PDA

View Full Version : How TV has Lost its Sexual Inhibitions



penka
25-07-2015, 10:47
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-how-tv-lost-its-sexual-inhibitions

vossy7
25-07-2015, 12:28
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-how-tv-lost-its-sexual-inhibitions

Ah Pen.....did you never see the ground breaking series "Bouquet of barbed wire" it had the nation gasping .....sexually that is :AngelPray: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCEDBzi8Ss

rusmeister
25-07-2015, 20:46
So where do the ever-expanding boundaries stop, Penka? Where do you draw the line and say "That's wrong!"? What is too explicit or too repulsive?

"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere."

penka
25-07-2015, 21:05
So where do the ever-expanding boundaries stop, Penka? Where do you draw the line and say "That's wrong!"? What is too explicit or too repulsive?

"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere."

Frankly, I nearly never watch the telly. And am not entirely sure, how the definition of art is applicable here. But well, why not:)

Let me ask you something else: What do you find more pornographic - an explicit sexual scene in some serial or a youtubed video of a childbirth or, say a public declaration of one's sleeping only with one's partner?

vossy7
26-07-2015, 06:08
Frankly, I nearly never watch the telly. And am not entirely sure, how the definition of art is applicable here. But well, why not:)

Let me ask you something else: What do you find more pornographic - an explicit sexual scene in some serial or a youtubed video of a childbirth or, say a public declaration of one's sleeping only with one's partner?

Having been at the birth of both my son and daughter I found nothing remotely sexual about the experience just pure emotion and amazement :AngelPray:

rusmeister
26-07-2015, 07:33
Frankly, I nearly never watch the telly. And am not entirely sure, how the definition of art is applicable here. But well, why not:)

Let me ask you something else: What do you find more pornographic - an explicit sexual scene in some serial or a youtubed video of a childbirth or, say a public declaration of one's sleeping only with one's partner?

In other words, you want to change the subject and not answer my question.
The quote does not mean that we are here speaking of art. It means that morality has to have lines, boundaries. If you want a thing of beauty, it has to have limits. The essence of a picture is the frame, which defines and limits the picture. I'm asking what you think is too awful or damaging and what is the limit of the acceptable, and why.

You say "more pornographic". But you don't seem to think about how to define the word, how to compare things. It is easy to belt out questions. It is more difficult and requires more of an ability to think, to be able to define things. The first men who wrote the first dictionaries stand head and shoulders above the groups and colleges of men that followed them. (Dr Johnson in England, for instance)

If a thing is graphic, it depicts. It may be orally, through words, as well as through pictures. To be "more graphic", even pornographic, it will depict the thing more clearly. To be "less graphic", less clearly. So the more pornographic a depiction, the more it displays clearly the nature of a sexual act.
It ought to be obvious that the sexual appetite is aroused by depictions of the sexual act. Giving birth is removed to a degree (at least by nine months) from the sexual act, so obviously is less so. The question of whether the depiction is necessary, for whom and under what circumstances, is another issue. But sexual appetite exists even in the complete lack of depiction, so pornography, depiction if the sexual act, cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination to be necessary.

So we're back to my question. Do you draw the line anywhere, or do you think anything ought to be depicted at will, and why? What depiction ought to be tolerated, and why?

Uncle Wally
26-07-2015, 08:18
In other words, you want to change the subject and not answer my question.
The quote does not mean that we are here speaking of art. It means that morality has to have lines, boundaries. If you want a thing of beauty, it has to have limits. The essence of a picture is the frame, which defines and limits the picture. I'm asking what you think is too awful or damaging and what is the limit of the acceptable, and why.

You say "more pornographic". But you don't seem to think about how to define the word, how to compare things. It is easy to belt out questions. It is more difficult and requires more of an ability to think, to be able to define things. The first men who wrote the first dictionaries stand head and shoulders above the groups and colleges of men that followed them. (Dr Johnson in England, for instance)

If a thing is graphic, it depicts. It may be orally, through words, as well as through pictures. To be "more graphic", even pornographic, it will depict the thing more clearly. To be "less graphic", less clearly. So the more pornographic a depiction, the more it displays clearly the nature of a sexual act.
It ought to be obvious that the sexual appetite is aroused by depictions of the sexual act. Giving birth is removed to a degree (at least by nine months) from the sexual act, so obviously is less so. The question of whether the depiction is necessary, for whom and under what circumstances, is another issue. But sexual appetite exists even in the complete lack of depiction, so pornography, depiction if the sexual act, cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination to be necessary.

So we're back to my question. Do you draw the line anywhere, or do you think anything ought to be depicted at will, and why? What depiction ought to be tolerated, and why?



Rus you fanatically rally against sex but we never hear you say much about the deaths of millions of people from illegal activities of governments ((your former government mostly) every year. Which is more evil? Sex on TV or people getting killed on TV?

rusmeister
26-07-2015, 08:42
Rus you fanatically rally against sex but we never hear you say much about the deaths of millions of people from illegal activities of governments ((your former government mostly) every year. Which is more evil? Sex on TV or people getting killed on TV?

Which is more poisonous? Prussic acid, or arsenic? Which method of killing is more effective? Hanging, shooting or pushing off a cliff?

If a thing is destructive for families and society it is bad. But there is a peculiar danger in the evils we try to treat as good; these are more of a danger than the ones we admit are bad because we tolerate, or even encourage them. So from that standpoint, sex on TV is more of a threat to us, precisely because we will join in condemning the murderous acts of governments, but you will do everything you can to justify the porn (am tempted to say "fanatically defend..."), which is damaging to marriages, destructive to children, and a prime instigator of sexual evil. When you all join me in condemning the porn, then we can turn to the much more external evil of wicked government.