General Chat / Thanks a lot FCC

http://cnn.aimtoday....=20031114WXS102

Victoria's Secret to Drop TV Fashion Show
By MARK WILLIAMS

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Victoria's Secret is dropping its nationally televised fashion show this year, at least partly because of criticism following Janet Jackson's breast-baring faux pas at the Super Bowl.

Ed Razek, chief creative officer for the Columbus-based lingerie chain, said Saturday the main reason for the decision was so the company can look at new ways to promote the brand. Still, he said, ``We had to make the decision probably six to eight weeks ago when the heat was on the television networks.''





The announcement came less than three months after the Jackson uproar and a week after federal regulators proposed $495,000 in fines against Clear Channel Communications for sexual material on the Howard Stern show.

The televised fashion show has generated criticism in the past from groups complaining about supermodels strutting down the runway in skimpy underwear.


A message left Saturday at the New York office of CBS, which has televised the show the past two years, was not immediately returned.


Olga Vives, vice president of the National Organization for Women, praised the cancelation, saying the show only objectifies women.


``We're concerned young women think they have to look this way,'' Vives said, adding she hoped the cancelation is permanent.


``There are many other ways to promote their product.''


The fashion show, which aired in November the last two years, was televised on ABC in 2001. The first show was broadcast online in 1999; 1.5 million visitors tried to log on at once, bringing the site down within 20 minutes.


Victoria's Secret has $4 billion in annual sales.

Of course, a year ago, it was perfectly okay. That's just lunacy. What are we, in the 1950s?

I love America. We turn everything into a big fuss like airplanes security or whatnot over one misshap. I mean it was one tit. We have all this violence now on Tv and video games, yet we freak over a tit. I think it should be the other way around.

oh no, no victoria's secret, my life is ruined.

Not Janet Jackson's boobies.

``We're concerned young women think they have to look this way,'' Vives said, adding she hoped the cancelation is permanent.

Oh quit your fondling. Even though I think the double standard over this Janet Jackson breast baring was ridiculous (how is it worse than what Britney Spears does every award show? It's the same thing) you have to admit that the woman has a point. Did you see Fight Club? That movie was about middle class guys feeling fed up with the consumer culture and white collar lifestyle which have become the typical way of life. The obsession with appearance in this culture is just as bad. That's why I loved the movie Thirteen. Not because of the teens gone bad storyline, but because it shows how the image obsession affects girls. Open your eyes a minute. Surely their motives are dubious, but this represents a change for the better whatever the reasons.

I find it funny that Americans think showing a tit on television is the end of the world, and then when you go just about everywhere else, they all think we're stupid.

Did you see Fight Club?

Yeah, good movie...

Still though, fuck the FCC. I want my boobies.

This is quite disappointing.

Remember what Sheila Brovlowski (Kyle's mom from South Park) says:"Graphic deplorable violence is OK as long as nobody says any naughty words". That carries over to sex as well. This country is so hung up on violence over sex, that it's no wonder that our domestic violence rate is so high. America.....you can have it. And the Vicotria's Secret fashion show was always amazing. It was definitely a "Must Watch" in my house (and this from a gay guy )

I'm thinking the same here.
Why do we encourage violence over sex?
Which one do you really think is the bigger threat here?

I'm tired of these double standards, seriously.

Oh quit your fondling. Even though I think the double standard over this Janet Jackson breast baring was ridiculous (how is it worse than what Britney Spears does every award show? It's the same thing) you have to admit that the woman has a point. Did you see Fight Club? That movie was about middle class guys feeling fed up with the consumer culture and white collar lifestyle which have become the typical way of life. The obsession with appearance in this culture is just as bad. That's why I loved the movie Thirteen. Not because of the teens gone bad storyline, but because it shows how the image obsession affects girls. Open your eyes a minute. Surely their motives are dubious, but this represents a change for the better whatever the reasons.

well ed, that is PART of the problem. But the greater issue extends to everyone, and not just teens. A lot of things on TV and in Ads and other mediums promote certain forms of behavior to become the norm among the masses. But where is the line where we favor free speech over shelter, and vice versa? What's the optimal balance?

[font="OPTIMA"]

But where is the line where we favor free speech over shelter, and vice versa? What's the optimal balance?

with the parents.

i believe that free-speech means precisely that, free-speech. people should be allowed to express themselves however they see fit, without physically harming another person, or another persons property, against that persons will.

if you find some-thing offensive, then don't support it, and make sure your kids aren't exposed to it. be an active parent, be an active member of society, and turn the knob that says "channel".

and, is it me, or is Victoria's Secret getting boring? when i was a kid i remember seeing this beautiful, sexy, sensuous underwear everytime i looked into a Victoria's Secret (or my mother dragged me into one). now there's only one, or two peices in each line fitting that description! pathetic, really.

i say put the women of America, and the world, in lacy, frilly, flirty, sexy underwear, and take them out of this "cute", "comfortable", and icky crap![/font]

I wasn't being theoretical, cg.

