Well said, well said. Very thorough and I couldn't agree more.

I honestly don't see what there is to be offended at here. It's a documentary on something that's a core part of life as a whole. There's a lot to discuss, a lot to document... It seems like a great match for a documentary to me. Would I watch it? Nah, I don't even watch TV, there's not enough content that interests me to make it worth the time and money. But what is there to be offended about with this program? Sex is intimate, but I don't see why it's often considered "dirty". Yes, it can be dirty (the specifics of what you consider dirty depending on your personal beliefs to an extent, but I don't think many will disagree that things like, for example, extramarital affairs are "dirty" in some sense of the word), but sex in and of itself is not some inherently dirty thing that shouldn't be discussed. Heck, if it weren't for sex you wouldn't exist right now. In fact, maybe this documentary actually has some interesting things to say about varying views on sex being a taboo subject, and why some people don't like discussing it, in which case it could be interesting to watch for those wondering about it. But honestly, I don't give a darn about most of what's on TV anyway, I just occasionally watch MythBusters clips on YouTube and that's it, so meh.

Just one more thing to toss in - I noticed the original status update and comments implied an attitude of "today's TV shows involve sex, how crude, that never happened in the good old days". I think it's safe to say that sex is indeed more of a focus in media today (usually in the "naughty" sense as opposed to basic documentaries and such). However, I would like to provide an example of a specific episode from a TV show I watched VHS tapes and TV Land reruns of a TON as a kid: The Andy Griffith Show. A well-loved, classic, family friendly sitcom that's over 50 years old now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0512521/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

... Look, people... Don't be so uptight. The topic of sex, in and of itself, isn't something to avoid. It's been around for a while, there's nothing wrong with it. "Naughty" TV programs and such are a different matter entirely (perhaps not suitable for in-depth discussion here? Probably would end up pushing the whole NSFW part of the forum rules), but again, just use common sense, don't flip out, and things should generally be fine.

tl;dr version: Keep calm and carry on.

Complete agreement. I wanted to write more, but there was no need for me to do so.

Actually, it is more disappointment than offense.  What annoyed me about it was that it was their "feature" of the week (ie, the show that they told everyone about with bug in the corner), which tells me that the world seems to have slipped.

Actually, it is more disappointment than offense.  What annoyed me about it was that it was their "feature" of the week (ie, the show that they told everyone about with bug in the corner), which tells me that the world seems to have slipped.

What does "with bug in the corner" mean? And how is this a slip? This is the history channel, not children's programming.

 

Why can't it be their feature of the week? Because it's about sex? Sex plays a very important role in history. You were watching the History Channel. We can't progress as a society if we can't talk about important, relevant things.

You're doing more or less what Jobless was talking about.

I don't mind the odd talk about sex.  Heck, I'd lecture some people on it (namely why things like sodomy were forbidden) if I had the chance.  What I do mind is having the subject almost shoved in my face.

 

You know those little logos you see in the corners?  Those are bugs.  H2 had one in the upper left advertising it.

 

O.T. Does no one find it "odd" that it is a furry that is complaining about this?

What I do mind is having the subject almost shoved in my face.

You shove a lot of things in our faces.

I don't mind the odd talk about sex.  Heck, I'd lecture some people on it (namely why things like sodomy were forbidden) if I had the chance.  What I do mind is having the subject almost shoved in my face.

 

You know those little logos you see in the corners?  Those are bugs.  H2 had one in the upper left advertising it.

 

O.T. Does no one find it "odd" that it is a furry that is complaining about this?

How is it shoved in your face? It's telling you about a documentary that's going to be on the history channel. It just happened to contain the word sex. Shoved in your face would mean that it appeared in the center of the screen, shouted it, and then wouldn't let you change the channel.

 

And sodomy? Really? So can't even stand to see a little message in the history corner, but you would lecture people about sodomy and why it's wrong? If anything is disgusting, it's the hypocrisy of forcing your religious (or even worse, personal disgust with something that shouldn't affect you unless you choose for it to) views on people and then complaining about this.

 

Seriously, where do you get off?

 

Edit: Got confused about who he was referring to with the furry thing.

He's a furry. So what? Maybe he's "turned on" by furry things, maybe not (not all furries are). Either way, does that make what he says any less valid?

How is what Tracker said valid in the first place, since you were just criticizing it?

("He" being Tracker)

He's a furry. So what? Maybe he's "turned on" by furry things, maybe not (not all furries are). Either way, does that make what he says any less valid?

How is what Tracker said valid in the first place, since you were just criticizing it?

("He" being Tracker)

It was not, which was I felt the need to explain that to him.

Seriously, where do you get off?

He gets off over animals mostly.

It was not, which was I felt the need to explain that to him.

