country what is appropiate
for us to watch. FFC seems more like a thought control police force than what they want to be seen as.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:08 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
Sorry.
I don't see this as censorship. I see it as a positive step for the image of women.
I am not a feminist, nor have I ever been. But, I am sick and tired or women being portrayed as victims, objects, brainless boobies or femme fatales.
The JJ breast incident was appalling because of the pseudo-violence, not because of the breast. Misogyny is alive and well, thanks to the media.
Olga Vives, vice president of the National Organization for Women (search), praised the cancellation, saying the show only objectifies women.
"We're concerned young women think they have to look this way," Vives said, adding she hoped the cancelation is permanent.
"There are many other ways to promote their product."
The fashion show, which aired in November the last two years, was televised on ABC in 2001. The first show was broadcast online in 1999; 1.5 million
visitors tried to log on at once, bringing the site down within 20 minutes.
Victoria's Secret has $4 billion in annual sales.

|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:14 PM by JediMaster
|
What about those beauty make-over shows that show that women must be beautiful in order to acheive succsess in our society? Whats your thought on
that?
The show is ment to show off the lingerie for women. Its not offensive, theres no nudity. Its just like being at the beach, seeing semi-naked
women.
Personaly I don't enjoy seeing white men portrayed as killers, and opressors of blacks and see I alot of that on tv shows, news programs and other
stuff. Buts that s allowed.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:16 PM by subscorpion
|
I don’t necessarily mind that the victorias secret fashion show will not be on. But what I do mind is how strict the government has become lately.
Whatever happend to freedom of speech. I do believe that we are entitled to show/say whatever we want. Perhaps just a quick warning during the
beginning of a show or program. The bush party in my own opinion is doing a religious cleansing on the nation. I have done what is in my power to
complain, and to tell the government I want changes. I have written letters to congressmen and even Bush himself. I have yet to receive any sort of
indication that they even read what I had to say. We need to remember that it is we the people that gave the government the power to say what we can
and cant watch, we need to remember that although it seems useless to complain, that if the majority of the people voice their opinion that there will
be changes.
-=Subscorpion=-
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:17 PM by intrepid
|
Quote: "Sorry.
I don't see this as censorship. I see it as a positive step for the image of women.
I am not a feminist, nor have I ever been. But, I am sick and tired or women being portrayed as victims, objects, brainless boobies or femme fatales.
The JJ breast incident was appalling because of the pseudo-violence, not because of the breast. Misogyny is alive and well, thanks to the media."
This is censorship. The gov't once again telling us what we can watch. I am sick and tired of people saying that if a woman is portrayed as "sexy"
she is a victim of some sort. Take a look at these models, they look confident and sure. I don't see victims here. As for JJ, the only victims there
are those that respect the Superbowl for what it is and was tarnished by a self-serving Bitch that wanted maximum coverage, excuse the pun.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:22 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
Well, I find it demeaning and degrading. And totally unnecessary. If you notice VS sales, you can see they are not hurting in the sales dept.
If it were not sexist, then the men should bare almost all and show off their underwear, but that wouldn't well, I suppose.
Do you even see that the whole Janet Jackson thing at the Superbowl was pseudo-violent?? As are many of the "popular" song and videos out today.
_____________
 Personaly I don't enjoy seeing white men portrayed as killers, and opressors of blacks and see I alot of that on tv shows, news programs and
other stuff. Buts that s allowed.

What has one thing to do with another?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:24 PM by intrepid
|
Qoute: "Well, I find it demeaning and degrading."
Then don't watch it. But don't project what you "find" demeaning on others.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:29 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
 You won't be watching it, either, ya know.
The day they treat women and men equally as sex objects is the day I will say it isn't degrading and demeaning toward women.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:38 PM by intrepid
|
"You won't be watching it, either, ya know.
The day they treat women and men equally as sex objects is the day I will say it isn't degrading and demeaning toward women."
Childish, just childish. I wouldn't be watching it anyway but I wouldn't want it taken off just because it isn't my thing. What world are you
living in? Look at the tabliods, fashion tv, men are portrayed in this manner.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 01:55 PM by SpittinCobra
|
Really who is being protected by this? Kids? If parents would do there jobs and be parents, would we havethis problem. Adults? Cant we decide for
our selves, what we want to see. I am a firm believer of if you dont like it, dont do it, watch it, live there. what ever.
Why do we need people to say what we can see or do.
If "they" the people of power would spend more time o the more pressing issues... and stop tring to fill there pockets, who knows what would
happen.