In reality, parents WON'T take responsibility.

In theory, I think parents should take complete responsibility for the raising of their kids, and stop letting the tv do it for them.

But that won't stop them from doing just that.
Besides, the limits are not there to really shelter, it's mainly an insurance issue.
Kid A does some violent thing, and ends up injuring himself. Parents of kid A look for people to sue. They find the show/station/etc. and cause a annoying and expensive session. Censorship is in place to prevent it from being easy to get sued. If they say they took precautions, and that the material in question is approved somehow by "experts", or groups, etc, then sueing can be drastically harder, and therefore it occurs less often. That's the real reason anything is censored. For the FCC, this is just an excuse to cover their asses, and look like the good guys while doing it.

i say put the women of America, and the world, in lacy, frilly, flirty, sexy underwear, and take them out of this "cute", "comfortable", and icky crap!

Oh is that what you say.

I'm not talking about free speech here. I'm talking about cultural standards. I don't think the Victoria Secret fashion show should be banned from TV I just don't like that the general response is "boo, we want to see boobs damn it. we have a right to see boobs". Maybe you could have some more respect than that. It's ridiculous how much money people spend on designer clothes, make-up, weightloss programs, plastic surgery, skincare products. Bah, give me a break. I don't need to buy some special skin cream product to be accepted in society. Commercials try to tell me I do but they just want to make money. I'm not frightened into thinking I have to look perfect but a lot of people are and that just isn't acceptable to me. Think for yourselves, think for yourselves, think for yourselves, think for yourselves. I can't say that enough. Sexual attraction is animal instinct. Now love and respect, those are real human emotions.

I don't think the Victoria Secret fashion show should be banned from TV I just don't like that the general response is "boo, we want to see boobs damn it. we have a right to see boobs". Maybe you could have some more respect than that.

when did i say "boo, we want to see boobs damn it"? i said that i was disgusted about how Victoria's Secret once produced beautiful under-wear, and now produces ugly underwear, which i felt was fair game in a topic concering a Victoria's Secret fashion-show!

It's ridiculous how much money people spend on designer clothes, make-up, weightloss programs, plastic surgery, skincare products. Bah, give me a break. I don't need to buy some special skin cream product to be accepted in society. Commercials try to tell me I do but they just want to make money. I'm not frightened into thinking I have to look perfect but a lot of people are and that just isn't acceptable to me. Think for yourselves, think for yourselves, think for yourselves, think for yourselves. I can't say that enough.

quite simply: people want to look good, not to be "accepted in society". i doubt the majority of people who wear designer clothing think "i wonder if this will make me fit in better within the social frame-work". what they're thinking is "does this make me look good?", and "can i afford it?".

people do, and should, go after the highest quality of product they can afford, in every facet of their life. big-names are often big-names for a reason, and that reason is that they make high-quality products. this isn't true of all fields (especially music, movies, etc), but within something like fashion, or cosmetics, it is.

also, you do tend to be accepted better by people if you look great, than if you look like crap. simple fact of life, for better, or worse.

Kid A does some violent thing, and ends up injuring himself. Parents of kid A look for people to sue. They find the show/station/etc. and cause a annoying and expensive session. Censorship is in place to prevent it from being easy to get sued.

i disagree. if the government acknowledges that a TV station has the responsibility to parent it's viewers, and fails at that, then i believe the parent has more of a case, not less of one. the government should force the parents to parent the viewers, and then, if such a case arises, the law would say "well, where were you?", instead of saying "here's your money"!

I know you didn't say that Chauncey. I was replying to everyone not just you. Only that first line was a response to you specifically. And yes I know people are thinking about wanting to look good, not fit the acceptable model of success defined by society. But what people's intentions are and what they are thinking subconsciously are often not the same thing. Why is looking good so important that people will buy a $200 pair of jeans? People do it or they wouldn't make $200 pairs of jeans.

