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

Well Moe, Lenny and Carl will finally get to see Marge in a whole new light. The question is when will we see Mr Burns grace the cover of Playboy?

---

All joking aside, I don't have a problem with it. I think they are bringing a little fun into a society that is too high strung, too politically correct.

The Simpson's from day one have always had Playboy "parody's" written into the show. On the episode "All's Fair in Oven War" the wrote in a magazine called "Playdude". Throughout the episode bart dressed in a smoking jacket holding a pipe mimicing that of Hugh Hefner.

According to Playboy, she is as tastefully covered up in the issue, as on the cover we've all seen so much of.
You don't really expect crude, hard-core porn do you?

Playboy wants to appeal to a younger audience, and they picked the perfect "model" to do so. Look at all the hype it has generated! People are dying to see the inside of tomorrows issue. And that is exactly what Playboy was going for, so good job! A way to boost sales is a way to boost sales.
Playboy has always been, for the most part, very tasteful. There's nothing sexual about a woman standing/lounging/swimming naked, until you make it that way in your mind. It's just a woman wearing no clothes, till your imagination kicks it into high gear, with alot of help from your libido.

Cheers for Playboy! And Marge. That cover is a place of prestige!

Source:
www.associatedcontent.com...

This is way below sad.

reply to post by Unregistered


The sadist thing is people’s attitude to it... like its just harmless fun.

Porn is a destructive, exploitative industry that dehumanises women and turns them into meat. At the extremes of this industry we have Videos which depict violence against woman, deliberate humiliation, boarder line underage sex etc...

Yeah ok... some of you may wanna beat off to this... But research shows that a large majority of the women involved, in the Hard Core sex industry, have serious emotion and physical problems. From mental breakdowns to HIV. Not to mention the ex porn stars who have to wear diapers due to the damage done to their rectums.

In my opinion the soft porn industry (which often has the same owners/financial backers as the hard core industry) is just there to prepare us for the harder stuff. Bit like a drug dealer who will start off kids on marijuana before giving them heroine.

At the end of the day porn taps into our most primal instincts and exploits it. Like the fast food industry they know what stimulates us and then they bombard us with it to make money. They do not care about the people hurt in the process.

And people will defend porn because... well at the end of the day they just want to beat to it!!!

Before anyone accuses me of being a prude... I do not believe we should (or could) ban porn... that would just drive it underground and be far more damaging long term. But it does need tighter regulations with regards to content and how it conducts itself. Taking, what is effectively a children’s character, and placing that character in the biggest selling and most famous soft porn magazine is like sending out the message "look kids, porn is cool)

I guess a better example would have been to show a 3 stone Marge Simpson laying in a mental hospital bed with a diaper and the heading "look kids... Porn gives you... HIV, mental breakdown and faulty rectum"

I’ve seen kids as young as 10 wearing T-Shirts with the Playboy Bunny on the front... If people don’t see this as worrying then society truly does deserve to burn!


[edit on 16-10-2009 by Muckster]

If you're up in arms that kids are gonna want to see it cause they watch The Simpsons, the bigger issue is why are the kids watching The Simpsons to begin with? Children are not the target audience. I really have to question peoples' minds when they allow themselves to get worked up over nudity whether drawn or photographed. Is the human form really that offensive to you? Do you believe that a child seeing a naked woman is going to turn them into some sort of societal deviant because of it? Really?

reply to post by LearnToSw1m


No you are wrong...

If the Simpsons is for adults then why is it shown during the day time???

I don’t know about America, but in Britain we have a 9pm watershed. Any programme deemed not suitable for children is shown after 9pm. I've seen the Simpsons on as early as 2pm in the afternoon!!!

Even if parent’s shouldn’t be letting the kids watch it, the fact is kids do watch it... Everybody knows this... The porn company’s know this. What I am saying is ALL big corporates (including porn company’s) should abide by ethical boundary’s... they should have a duty of care to the general population to ensure that their product (no matter what it is) does no harm... especially to children.

Do you believe that a child seeing a naked woman is going to turn them into some sort of societal deviant because of it? Really?

How very simple it sounds... as if I am saying that looking at one picture will turn a kid into a deviant... This is far more complex than that, but I believe you already know that and are therefore being deliberately awkward. If I wrong and you generally didn’t realise than I apologise.

The point is about making porn somehow cool to the younger generation by using characters from popular TV on their products.

It would be like using bugs bunny on the front of a pack of cigarettes!!

The main problem I see, with people who defend this type of thing, is selfishness... Everyone these days is so entrenched in their own personal wants and needs and they are not prepared to sacrifice anything that brings them entertainment... even if it is for the sake of children.

Ignorance and selfishness!




[edit on 17-10-2009 by Muckster]