the spike network on your tv has some real interesting programming. like, i watch the ufc on it a lot. or mxc is on it. whatever. it's a network who's main demographic is young males.
their website, no different.
a great example, pg porn. now, i'm not sure if this is sfw or nsfw. you make the call. there is swearing and whatnot. it has porn "actors" in it. but, there's no nudity, no sex. there are swear words. maybe it's porn parody. but holy crap, they are pretty funny. especially the one about roadside assistance. intentionally bad acting, cheesy music, lots of double entendre.
so, i post about this, and it reminds me of this post in my archives. and it all comes full circle.
Showing posts with label porn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label porn. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
all the news that's fit to glean
this morning i saw several stories on the l.a. times website that i thought i would comment on, or at least mention.
the first was about a brother and sister that were recently shot, both randomly, at the same birthday party. of course, the story is told with some semi-sappy details and journalism, but it's still sad. these two were @ a party, not standing near each other, and someone opened fire through the fence. both were stuck and killed. sad stuff. the story also stood out to me because i've been places recently, and you're just standing around, enjoying yourself, and some random stuff like this could just happen. generally, i tend to believe that crime follows criminals. that is, you usually don't end up in trouble like this if you're not mixing it up. and, generally, statistics show this. but, random stuff does happen. sad stuff.
the second story that i wanted to comment on was about a new reality tv show. it's about a "news anchor." basically, the producer of american idol and some other shows took this actress/model/dancer/whatever and plopped her into some town in texas. of course, the other news anchors are upset about this. it wipes away what little credibility that these "journalists" have. especially upset are the other females at the station, who are mortified that a barbie-esque woman is being plopped into their situation. but, can they complain? or, do they become shrews or worse for "hating" on this blond? so, what is a news anchor other than a pretty face, or a voice that reads a teleprompter. let's be honest, it's not like most anchors are out researching stories. they have something written for them, and they deliver it like a well versed pitch. frankly, it doesn't bother me at all that this show is exposing the "news" for what it is: a glorified dog & pony show. perhaps i'm being too harsh. but i'll allow myself to do that. the nightly news is barely any different than any other nightly television program. it's just not as funny as the comedies and the story lines often aren't as interesting as the dramas. anchors are chosen for their look, their voice, their delivery. and if they don't fit the look, they change. if you don't believe me, ask kopi soteropolis about his amazing hair regeneration (or, if you prefer, toupe). or ask yourself why it seems like every news team has a blond and a brunette on it?
the third story somewhat follows. it seems that mattel is suing a porn site. china barbie is apparently not a chinese barbie. or, at least mattel doesn't want you to associate their barbie with this porn star. they believe that this other company, "used a domain name containing the word 'barbie' in a 'bad faith attempt to profit from Mattel's Barbie trademarks." i think i have to agree.
since i'm talking about women, why not mention the fact that the l.a. times has a female motorcycle reviewer. i always thought this was pretty cool, and have linked to her reviews before. the bike world is dominated by men, which i am one of. i would imagine that most bike journalists/reviewers/etc are also men. so, i'm pretty impressed that the times hasn't been afraid to use a woman where it would be so easy to just go with a man. anyway, to the story. a custom motorcycle company has a pretty nice bike that they designed just for the ladies. pretty cool idea. i especially enjoy her semi-practical suggestions for improvement of a "ladies" bike.
finally, i think i'll end with a story about a possible credit crisis. this, apparently, may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the republicans. what? an unwinnable quagmire isn't? the systematic disregard for our rights and constitution isn't? the continual impeacheable acts committed by the president, vice president and attorney general aren't?
the first was about a brother and sister that were recently shot, both randomly, at the same birthday party. of course, the story is told with some semi-sappy details and journalism, but it's still sad. these two were @ a party, not standing near each other, and someone opened fire through the fence. both were stuck and killed. sad stuff. the story also stood out to me because i've been places recently, and you're just standing around, enjoying yourself, and some random stuff like this could just happen. generally, i tend to believe that crime follows criminals. that is, you usually don't end up in trouble like this if you're not mixing it up. and, generally, statistics show this. but, random stuff does happen. sad stuff.