People do and should go after the highest quality product they can afford? Spare me please. Life is not one big shopping mall. It may seem that way to some people but believe it or not, buying things and making money to buy more things is not what matters in life. I don't accept that. That's corporate executives, advertising experts, and research studies speaking. Big names are often big names because of ridiculous fads and the focus on celebrity and what famous people are wearing. What's MTV? It's one 24 hour long television ad. They're selling us "cool" in music videos and people just eat it up. You have to be this to be cool, you have to do this to fit in. You want people to like you don't you? You want to be accepted. People tend to be accepted better if they look great? Yeah it's true. People do tend to be accepted better if they look great. Even more so if they wear trendy clothes, style their hair, and act in whatever way society has defined as "cool" for the next 15 minutes (give or take).

Bull. Shit. Just because that's the way things happen to be doesn't mean they have to be that way. Inertia carries objects in the same direction until they bump up against something. So let's put something in the way for society to bump into. You don't need money to be happy. People live all over the world who are very happy and don't even know what money is. And then there's us. Always trying to be something we're not. Always looking out for that next thing we have to have. It's all bullshit. You can let inertia carry you along like the rest of the suckers or you can be the force that stops it, and gets it going in the right direction. No I will not submit to a lifestyle that is utterly ridiculous. No I will not allow things to happen as they want to happen. I am an individual. I can make a difference. And you can to.

I know you didn't say that Chauncey. I was replying to everyone not just you. Only that first line was a response to you specifically. And yes I know people are thinking about wanting to look good, not fit the acceptable model of success defined by society. But what people's intentions are and what they are thinking subconsciously are often not the same thing. Why is looking good so important that people will buy a $200 pair of jeans? People do it or they wouldn't make $200 pairs of jeans.

People do and should go after the highest quality product they can afford? Spare me please. Life is not one big shopping mall. It may seem that way to some people but believe it or not, buying things and making money to buy more things is not what matters in life. I don't accept that. That's corporate executives, advertising experts, and research studies speaking. Big names are often big names because of ridiculous fads and the focus on celebrity and what famous people are wearing. What's MTV? It's one 24 hour long television ad. They're selling us "cool" in music videos and people just eat it up. You have to be this to be cool, you have to do this to fit in. You want people to like you don't you? You want to be accepted. People tend to be accepted better if they look great? Yeah it's true. People do tend to be accepted better if they look great. Even more so if they wear trendy clothes, style their hair, and act in whatever way society has defined as "cool" for the next 15 minutes (give or take).

Bull. Shit. Just because that's the way things happen to be doesn't mean they have to be that way. Inertia carries objects in the same direction until they bump up against something. So let's put something in the way for society to bump into. You don't need money to be happy. People live all over the world who are very happy and don't even know what money is. And then there's us. Always trying to be something we're not. Always looking out for that next thing we have to have. It's all bullshit. You can let inertia carry you along like the rest of the suckers or you can be the force that stops it, and gets it going in the right direction. No I will not submit to a lifestyle that is utterly ridiculous. No I will not allow things to happen as they want to happen. I am an individual. I can make a difference. And you can to.

a-fucking-men

chauncey is a victim of consumer whore-ism.

are you two joking? you take something i say, and then come up with a totally different conclusion than what is, well, the most obvious conclusion you could draw from what i say. pathetic, really.

sorry, i lost a lot of respect for you at THIS statement:

people do, and should, go after the highest quality of product they can afford, in every facet of their life. big-names are often big-names for a reason, and that reason is that they make high-quality products. this isn't true of all fields (especially music, movies, etc), but within something like fashion, or cosmetics, it is.

THAT is pathetic.
It basically says you've accepted that life is an expense and not an experience; that all our work SHOULD be channeled towards fleeting vanity and meeting the status quo of a "me first" consumer culture.
You remind me of the guy's wife from American Beauty.

i disagree. if the government acknowledges that a TV station has the responsibility to parent it's viewers, and fails at that, then i believe the parent has more of a case, not less of one. the government should force the parents to parent the viewers, and then, if such a case arises, the law would say "well, where were you?", instead of saying "here's your money"!

you misunderstand as well. What I was saying is that in reality, that is what HAPPENS. Therefore, they take steps to prevent lawsuits which would cost them money. I never said it was right, or that it is ideal, just that is where the blame gets shifted to.

are you two joking? you take something i say, and then come up with a totally different conclusion than what is, well, the most obvious conclusion you could draw from what i say. pathetic, really.

I read what you said and I replied. Maybe it's not so obvious what other conclusion could be drawn from what you said. What is the obvious conclusion that I'm overlooking? I'm just taking what you said, simplifying it to it's theoretical basis, and then extrapolating from there. It seems to me that you're talking about life in American society as if that's the only life there is. That fashion and appearance are rules to be followed in all circumstances. There are alternatives.

[QUOTEYou remind me of the guy's wife from American Beauty.
]

"I will sell this house today!!!"