Leaderboard

You shove a lot of things in our faces.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

... let me try this again 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.

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

He gets off over animals mostly.

How is what Tracker said valid in the first place, since you were just criticizing it?("He" being Tracker)

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

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