It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opens a difficult question: "Ay, Caramba! Marge Simpson Gets Nude for Playboy"

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Imagine that!

Ay, Caramba! Marge Simpson Gets Nude for Playboy

In the above article it is 'announced' that the cartoon character Marge Simpson will be drawn in the nude for the cover of Playboy magazine next month.

Now, don't get me wrong, there's a lot about the fictional Marge Simpson that I could say is admirable (anyone who can love Homer enough to forgive his idiocy must have a heart of gold). So I confess, to me she's a keeper (in a cartoon world.)

But I can't imagine what this means as we continually blur the line between 'real' pornography - the exploitation of a person for another persons base enjoyment - and 'virtual' pornography.

The intent of this OP is not really about pornography except to question whether we have a real definition that applies to reality.

Recently a supreme court case ruled on free-speech in regards to a man who had been selling videos of dog fighting. Repulsive as that is to most in our American culture (such as it is), it is not to other cultures (such as they are).

But in real sense, the state argues that it should be considered legally as one would treat pornography. The question was never asked (that I know of), what if this had been animated dog fighting - complete with howls of pain and gore? Would it still be considered morally offensive?

Since Marge Simpson is not real, is this considered real pornography?

Just thought some might like to share their opinion on this sort of thing....


Edit to add: I thought some might remember this case from some times ago from our cousins in Australia:

Cartoon porn kids are people, judge says in Simpsons porn case



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Maxmars]




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I find it hysterical. I know my Homer will pick up a copy. He’s a big Simpson’s fan. Me, not so much.

It's all in fun. No worries.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Not good at all... Many kids watch the Simpsons and, if this is true, will find out about it. This is just another way the porn industry is "normalising" pornography and sexualising our kids for their own future financial gains



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
It's a cartoon. It's Playboy. It's a cartoon in Playboy.

Don't make it into something it isn't.

And, on the porn note......we need to finally grasp that this country cannot legislate morality and we should not define morality for the masses. If it bothers you, don't buy it, listen to it, or watch it.

It is as simple as that.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Well, since Marge is allegedly 38-40 on the show, this ain't child porn or nothing of that repulsive ilk. So, everyone calm down! Frankly, I think Marge is rather hot! Sexy Blue haired MILF that she is!

People need to get a sense of humor.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Like those pin-up drawings of decades past. There isnt anything 'off' about this.

All I saw was the cover. Maybe inside the mag she's drawn all lewd. Still, it's not especially sinister. Just sort of stupid.

Now, if some dude out there is actually getting off on this that's pretty messed up.

If you're concerned about the 'sexualization' of children there are a number of other sources that are specifically marketed towards children your time would be better spent scrutinizing. A provocatively posed Marge Simpson is the least of worries regarding this phenomenon. Besides, have you missed all the episodes where Marge is in her lingerie attempting to seduce Homer away from beer and or food? Happens pretty regularly and is far more 'vulgar' than a drawing of her on a chair.

One Saturday I was flipping and caught this cartoon called 'Winx.' Man, you want to see sexualization of children check out a bunch of glittery faeries with whore make-up and stripper clothes rolling around on each other for 30 minutes. I kept waiting for the tentacles to come out if you catch my Japanese drift.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
She isnt nude on the cover - its a Christine Keeler type pose. That was also used as the bill poster for the film Scadal in the 80s so I dont think its that offensive!

Besides Jessica Rabbit was wayy sexier!



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
Not good at all... Many kids watch the Simpsons and, if this is true, will find out about it. This is just another way the porn industry is "normalising" pornography and sexualising our kids for their own future financial gains


Too right, just aimed at kids.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
They should have went with Lois Griffin instead, haha!!



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by coldsummer32
 


Or Meg Griffin...



...Or not



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The difficult question being 'would you have a wank over marge simpson?"

and the quite easy to arrive at answer being "No. I would not."



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Playboy has had a Long tradition of showing american Icons, Marge is one of them. It's a tribute like they have done for bond girls and others. It's not to "sexualize" children, and if you let your children watch this show, shame on YOU.