Then what you said in what I quoted makes even less sense... look at the rest of my post.

It was not, which was I felt the need to explain that to him.

Then what you said in what I quoted makes even less sense... look at the rest of my post.

He thought that it was valid, and my goal was to point out that it was not.

...

let me try this again

He's a furry. So what? Maybe he's "turned on" by furry things, maybe not (not all furries are). Either way, does that make what he says any less valid?

You were just criticizing Tracker for what he said, and now you're saying that being a furry doesn't make what he said less valid (and referring to him in third person)...?

ergh I'm speaking too awkwardly.Nevermind.

...

let me try this again

He's a furry. So what? Maybe he's "turned on" by furry things, maybe not (not all furries are). Either way, does that make what he says any less valid?

You were just criticizing Tracker for what he said, and now you're saying that being a furry doesn't make what he said less valid (and referring to him in third person)...?

ergh I'm speaking too awkwardly.Nevermind.

OHHH, is Tracker the furry? I thought he was talking about McJobless.

Fixed original post.

OHHH, is Tracker the furry? I thought he was talking about McJobless.

Sorry, Job, I don't know most of you very well.

Sorry, Job, I don't know most of you very well.

That's alright with me, just glad you corrected the mistake ;P

Fun fact: Both my finals for African American History and American Women's History involved discussing the negative influence of media stereotypes. The African American final was entirely about the subject, while the other final involved the term "Enlightened Sexism", an annoying concept that came out of 90's media.

 

So I'm coming into this topic armed with a metaphorical chain gun.

 

Be brilliantly unfazed by vulgar language, sex scenes, and sexist content all you want, there are still people who do react to it. I don't currently mean 'react' as in taking great offense, flailing your arms around, and having your body fly out a window (I've been watching a lot of Gmod animations). I mean 'react' as in shifting their lives to detrimental ones, to reflect the media they are exposed to.

 

"In 2007 the American Psychological Association issued a report that concluded that the rampant sexualization of girls was undermining their self-esteem and jeopardizing their physical and psychological health because they were learning at ever younger ages that their value came primarily from their sexual appeal and behavior. Cosmo, Maxim, and so much else in the media are adamant that girls' sexual desirability to men is much more important than girls' own desires, health, or achievements." -Susan J. Douglas's book The Rise of Enlightened Sexism

Do you even know what we're talking about, Alcom? This is not about sexism, this is about the use of the word "sex".

The guy was offended by the fact that he had to see the word "sex" on television. It was about how it changed the world, not about anything sexist or racist.

Do you even know what we're talking about, Alcom? This is not about sexism, this is about the use of the word "sex".

I thought McJobless expanded the argument to content that could be deemed 'sexist'.

Do you even know what we're talking about, Alcom? This is not about sexism, this is about the use of the word "sex".

I thought McJobless expanded the argument to content that could be deemed 'sexist'.

As far as I can tell, he did not.

He's a furry. So what? Maybe he's "turned on" by furry things, maybe not (not all furries are). Either way, does that make what he says any less valid?

Trust me, you wouldn't need to be a furry to be "turned on" by some work if people are doing what I think they are doing. Human is human, it does not matter if that human is zoomorphic or not.

What I meant by slipping is that we as a society are putting sex where it probably should not be put. It is every where, even in schools. I had classmates in Drafting 1 drawing certain feminine assets in AutoCAD in high school. These same classmates also responded "What is circumcision?" or something similar ever time when the instructor said the word circumscribed. And I saw worse in the halls. And this was a "country" school, a place that such things are quite unexpected. Now do you think we may have a slight problem?

Trust me, you wouldn't need to be a furry to be "turned on" by some work if people are doing what I think they are doing. Human is human, it does not matter if that human is zoomorphic or not.

You have no right to claim that with providing some evidence first. I don't get turned on everytime I see a picture of a wolf and a human fused together in a sexual manner, and I'm extremely sure that most humans who are not Furries are the same, if not all of them.

What I meant by slipping is that we as a society are putting sex where it probably should not be put. It is every where, even in schools. I had classmates in Drafting 1 drawing certain feminine assets in AutoCAD in high school. These same classmates also responded "What is circumcision?" or something similar ever time when the instructor said the word circumscribed. And I saw worse in the halls. And this was a "country" school, a place that such things are quite unexpected. Now do you think we may have a slight problem?

Absolutely not.

That's immature teens being immature teens. This happens EVERYWHERE. It's expected for at least a few people in school to make sexual jokes. Just because you're not acquainted with it, doesn't mean that every country town is the exact same.

If you don't think sexual jokes are funny, then don't make them, and don't laugh. But I'm telling you, this is a normal thing to happen, and sooner or later you will need accept this.