the second story that i wanted to comment on was about a new reality tv show. it's about a "news anchor." basically, the producer of american idol and some other shows took this actress/model/dancer/whatever and plopped her into some town in texas. of course, the other news anchors are upset about this. it wipes away what little credibility that these "journalists" have. especially upset are the other females at the station, who are mortified that a barbie-esque woman is being plopped into their situation. but, can they complain? or, do they become shrews or worse for "hating" on this blond? so, what is a news anchor other than a pretty face, or a voice that reads a teleprompter. let's be honest, it's not like most anchors are out researching stories. they have something written for them, and they deliver it like a well versed pitch. frankly, it doesn't bother me at all that this show is exposing the "news" for what it is: a glorified dog & pony show. perhaps i'm being too harsh. but i'll allow myself to do that. the nightly news is barely any different than any other nightly television program. it's just not as funny as the comedies and the story lines often aren't as interesting as the dramas. anchors are chosen for their look, their voice, their delivery. and if they don't fit the look, they change. if you don't believe me, ask kopi soteropolis about his amazing hair regeneration (or, if you prefer, toupe). or ask yourself why it seems like every news team has a blond and a brunette on it?
the third story somewhat follows. it seems that mattel is suing a porn site. china barbie is apparently not a chinese barbie. or, at least mattel doesn't want you to associate their barbie with this porn star. they believe that this other company, "used a domain name containing the word 'barbie' in a 'bad faith attempt to profit from Mattel's Barbie trademarks." i think i have to agree.
since i'm talking about women, why not mention the fact that the l.a. times has a female motorcycle reviewer. i always thought this was pretty cool, and have linked to her reviews before. the bike world is dominated by men, which i am one of. i would imagine that most bike journalists/reviewers/etc are also men. so, i'm pretty impressed that the times hasn't been afraid to use a woman where it would be so easy to just go with a man. anyway, to the story. a custom motorcycle company has a pretty nice bike that they designed just for the ladies. pretty cool idea. i especially enjoy her semi-practical suggestions for improvement of a "ladies" bike.
finally, i think i'll end with a story about a possible credit crisis. this, apparently, may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the republicans. what? an unwinnable quagmire isn't? the systematic disregard for our rights and constitution isn't? the continual impeacheable acts committed by the president, vice president and attorney general aren't?
Monday, July 09, 2007
post with a BIG disclaimer
let me start out by giving a big fat warning. this post is about a mature subject. and, frankly, it's not really the type of thing that i usually talk about here on the blog. but, as it is, i came across an article that got the wheels turning. and then another article. and more thoughts. and, i realize that i many of my readers (hey, i get about 25 hits a day, so that's what, 4 people?) won't want to talk about this. because, frankly, it's a taboo subject. or, it was. so, here we go. oh, and another disclaimer is that although is that the links may not be safe for work. not that there were offensive pictures (that i remember), but still.
anyone care to defend porn?
some people claim that porn has become mainstream. i don't know if that's true, but i think we can all admit that sex is a commodity, it sells. and, hey, i'm not trying to tell you what to do in your own house. but, i read this rather frank article (warning, very bad words and accurate descriptions) and it turned my stomach at points.
and another piece.
now, i realize that these are only one side of the equation. i know there's bloggers out there defending porn, both female and male, but i haven't read them. the second article ends with this quote, "Is pornography misogynistic? In my mind there is only one response. How could it not be? Pornography comes from a culture that breeds misogyny. At least it seems to have done so in me."
now, i can't say that "a" has been proven, so that it definitely leads to "b". but, if you will, humor me. at least, let's talk about whether or not we are a misogynistic culture? are we a culture that breeds misogynistic attitudes and behavior? how does this happen? how can it change? and, if porn is misogynistic and if it is becoming mainstream, how do we move back in the other direction (i realize that those are two rather big if's i've emphasized there)?
