Ban Girls Gone Wild Commercials?

As I said, Tico. I watched Benny Hill at 3pm yesterday, and would consider it unconstitutional censorship for you or anyone else to tell me I can't. One parent may draw the line between GGW and Benny Hill. Another between Benny Hill and Charlie's Angels. Still another between Charlie's angels and the Beverly Hillbillies. What they all have in common is they are exercising their personal choices without interfering with mine… providing they're not seeking government regulation to enforce their personal choices.

I do think that commercials are a different idea than programs.

A responsible parent can check the TV guide to see what will be on at 3:00 PM, confirm that with a quick glance at the TV at the beginning of the show, and then no longer have to stand sentry. If that parent has decided to let their kid watch Benny Hill, fine. If that parent has decided not to let their kid watch Benny Hill, also fine.

But I've never seen a TV guide that publishes what commercials will be on during breaks. "At 7:00 PM: Scrubs (Y-14). At 7:02:00 PM: Budweiser commercial, featuring frogs (Y-7, mild language). At 7:02:30 PM: Aflac commercial, featuring talking duck (G)..."

So it comes down to whether a parent is really given the opportunity to make a responsible choice when we are talking about an unacceptable commercial that shows up unexpectedly in the midst of an acceptable program. Must every parent own a TiVO?

Again, I'm not saying that I think the commercials should be banned. I'm saying like there seems like it would be reasonable to have commercials that are not significantly more "extreme" (violence, sex, whatever) than the program that is showing when those commercials appear.

They did that for awhile, but it was 89,000 pages long and plus the post office wasn't very happy. :wink:

But of course that's NOT what I'm advocating. I'm not saying GGW or Benny Hill should not be broadcast, nor am I saying you can't watch it. I'm suggesting a reasonable time restriction on their broadcast. I'm less concerned with Benny Hill, as I mentioned.

It is not unconstitutional censorship for the government to tell a broadcaster to refrain from broadcasting content that meets certain standards between certain hours. It is not unconstitutional censorship for the government to tell a broadcaster they cannot broadcast a XXX porn movie opposite Desperate Housewives. I know you THINK it is unconstitutional censorship, but your strong believe that it is does not make it so. Yours in an extreme position of what constitutes censorship in America. As I said a couple of pages ago, narrowly tailored regulations that are necessary to achieve the compelling government interest of protecting children are valid and completely Constitutional restrictions on speech.

But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ... still.

I concur, Soz, and have stated that I have no objection to a rating system for commercials nor a requirement that their content not exceed that of the programming that is airing them. I see no need for Viagra commercials during children's programming, let alone GGW.

I haven't seen the program in question, however, but I didn't get the impression it was geared towards children. It seems to me; half the beers out there will make young girls want to start removing clothes simply by purchasing them, if their commercials are to be believed. So will most male fragrances. Stiffy-pill commercials are not exactly subliminal in their suggestions either. Would any of these commercials also be deemed inappropriate for the audience of the show in question?

Tico; both of the episodes of Benny Hill yesterday were more sexually explicit than any GGW commercial I have seen. Both showed some boobs and butts and I am confident they did so for the exact same reason... though the humor certainly made it considerably less tasteless. There is nothing extreme about me not wanting you to decide when or if I watch Benny Hill. You don't get to pick and choose which raunchy stuff is better than which, either. Your feelings of righteousness in superimposing your values on me are quite surprising. It is up to you whether GGW is better or worse than Benny Hill… and you are ready to legislate it as well? How about the beer commercials? Surely we don't want kids buying beer to entice young beauties out of their clothes either, do we? Is 8:30 at night too early for such an advertisement?

cyphercat...



Cool, that's all I'm saying.

The show was Scrubs, right? Sure, not a kids show. But beer commercials and Viagra commercials are to GGW ads as some raunchy dialogue from "Cheers" is to a porn movie. Seriously, a Viagra ad is the height of discretion compared to GGW. As a kid, I wouldn't have understood what those "Bob is very popular with the ladies these days *nudge nudge wink wink*" spots were even talking about.

Yes, a teenager watching Scrubs isn't exactly going to be traumatized by a beer commercial, if that's what you're saying. But a GGW ad is quite a jump beyond that. They'll show almost a sex act, with a little star juuust covering the naughty bits. Come on, girls making out with their breasts exposed--as long as there's a star over the nipples-- is the same as one of those Axe cologne commercials? You don't really think that, I betcha.

