Opens a difficult question: "Ay, Caramba! Marge Simpson Gets Nude for Playboy", page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 9-10-2009 @ 12:19 PM by Maxmars
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]


reply posted on 10-10-2009 @ 09:21 AM by detachedindividual
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".


reply posted on 10-10-2009 @ 02:03 PM by Crakeur



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]


reply posted on 10-10-2009 @ 02:07 PM by Crakeur
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.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 4 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 4 days ago with 70 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 13 days ago with 60 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 14 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags