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.

 

[Social Engineering] Larry King Live 05-12-2010

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Larry just interviewed Donald Trump over the new controversial half exposed nudity Miss USA 2010 photos.

Paula Deen, miss little town America family friendly was in support. Even citing her taking bikini pics as a 15yr old (gag @ her now).

The most interesting was the obviously flamboyant homosexual who is one of the Miss USA 2010 judges...

He was discussing how the photos are good for women to give them a sense of self empowerment over their body. To pose almost nude for men. Disgraceful.

What caught my eye is when he said...

"I think it's important for kids to see that even if they're in lingerie..."

Kids in lingerie? That's ok with the people behind Miss USA 2010. Because it gives them a sense of sexual empowerment... AS KIDS.

Donald Trumps excuse? "It's 2010", the times change [for the worse].

EDIT: Just to clarify why I put Social Engineering in the title.

You should be able to recognize that they are pushing for society to accept people being more sexually provocative at a younger age. And in public, the driving factor is that times change and moral barriers should be broken as we progress for our enjoyment.

While we destroy our ethics.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by mryanbrown]




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


I find it interesting that they guy who said that was gay. I have always had a sense that part of the gay agenda is to sexualize children, but I can never figure out why that is.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


I am a bit torn on this.

On one hand, my free-market principles and ideals kick in and say if it is a private enterprise, then let the market decide if it works or not.

On the other, you have the Miss USA Pageant I always hear it is about woman empowerment and dignity.

-------

In regards to the free market, I say let it go, but make sure the FCC, as much as I detest it, apply its rules equally and fairly upon the the pageant, just as it does to prime-time television. From there, allow the market of selling sex to viewers take off. The pageant will most likely be a big hit for the demographics of 18-35 year old men and 50-99 year old men. That is what this change is about. More viewership, not woman empowerment.

With that, I would say its quite dubious and nefarious of Donald Trump to say its about anything other than that. They are placing 51 of the most beautiful women from each state into scantly clad lingerie; who else would that be aimed at?

In the end, I say let em do it. If it is a success, it shows more about the culture of America than it does anything.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I can almost agree with that. But that's not what really bothered me. Advocating lingerie for kids did. Especially as I see most kids today. The majority of fashion is provocative.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Yeah I didn't get into that, my apology.

I kind of touched upon it in regards to demographics, and I am sure this will ripple down to the disgusting little miss pageants that litter this country.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luca Brasi
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


I find it interesting that they guy who said that was gay. I have always had a sense that part of the gay agenda is to sexualize children, but I can never figure out why that is.


Here we go again. If your implication is gays are more likely then straights to exploit and molest children, it's been well known by agencies such as police officers and the justice system thats simply wrong. This has been known for at least 20yrs. The majority of abusers are straight, or identify as straight. And yes I will dig up a study or two and post it. But what's frustrating, at least to me and I assume others is when we hear people mention the "gay agenda"

Will someone please explain just what this "gay agenda" is.? Do people think we hold a convention some where to decide our next target to exploit? All I can say about that is I must have been black balled, or my memory of it erased, because no one ever mentioned it to me. Any way, by now if any co-ordinated plot was in motion, some one would have hit me up for money.

(I'm not trying to single you out on this. I'm only responding here because it was a chance to comment on the phrase "gay agenda")



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


I don't know what the "Gay Agenda" is. I don't care personally, I find it to be hype. If a grouping of homosexual people seek to do bad things, that does not mean all do. I'm not much of a fan of stereotypes.

I am more concerned that a Pageant for women exploits their sexuality. And one of the premiere judges of the female exploitation happens to be a flamboyant homosexual.

One who advocated kids in lingerie.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I caught Anderson Cooper 360 tonight. And they had a clip about a some pageant or contest or something of the sorts. And there was a group of young girls, one of the guests suggested 7 years of age on average.

They were dressed in outfits more skimpy than bikini swimsuits at their age. And I couldn't help but be reminded of the Larry King episode and this post.

And then it happened!!!