The GGW commercials I have seen are girls lifting their shirts, with the goods being blacked out, and a couple of girls kissing. This is not exactly pornography, there is no nudity and no sex acts were being performed. Conversely, Benny Hill shows nudity, complete with old perverts ogling, ass and boob grabbing (though not on nudes), and the perversion is every bit as suggestive as any GGW commercial I have seen… probably more so. It just happens to be funny, too. GGW commercials are suggestive of young girls removing there clothes. Beer commercials aren't? Yes; they are. Is it somehow better that beer commercials are suggestive for the purpose of selling beer? Has there ever been an episode of Married with children that didn't rely heavily on suggestive sexual behavior with smoking hot young girls? What is the selling point of desperate housewives? Have daytime soap operas ever revolved around anything but pretty young people jumping in and out of bed with people they're not supposed to? Baywatch is world famous for showing scantily dressed girls and beautiful young people in general. Can anyone name a second reason to watch the program? Which outtakes are presented in advertisings for every National Lampoon film there has ever been? How about the movies "Striptease", "Showgirls" or "Indecent Proposal"? How precisely is a GGW commercial any different? Which issue of Sports Illustrated is relied upon in commercials, likely to the effect of doubling their effectiveness? What do you find on the cover of virtually every issue of Cosmopolitan, Vogue and Maxim? How old is the average barely covered girl in a Calvin Klein ad? Does anyone not know Victoria's Secret?

Or is it the girls kissing part that's getting the hackles up?

Yes that's it more me all right, it's my hackle, it keeps heckling at inopportune moments.

This is exactly why I watch dvd's. I don't need Anal Queens IV interupted
by a bunch of innappropriate commercials.

Bill, you can compare GGW commercials to as many tv shows as you want, it doesn't make the comparison valid. I don't care how much nudity is on Benny Hill or whether bed-hopping is the point of soaps; as has been said a zillion times on this thread, parents can choose to censor scheduled programs.



Out of your plethora of examples this was one of the few that has any meaning, as they are both commercials. It is difficult for me to believe that anyone could not see a difference between a beer commercial and a GGW spot, but of course it's a bit too difficult to quantify such a thing in order to prove it to someone who doesn't wish to admit it.

Oh, and the girls kissing girls thing-- no, it makes no nevermind to me if it's hetero or homo-- it's simply that these commercials are too graphic. I will admit it's been a long time since I've seen one of these ads, so I don't remember specifics well enough to really discuss this; I just remember being completely stunned at the kind of thing they were showing. And I think I'm pretty inured to smut, too, I watch Comedy Central all the time...

Ours is a country of laws, and these laws exist because a few people decided to impose their values on the masses. It is for this reason that we decided rape and prostitution are against the law -- well, except in Vegas. Around these parts, if you decide to run down Main Street naked, there's a strong likelihood you will be immediately arrested. The reason is because the government has decided the public's interest in not seeing your dangly bits is superior to your burning desire to be seen in the altogether. So, yes, morality is legislated, and despite your intense desire to express yourself in the buff, your free speech in that regard is curtailed.

There is no question the GGW broadcast is more offensive and indecent than the Benny Hill program. GGW is more explicit and graphic than Benny Hill, and it attempts to pander or titillate the audience, largely appealing to the shock value of the broadcast. Further, in the GGW commercials, the indecent material is repeated over and over, thus exacerbating its indecency; it's not a fleeting and incidental part of a comedy show.

You have failed to address the fact that what I'm advocating is legal and in accordance with Constitutional safeguards, relying instead on your proclamation that I don't have the right to tell you what you can watch. The fact is, the government DOES have the ability to regulate the broadcast media by fining a broadcaster that violates the rules. It is not an issue of whether I believe the matter is indecent, it is whether the matter is patently offensive when measured by contemporary community standards. The FCC can and does prohibit indecent programming at times when there is a reasonable risk children may be in the audience. The government has a compelling interest in the well-being of children, and a safe-harbor time frame for children to not be exposed to indecent programming is valid.

Burlesque and Sleaze are not even on the same page.

Prove that governmental compulsion has protected the so-called "well-being of children" in such a manner that if can be conclusively demonstrated the "well-being of children" who did see the equivalent of GGW were harmed, and the extent of that harm logically meant the reduction in freedoms to show the equivalent of GGW.

Where exactly is your concrete proof of this presumed harm in children who did see equivalent of GGW? Did these children end up in insane asylums more often? Did these children become wards of the state more often?

Surely covering the last 1,000 years you should easily be able to argue myriad concrete, well documented examples of definitive harm to children who did view the equivalent of GGW, as opposed to those children who did not view the equivalent of GGW and as such you would logically demonstrate then led much healthier lives.

