Too Hot for Sesame Street?

[RJDiogenes]

Just goes to show: feminism kinda backfired....

This has nothing to do with feminism.

Exaggerating for effect, folks.

Let me explain it this way: feminism has established as one of its tenants making getting it through to society's head that Women Are Not To Be Treated As Sex Symbols. All well and good.

Now...because of feminism's influence, the cultural "ideal" woman is made increasingly self-confident as the years go by--by no means a bad thing, per se.

Then it's taken to "less sexually submissive" (again, not necessarily a bad thing)

--which leads to striving for "a greater dominance" over these and other situations

...which leads to "more agressive in matters of life"

...which leads to "more aggressive in sexual matters of life"

--which leads to more and more women acting as...sex symbols...and being proud of it.

Just goes to show what happens when common sense is lost in a movement. Now, this does not mean that all of feminism is like this. I am simply saying that Lady GaGa and other uber-sex-symbols are a direct result of irrational feminism, run amuck.

Except, in real life, most Feminist movements throughout History have involved sexual freedom; most recently, in the 20th Century, the Women's Lib movement paralleled the Sexual Revolution.

 

[FordSVT]

The problem is its intended audience, its a kids program for crying out loud.

Remember when kids shows use to be, I dunno... good?

That's highly subjective. So the children see some cleavage. They'll be scarred for life? Or is this one of those situations the parents see it, assume the kids will see it the same way and go overboard? I'm leaning towards the latter. Kids don't sexualize everything/one in the same way adults do. Kids don't even really have a concept of what sex or sexuality is. They might emulate it or have a basic instinctual knowledge but they're surely not sexual beings despite all the hysteria otherwise over something as unimportant as this.

Kids are ignorant, you are right... this is where the adults need to step in and show a better example.

So, what you're saying is, ignorant kids don't see "boobs" and "sex", they see a pretty, singing princess lady and Elmo, and you'd like to correct that and make them see how dirty and perverse this all really is?

How fucked up is that.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Well here's the one I misremembered (no canes taking them away) but this was 30 years ago, I wonder if anyone raised a stink about all the gams.

I absolutely loved that when I was a pervy little 6 year old kid.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I watched it with the sound off (the only way to watch Katy Perry, really), and didn't see anything too bothersome.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I watched it with the sound off (the only way to watch Katy Perry, really), and didn't see anything too bothersome.

Russell Brand bought a remote control for the same reason.

 

[scotpens]

Kids are ignorant, you are right... this is where the adults need to step in and show a better example.

So, what you're saying is, ignorant kids don't see “boobs” and “sex”, they see a pretty, singing princess lady and Elmo, and you'd like to correct that and make them see how dirty and perverse this all really is?

How fucked up is that.

Exactly. It's always the adults who are the ones with the dirty minds.

I watched it with the sound off (the only way to watch Katy Perry, really), and didn't see anything too bothersome.

Russell Brand bought a remote control for the same reason.

Was that to mute the TV sound or to mute Katy?

 

[RJDiogenes]

That's highly subjective. So the children see some cleavage. They'll be scarred for life? Or is this one of those situations the parents see it, assume the kids will see it the same way and go overboard? I'm leaning towards the latter. Kids don't sexualize everything/one in the same way adults do. Kids don't even really have a concept of what sex or sexuality is. They might emulate it or have a basic instinctual knowledge but they're surely not sexual beings despite all the hysteria otherwise over something as unimportant as this.

Kids are ignorant, you are right... this is where the adults need to step in and show a better example.

So, what you're saying is, ignorant kids don't see "boobs" and "sex", they see a pretty, singing princess lady and Elmo, and you'd like to correct that and make them see how dirty and perverse this all really is?

How fucked up is that.

Easy there, please. Let's discuss but not get personal.

 

[Rush Limborg]

This has nothing to do with feminism.

Exaggerating for effect, folks.

Let me explain it this way: feminism has established as one of its tenants making getting it through to society's head that Women Are Not To Be Treated As Sex Symbols. All well and good.

Now...because of feminism's influence, the cultural "ideal" woman is made increasingly self-confident as the years go by--by no means a bad thing, per se.

Then it's taken to "less sexually submissive" (again, not necessarily a bad thing)

--which leads to striving for "a greater dominance" over these and other situations

...which leads to "more agressive in matters of life"

...which leads to "more aggressive in sexual matters of life"

--which leads to more and more women acting as...sex symbols...and being proud of it.

Just goes to show what happens when common sense is lost in a movement. Now, this does not mean that all of feminism is like this. I am simply saying that Lady GaGa and other uber-sex-symbols are a direct result of irrational feminism, run amuck.

Except, in real life, most Feminist movements throughout History have involved sexual freedom; most recently, in the 20th Century, the Women's Lib movement paralleled the Sexual Revolution.

Yes, it has--and that's the problem, to be blunt.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, we disagree there-- I don't see freedom as a problem.

 

[Rush Limborg]

(Clinton voice) Well, it all depends on what your definition of the term "freedom" is....