One of the guests made the immediate connection between this and the other nights episode on Larry King. She said she had mentioned it to her daughter(s) and she/they disagreed with the clothing choice. Not because of the sexual nature, which she states her daughter(s) were aware of.

But because the outfit was "tacky" and didn't do Beyonce (the songs artist in the dance) justice.

Wait for it! So the guest/mother mentioned that it was because it took away from "women empowerment"!!!

There you have it, two separate nights. Same week. Same channel. Same underlining context.

Two opposing sides. On the same station. Hidden in discussions about various topics.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I found the video



This is the exact behavior Miss USA is advocating.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Here is a link to the photos in question, for those unaware (photos are near the bottom of the linked page).


Originally posted by mryanbrown
Larry just interviewed Donald Trump over the new controversial half exposed nudity Miss USA 2010 photos.

Paula Deen, miss little town America family friendly was in support. Even citing her taking bikini pics as a 15yr old (gag @ her now).


To be fair to Paula Deen, the Miss USA photos do not reveal any more skin than you'd see on modern bikini-clad young women. But she neglects the setting of the photos--a bedroom--and the caption, "Waking Up in Vegas," Trump's apparent attempt at a naughtier spread. Both of these elements, and indeed the entire finished product, make the photoshoot seedier than a simple 1960s bikini shot.



The most interesting was the obviously flamboyant homosexual who is one of the Miss USA 2010 judges...

He was discussing how the photos are good for women to give them a sense of self empowerment over their body. To pose almost nude for men. Disgraceful.

What caught my eye is when he said...

"I think it's important for kids to see that even if they're in lingerie..."

Kids in lingerie? That's ok with the people behind Miss USA 2010. Because it gives them a sense of sexual empowerment... AS KIDS.


You misunderstood his statement. This is the full exchange, found here:

JOHNNY WEIR, MISS USA 2010 JUDGE: I think it's an amazing, amazing spread that the girls have partaken in, and I think -- I think something that I always gathered from these pageants on television was just the empowerment that these women had over their bodies, their looks, the way they spoke, their -- how clever they were.

And I think it's important for kids to see that if they're in lingerie, even if they're in an evening gown, even if they're in a plastic bag, they have this empowerment to be out there and they believe themselves as strong women.


He was certainly not speaking of the children when he said "they're in lingerie." He was still speaking of the contestants themselves, saying "it's important for the kids to see that if they (the contestants--the girls) are in lingerie, even if they're in an evening gown...they believe in themselves as strong women."



You should be able to recognize that they are pushing for society to accept people being more sexually provocative at a younger age.


Perhaps, but in no novel way--definitely not by encouraging that the children themselves dress provocatively. At no point during the show was such an argument made. The pageant officials are arguably supporting sexualization of American culture by defending sexualized images, but this is no different than average, nightly primetime television in the United States. To suggest their aim is something more insidious is, I believe, misguided.

I do find it a bit inconsistent for a pageant that operates almost entirely on the basis of physical appearance (it has no talent portion, only an absolutely tiny question-and-answer session) to suddenly be found disagreeable because its contestants are more overtly sexualized this year. Ah, but these contestants are "role models"! Yes, women who have traditionally pranced around a stage in layers of makeup for a captive audience, offering little more than vapid answers to silly, irrelevant questions--how dare they violate the illustrious example they've always set for our young girls!

Give me a break.

It is during these dilemmas that a remote control comes in handy. Concerned about the example set for your children? Change the channel, or better yet, turn off the television.

[edit on 16/5/10 by paperplanes]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The underlining context was suggesting that children should feel sexy in lingerie. Then two nights later, they reinforce the issue with the child pageant.

I understand the over all issue was in relation to ADULT women in the pageant. He clearly said kids, and kids has a very specific connotation. The women in Miss USA are not kids, by any definition.

I like how you spin it around on me. I have no children, I wouldn't bring them up with that. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. So please don't divert attention from it.

The issue is that the underlining context of CNN in the past week is pushing sexualized children in the underlining context.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join