Here's some information and statistics.

Tico, you are stretching the known truth to make your points. The commercials are obviously no more graphic than the Law allows; or we wouldn't be debating whether or not they should be banned in the future tense, now would we? Likewise, Cyphercat must have gotten bored reading my list, because somehow she only saw one Ad. Further; I didn't duck your time restriction; I questioned the content of and reiterated the time slot for the program in question... 8:30pm.

At 8:06 Eastern Time last night, during Law and Order, Criminal Intent, KY introduced a new product in a very suggestive way, that went well beyond lifting shirts to reveal no more than a Barbie Doll does once the blacking out is taken into account.

I don't think the objectors here are being honest about their objections.

It simply cannot be the near nudity that's offensive, right? Some ads for every product from Soap, Shampoo and Lady's Razor's to Suntan lotion depict beautiful women removing clothes and reveal every bit as much of the Female body. This is a FACT… so that can't be it.

It simply cannot be the suggestion that partying and having fun is the problem, because most beer commercial do that, and the comparison has been soundly (though inexplicably) rejected.

It simply cannot be the intended target audience (perverted dudes), because practically every Teen Movie Ad (and even horror films for that matter), let alone Ads for "StripTease" and "Showgirls" have precisely the same Target.

So what's left? Is it the more than a little suggestive title; "Girls Gone Wild"? Is the use of the word "Girl" what's over the top? Is it the consensus among objectors that the unintended target (young girls) are being shown inappropriate behavior in a fun and encouraging way? Is this what we think should be regulated? Well; that's still standing on a pretty slippery slope. The girls in question are all adults for one thing... and suggestions of naughty behavior have been intrinsic in Ads since the beginning of time.

Does anyone remember how scary Damien was in Ads for "The Omen"? How about McCulley Culkin in the Ads for the "The Good Son" (if you remember; they showed him dropping another child to his death)? Is this overtly suggestive behavior somehow less potentially harmful? Why? Because it's not Daddy's little girl? How about the Ads for all the Kid/Martial Arts films demonstrating how cool it is to kick other kid's asses? Are those less harmful than an Adult woman lifting her shirt to ultimately reveal nothing? Does anyone remember the Ads for "Kill Bill" Volumes one and two or more recently "Sin City"? These Ads thoroughly painted the picture of how cool it is to murder people. Is this less harmful to your impressionable youngster? Even as an adult; I distinctly remember the hair standing up on my arms as anger took it's toll when seeing ads for "A Time to Kill" and worse still; "The Accused" (when I eventually watched the latter, it made me contemplate a killing spree myself, briefly.) But these ads are A-OK... as long as no one's having fun lifting their shirts to ultimately reveal nothing. This simply doesn't add up.

GGW commercials, and moreover the product itself, are not the cause of societal problems. At worst, they are a reflection of same. The same holds true for half the Video Games out there, the myriad of Teen movies, horror flicks and let's not forget Rap Music, Biatch. While it may very well be in a parent's best interest to shield their children from these things, that is not the job of the government.

If depicting young women in raunchy ways and inadvertantly encouraging young girls to behave in similar fashion is to be banned; what pray tell are we to do with Paris Hilton? Was it Brittany Spears (every young girl's idol) that kissed Madonna on the lips during an awards ceremony? Did anyone expect that? Was anyone's child harmed by that?

Just like Larry Flint's "Hustler" Magazine; GGW is being targetted because of it's extreme unpopularity among everyone but their clients. It is difficult indeed to defend smut. However, the very attribute that makes these products so imminently attackable (unpopular), is precisely the reason they NEED protection under our constitution. The public's desire to single GGW out, for promoting more directly the exact same image that's being promoted everywhere is simply unfair. You cannot single this product out without writing a law that covers the attributes that are considered regulatable, and design a bill that covers every other product that meets the criteria. In this case; many commercials for soap, shampoo, razors, perfume, suntan lotion, beer, and a large variety of Movie adds would equally qualify... once you work with criteria, rather than illegally focusing on a single product you disdain.

When it comes to protecting the first amendment; you have to go to bat for the worst crap out there to preserve it. That's the way the system works.

Back to the show and the man (rather than the ads alone).. Last week, the Francis admitted to failing to document ages of underage girls used in his videos. He paid two hefty fines, one was paid by his company and one by, it would seem, himself. He's on 2 years probation.

Is it enough of a penalty?

Bad Boys Get Caught

Are you talking about the Francis that hangs around this site, littlek?

He makes those kinds of movies?

Yes. Yes he does.