Victoria's Secret Pagent Nixed From TV

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
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.




posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I dont 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=-



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
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?



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Qoute: "Well, I find it demeaning and degrading."

Then don't watch it. But don't project what you "find" demeaning on others.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
"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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
"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?



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
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?



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
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]



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


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.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Sorry I missed it was on CBS, and it was in plain sight. I never got 20 stations of tv lol.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
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.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join