People arnt happy unless the are complaining about something. Most of the people that complain, are mad secretly, because they cant do or have what
someone else is doing.
Women rights? shouldnt they have to right to use there body to make money? Thats what its all about any way.
Just more control, O well. have a nice day.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:03 PM by intrepid
|
"People arnt happy unless the are complaining about something. Most of the people that complain, are mad secretly, because they cant do or have what
someone else is doing."
Well said Cobra.
They just passed a non-smoking bylaw in our town so that establishments have no say in whether they can be smoking or not. I was in a coffee shop
yesterday at lunch time and there was nobody in there. After supper, 2 people. This place used to be busy. They are not happy that they can't run
their shops the way they want. I asked them why it was like this, I was told that non-smokers complained that they couldn't go in without breathing
smoke. Well, they aren't going in anyway. Why should an owner lose his business just because a non-smoker MIGHT want to go in there?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:06 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
In a more perfect world, seeing whatever on TV would be fine. I don't really think it is a women's rights thing. It is the issue of how women
are portrayed. YOung girls are growing up thinking it is okay to be the victime of violence and that it is okay be an object.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:11 PM by intrepid
|
Maybe children should be raised like in the past, to be ashamed of their bodies, sex is dirty, that type of thing? Is that what you want?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:16 PM by SpittinCobra
|
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
It is the issue of how women are portrayed. YOung girls are growing up thinking it is okay to be the victime of violence and that it is okay be an
object. 
I will never understand why women chose to stay in a relationship that is abusive. It has been going on for at least 27 years. Im 27 and it always
been around me, but yet I have never had the urge to hit a female. I dont know if it comes from females being on tv nude or scantly clad. Its been
around alot longer.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:19 PM by worldwatcher
|
whatever was the point of the victoria secret fashion show anyway? Pretty but unrealistic women flashing their stuff, why do you guys torture yourself
with an images of women who are near to impossible for the majority of you to get anyways?
I have never relied on a fashion show to determine the style of undergarments I will be wearing. That show was made men, with no thought to the
majority of victoria secret's customers who are women.
They have other options, they really don't need to showing that stuff on tv. Same for all the feminine hygiene and sex pills like viagra...Why the
hell should that stuff be on t.v any ways. I have no problems with pages of a full fashion layout in a magazine, or ads in the doctor office. Really
that is the only place your sex problem should be discussed for the pill viagra to come up.
No one is saying don't support it, use it, or wear it, just that there are more appropriate methods of advertisement for certain things than it
having to be on regular t.v.
put it on pay per view and all you guys who want it, go and pay for it.
[Edited on 4-12-2004 by worldwatcher]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:25 PM by SpittinCobra
|
Originally posted by worldwatcher
advertisement for certain things than it having to be on regular t.v.
[Edited on 4-12-2004 by worldwatcher] 
The only way "free" Tv, is "Free", is with advertisment. And I do Pay per view, Unless you steal cable, you pay for it. So if they are going to
regulate some channels, make it the 4 or 5 that Are "free", that is paid for by advertisment.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:28 PM by intrepid
|
But don't you see WW, this is just another situation where someone gets upset that THEY don't like something, so gov't has to step in and remove it
for them. Why can VS pay to use whatever medium they like for their advertizing, and this IS advertizing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:30 PM by worldwatcher
|
Isn't that what they are doing? Victoria Secret is usually shown on CBS. I thought CBS was one of those channels....when I speak of t.v, I should
make it clear, that I mean the 20 or so channels you get with basic cable or antenna, not the stuff you have to pay extra for...HBO could carry it for
all I care, but not the regulars like ABC,CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, or UPN.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:32 PM by SpittinCobra
|
Sorry I missed it was on CBS, and it was in plain sight. I never got 20 stations of tv lol.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-4-2004 @ 02:36 PM by worldwatcher
|
wait a minute...did you guys forget that it is Victoria Secret is the one choosing to pull the show???? Have you ever watched the show, the likely
hood of a nipple slipping free is increased by like 100% percent on the show. Victoria Secret is doing the right thing.
I'm sure you'll still be able to view it somewhere else, probably the internet. The show will still happen, they are just taking the initiative to
not risk a FCC or lawsuit issue.
some of the stuff shown on regular tv is comparable to soft porn, yet you will still find a soft porn channel available for pay per view or on a
premium service. I don't think the FCC is controlling every channel, just the major ones....there's a time and a place for everything, in life, on
tv, every situation, certain things are just not appropriate in certain places...that's life, that's society, deal with it. No one is stopping it,
just setting natural boundaries, that have been spread out too far.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |