On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Joe Coughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > The "Stacy's Mom" video is not a Mrs. Robinson scenario. It's about a boy > who fantasizes about his girlfriend's mother. Different than Lolita.
True, but it is an example of the older woman/teenage boy. A few months ago one of the pop girls made news for a video about her as a teenage girl driving across the country on a romantic adventure with a clearly older guy (I don't care enough to remember which pop princess it was... maybe Katy Perry?). Bill Maher pointed out a while ago that when we hear of a female teacher in the news for seducing one of her male students, we know it is bad but we don't seem to care. But when a male teacher lays his hands on a female student, we expect his junk to get cut off by the state. > And let's not overuse the word "porn". Porn is porn. While many of the > things you mentioned may be gratuitous and exploitive, they're not porn. Again, it comes down to how one defines porn. This isn't a Congressional hearing, and I am not against porn for porn's sake. It isn't prudishness on my part; there are teenagers whose bodies are being paraded around to attract viewers. As someone smarter than me used to quip, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. Hell, the Doublemint twins can qualify as porn (as Bill Hicks used to say, "When I see those girls I'm not thinking about gum... but I am thinking about chewing"). There are those who enjoy videos of fully clothed women urinating in their pants or sucking each others' toes -- not my bag, but just because they keep their clothes on doesn't mean it isn't porn. I'm fine with overusing the word porn. Porn porn porn. Porn is not always bad or in bad taste, and the term isn't something to shy away from -- no reason to use it lightly. If the MTV series is genuinely operating from an idealistic perspective and using the naked body of a 17-year-old because it is the only way to dramatize a serious sociological condition, that still doesn't mean it isn't porn. At best, it means they are using a pornographic image in a high-minded way. Does that sound like MTV's modus operandi? -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