Now...lemme put it this way...

As I clearly stated before--I am fine with Katy's low neckline in the clip in question. As I and others have said, no pre-pubescent kid would notice. Here we agree.

BUT...If she were to flash the camera, there--would you say she has the "freedom" to do that? Why or why not?

 

[BolianAuthor]

Yeah, I'm sure this Sesame Street clip did way more harm than people handing out condoms to kindergarten students in school...

Parents these days are so fucking stupid... number one, their kids are exposed to more uncouth material at school every day, so they need to frakkin' open their eyes, and not pretend that each child is some pure and delicate unspoiled flower, 'cause that's just not reality.

Second, it's THEIR responsibility to protect/raise their own kids, not PBS's or the government's... and if they are too lazy to do that, then maybe they ought look into using condoms more often.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

People are overreacting, as usual.

So true.

Agreed

Man, her boobs are really bouncin in the part where she is running....

yeah they really bounced

Maybe it was because Elmo sounded a bit like a barking dog right at the beginning?

 

[wissaboo]

I thought it was way too much cleavage. What was she thinking?

 

[sidious618]

(Clinton voice) Well, it all depends on what your definition of the term "freedom" is....

Now...lemme put it this way...

As I clearly stated before--I am fine with Katy's low neckline in the clip in question. As I and others have said, no pre-pubescent kid would notice. Here we agree.

BUT...If she were to flash the camera, there--would you say she has the "freedom" to do that? Why or why not?

What does this have to do with allowing women to be more sexually free which is what RJ was talking about?

 

[Rush Limborg]

(Clinton voice) Well, it all depends on what your definition of the term "freedom" is....

Now...lemme put it this way...

As I clearly stated before--I am fine with Katy's low neckline in the clip in question. As I and others have said, no pre-pubescent kid would notice. Here we agree.

BUT...If she were to flash the camera, there--would you say she has the "freedom" to do that? Why or why not?

What does this have to do with allowing women to be more sexually free which is what RJ was talking about?

Because "sexual freedom" seems to include sexually provocative actions--including, but not limited to, flashing.

 

[sidious618]

Because "sexual freedom" seems to include, as far as its defenders are concerned, sexually provocative actions--including, but not limited to, flashing.

I've never heard of anything like this at all. Maybe one person said it but I've never seen it as a legit feminist opinion and I'm someone who is a hardcore feminist.

 

[Brent]

I thought it was way too much cleavage. What was she thinking?

This is Katy Perry we are talking about, she kissed a girl, and she liked it...

 

[RJDiogenes]

(Clinton voice) Well, it all depends on what your definition of the term "freedom" is....

Now...lemme put it this way...

As I clearly stated before--I am fine with Katy's low neckline in the clip in question. As I and others have said, no pre-pubescent kid would notice. Here we agree.

BUT...If she were to flash the camera, there--would you say she has the "freedom" to do that? Why or why not?

She is flashing the camera. She's showing her legs, her shoulders, her cleavage and her face; all of these are violations of somebody's religious code regarding female sexuality (including people who live in this country, and including people who are Posting in this Thread). The question is, is it wrong for people, including children, to see the Human body-- the answer, given that nudity was and is common in primitive cultures, has varying degrees of acceptance in modern cultures, and causes no damage to those who grow up in Naturist communities, is no, it's not wrong. Opposition to nudity or sexuality is an arbitrary religious custom. So if she were to flash the camera in the manner that you're suggesting, it would be a novelty because of pre-existing expectations, but it would not be wrong and she does have the freedom to do so (although it is still against the law). In a sane society, nobody would think twice about it.

 

[Teelie]

(Clinton voice) Well, it all depends on what your definition of the term "freedom" is....

Now...lemme put it this way...

As I clearly stated before--I am fine with Katy's low neckline in the clip in question. As I and others have said, no pre-pubescent kid would notice. Here we agree.

BUT...If she were to flash the camera, there--would you say she has the "freedom" to do that? Why or why not?

What does this have to do with allowing women to be more sexually free which is what RJ was talking about?

Because "sexual freedom" seems to include sexually provocative actions--including, but not limited to, flashing.

Wow, the leap in logic there must be some kind of record for jumping. So Katy Perry shows a little cleavage. Just enough to rile up some over-protective parents who see pornography at every corner (including the one Sesasme Street is on) and suddenly it's not just about Katy Perry exposing a modest amount of cleavage but now she's flashing children at every chance?

 

[FordSVT]

Kids are ignorant, you are right... this is where the adults need to step in and show a better example.

So, what you're saying is, ignorant kids don't see "boobs" and "sex", they see a pretty, singing princess lady and Elmo, and you'd like to correct that and make them see how dirty and perverse this all really is?

How fucked up is that.

Easy there, please. Let's discuss but not get personal.

I didn't get personal. Am I not allowed to tell someone I think their opinion is "fucked up"? Is there a "no swearing" rule in Misc now?