let me throw another quote in the mix, "These are five movies depicting consensual acts between adults, exclusively for consenting adults, there is nothing criminal about these movies." oh, i hadn't mentioned that the star spoken about in the second article has been indicted for violating standards. some say it's a free speech case. others say that it's an issue of obscenity. now, i'm not wanting to argue free speech or the merits of this case. i'm interested in talking about porn and the relationship to misogyny.
this leads me to this movie, which i heard about and have recently seen previews for. i haven't seen the movie. but, when i read these articles, it made me think of that movie as the mainstream version. or, do we just live in such a screwed up culture that realistic portrayal of torture and kidnapping can be entertainment, and the porn is following suit?
but, something i didn't know, the scandal over the firing of whitehouse lawyers deals with porno cases. interesting twist. not the aforementioned case though.
finally, on an unrelated, and much lighter note, i just finished watching an hour of seinfeld. it was the episodes where jerry buys his father a cadillac. and, this causes him to get impeached as the president of the retirement village they live in. maybe we should allow art to inspire reality and impeach the president. but, another thing stood out to me: the laugh track. real audience or not, it doesn't matter, but i'm not sure if i really noticed it until i read the article earlier in the evening about the simpsons. it was a brief mention there, and i don't know how significant it is. i think i had noticed it, but whne you're thinking about it, it really stands out. is ending this post with this paragraph a cop out?
anyone care to defend porn?
some people claim that porn has become mainstream. i don't know if that's true, but i think we can all admit that sex is a commodity, it sells. and, hey, i'm not trying to tell you what to do in your own house. but, i read this rather frank article (warning, very bad words and accurate descriptions) and it turned my stomach at points.
and another piece.
now, i realize that these are only one side of the equation. i know there's bloggers out there defending porn, both female and male, but i haven't read them. the second article ends with this quote, "Is pornography misogynistic? In my mind there is only one response. How could it not be? Pornography comes from a culture that breeds misogyny. At least it seems to have done so in me."
now, i can't say that "a" has been proven, so that it definitely leads to "b". but, if you will, humor me. at least, let's talk about whether or not we are a misogynistic culture? are we a culture that breeds misogynistic attitudes and behavior? how does this happen? how can it change? and, if porn is misogynistic and if it is becoming mainstream, how do we move back in the other direction (i realize that those are two rather big if's i've emphasized there)?
let me throw another quote in the mix, "These are five movies depicting consensual acts between adults, exclusively for consenting adults, there is nothing criminal about these movies." oh, i hadn't mentioned that the star spoken about in the second article has been indicted for violating standards. some say it's a free speech case. others say that it's an issue of obscenity. now, i'm not wanting to argue free speech or the merits of this case. i'm interested in talking about porn and the relationship to misogyny.
this leads me to this movie, which i heard about and have recently seen previews for. i haven't seen the movie. but, when i read these articles, it made me think of that movie as the mainstream version. or, do we just live in such a screwed up culture that realistic portrayal of torture and kidnapping can be entertainment, and the porn is following suit?
but, something i didn't know, the scandal over the firing of whitehouse lawyers deals with porno cases. interesting twist. not the aforementioned case though.
finally, on an unrelated, and much lighter note, i just finished watching an hour of seinfeld. it was the episodes where jerry buys his father a cadillac. and, this causes him to get impeached as the president of the retirement village they live in. maybe we should allow art to inspire reality and impeach the president. but, another thing stood out to me: the laugh track. real audience or not, it doesn't matter, but i'm not sure if i really noticed it until i read the article earlier in the evening about the simpsons. it was a brief mention there, and i don't know how significant it is. i think i had noticed it, but whne you're thinking about it, it really stands out. is ending this post with this paragraph a cop out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)