(



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
In a world where reality has been warped into fantasy, in a time where idolizing others because one's own existence has become so painfully pathetic, a world where cartoons are made for adults.... This makes perfect sense.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
It's a cartoon. It's Playboy. It's a cartoon in Playboy.

Don't make it into something it isn't.

And, on the porn note......we need to finally grasp that this country cannot legislate morality and we should not define morality for the masses. If it bothers you, don't buy it, listen to it, or watch it.

It is as simple as that.


Absolutely this!

People are all too quick these days to make demands on everyone else, when it has no bearing on their existence at all.

As for the poster suggesting this changes things for children, the fact remains that if it's in an adult media, it is the parents responsibility to be a parent to their child. It's not acceptable to start demanding that society changes and restricts everything because a parent can't be bothered to maintain responsible parenting of their child.

Playboy have their brand on everything these days, and a person has every right to object to it as a parent to your own child, but that does not include restricting and controlling the very simple existence of things for the enjoyment and humour of others.

Personally, I object morally to the idea of stationery for kids with the Playboy brand on (something I have seen reported and discussed at length before), but it would be my responsibility to prevent my child gaining access to it, or educating them on it properly. It is not my job to make demands on the rest of society when it has no affect on how I raise my child.

The same should apply to all media, culture, art etc.
If a person doesn't like something, they don't have to view it, but they can't also demand that it shouldn't exist because it doesn't suit their moral world view!

"If it harms none, do what you will".



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by coldsummer32
They should have went with Lois Griffin instead, haha!!


Comes to something, when people are debating whether meg griffin, or marge simpson, should be on playboy.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't have any major problem with Playboy doing this, but I certainly think it identifies an interesting double standard in the United States. Not that long ago the tobacco companies came under attack for using "cartoon characters" to sell cigarettes. In fact, legislation was passed that forbid them from continuing this practice because "it risked targeting children in tobacco advertising." Now, obviously from the standpoint of me being a parent I will admit that I'd rather find my children in possession of pornography than smoking. However, from a legal standpoint, both are illegal to provide to minors, so the same people who blew a gasket over Joe Camel should be up in arms over this Playboy situation. For some reason I suspect we'll see the battle lines drawn a bit differently over this one, however.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
Not good at all... Many kids watch the Simpsons and, if this is true, will find out about it. This is just another way the porn industry is "normalising" pornography and sexualising our kids for their own future financial gains


You say that as if Kids don't already have access to the most vile, deviant sexual material right here on the internet...do kids even try to sneak a peak at Playboys anymore? That just seems a little too "old hat" for this day and age. Playboy is about the last thing any parent should be worried about.

Just my 2-cents



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
If only the Japanese could see us now. They would laugh and call us prudes. Cause we are.

This isn't anything. Ever bought a Playboy? There are tons of cartoons in them. Having the Simpsons do a cover is more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

Let's face it. The Simpsons has been around for a loooooooong time. And they are loosing out to new shows such as Family Guy and American Dad, so they need a new edge.

Let's make it a bit racier, and a bit more "faux pas". That will draw the masses into watching this dinosaur of a TV show.

Playboy is porn, it's never hidden that fact, so yes they are still promoting pornography when they have Marge on the cover, but this is no less terrifying than when Drew Barrymore, Denise Richards or Marylin Moronroe posed for the cover not is it?

These were actual role models to kids and adults all over, and they decided to do it, so let's not get our panties in a bunch when they put a cartoon on the cover.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   



nothing wrong with the image. it's not a good idea due to the audience this cartoon reaches but the image is far from porn and there have been plenty of actors and actresses who've graced the cover.


edited to add:

if you google it, you can find some pretty raunchy images of marge, bart, lisa, homer, fred and wilma, barney and betty, the jetsons etc.



[edit on 10-10-2009 by Crakeur]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Joe Camel was a bit different. With Joe Camel, the case could be made that Camel was covertly trying to market their smokes to kids. Playboy is not for kids and they aren't trying to appeal to children.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join