Sexual behavior should have at least an R rating

[glockmail]

As far as I’m concerned any sexual behavior should have at least an R rating. Keep it private and away from kids, and no one should be allowed to bother you about it. Insist on going public, and we've got a problem.

For normal heterosexuals, this means keeping your damn clothes on. Guys: keep your pants from falling down over your underwear, and ladies: a little cleavage and leg is nice, but more is not always better. And if you must kiss each other in public- keep it short and respectful. No grabbing boobs and ass.

This "rule" would preclude gay marriage, gay parents, gay adoptions, gay teachers, gays on TV, transsexual passports, and discussions about gay cowboy movies in the mass media.

 

[dmp]

what really irks me is this:

Janet Jackson flashed a tit during the superbowl and everybody had a heart-attack.

Yet, during that same superbowl we watched advertisements about Errectile Disfunction and nobody said anything. A breast isn't neccessarily 'sexual' - but an errect wang is ONLY sexual - that is to say, somebody selling something to help a guy's penis 'inflate' gets a free pass, but 2 seconds of a boob gets fined by the FCC.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

what really irks me is this:

Janet Jackson flashed a tit during the superbowl and everybody had a heart-attack.

Yet, during that same superbowl we watched advertisements about Errectile Disfunction and nobody said anything. A breast isn't neccessarily 'sexual' - but an errect wang is ONLY sexual - that is to say, somebody selling something to help a guy's penis 'inflate' gets a free pass, but 2 seconds of a boob gets fined by the FCC.

Her breast was entirely sexual. She spent the entire performance girating around.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This "rule" would preclude gay marriage, gay parents, gay adoptions, gay teachers, gays on TV, transsexual passports, and discussions about gay cowboy movies in the mass media.

How, exactly, does it preclude those things?

 

[glockmail]

....Janet Jackson flashed a tit .....advertisements about Errectile Disfunction .....

I think thay are both R rated.

 

[glockmail]

How, exactly, does it preclude those things?

Because they are displays of sexual behaivior, and as I opined in post 1, sexual behavior should have at least an R rating.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Because they are displays of sexual behaivior, and as I opined in post 1, sexual behavior should have at least an R rating.

How is a homosexual marriage a display of sexual behaivior when a heterosexual marriage is not?

 

[dmp]

How is a homosexual marriage a display of sexual behaivior when a heterosexual marriage is not?

Homosexuals are defined, in large part, by their sexual practices. Heterosexuals don't have 'parades' to 'flaunt' their normal sexuality. I think that's where he's going.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Homosexuals are defined, in large part, by their sexual practices. Heterosexuals don't have 'parades' to 'flaunt' their normal sexuality. I think that's where he's going.

Fine. I have no problem with the gay parades disappearing. Putting an R rating on sexual behaivor does not preclude relationships, whatever their orientation.

 

[glockmail]

How is a homosexual marriage a display of sexual behaivior when a heterosexual marriage is not?

Traditional marriage is part of the normal process of raising children, while a homosexual relationship of any sort is not.

 

[glockmail]

Fine. I have no problem with the gay parades disappearing. Putting an R rating on sexual behaivor does not preclude relationships, whatever their orientation.

I don't advocate banning abnormal sexual relationships- simply that these relationships remain "private", between consenting adults behind closed doors, thereby eliminating their potential negative impacts on society, especially children.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Traditional marriage is part of the normal process of raising children, while a homosexual relationship of any sort is not.

But that has nothing to do with putting an R rating on sexual behaivor.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I don't advocate banning abnormal sexual relationships- simply that these relationships remain "private", between consenting adults behind closed doors, thereby eliminating their potential negative impacts on society, especially children.

I didn't say anything about sexual relationships. Obviously you think any kind of sexual relations should be behind closed doors.

If a woman introduces another woman as her spouse, what is sexually graphic about that?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

As far as I’m concerned any sexual behavior should have at least an R rating. Keep it private and away from kids, and no one should be allowed to bother you about it. Insist on going public, and we've got a problem.

For normal heterosexuals, this means keeping your damn clothes on. Guys: keep your pants from falling down over your underwear, and ladies: a little cleavage and leg is nice, but more is not always better. And if you must kiss each other in public- keep it short and respectful. No grabbing boobs and ass.

This "rule" would preclude gay marriage, gay parents, gay adoptions, gay teachers, gays on TV, transsexual passports, and discussions about gay cowboy movies in the mass media.

Thanks Fanny. I'll be sure and forward your suggestions to Beaver's dad. Would you like a nice, tall glass of milk or are you happy with your prude juice?

 

[Kagom]

As far as I’m concerned any sexual behavior should have at least an R rating. Keep it private and away from kids, and no one should be allowed to bother you about it. Insist on going public, and we've got a problem.

For normal heterosexuals, this means keeping your damn clothes on. Guys: keep your pants from falling down over your underwear, and ladies: a little cleavage and leg is nice, but more is not always better. And if you must kiss each other in public- keep it short and respectful. No grabbing boobs and ass.

This "rule" would preclude gay marriage, gay parents, gay adoptions, gay teachers, gays on TV, transsexual passports, and discussions about gay cowboy movies in the mass media.

I disagree with you entirely. I believe we should let the parents actually be more evident in their children's lives and actually determine if they want their children to see the movie or not.

And the gay rule is probably the stupidest thing I've read. It makes no sense at all, it's basically trying to phase out a particular group of people from the public's eye because you and some others don't like them or want people (mainly your children) to know about them. Again, if you don't want your children to view things with this, be a real parent and censor it yourself in your home.

 

[glockmail]

But that has nothing to do with putting an R rating on sexual behaivor.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.

 

[glockmail]

....

If a woman introduces another woman as her spouse, what is sexually graphic about that?

Nothing, as long as that's as far as it goes. But that was not the issue of post 1.

 

[glockmail]

..... are you happy with your prude juice?

I will take your insult as a point for me.

 

[glockmail]

I disagree with you entirely. I believe we should let the parents actually be more evident in their children's lives and actually determine if they want their children to see the movie or not.

And the gay rule is probably the stupidest thing I've read. It makes no sense at all, it's basically trying to phase out a particular group of people from the public's eye because you and some others don't like them or want people (mainly your children) to know about them. Again, if you don't want your children to view things with this, be a real parent and censor it yourself in your home.

I'm not talking about a movie. Perhaps the reference to an "R rating" threw you off.

Calling someone elses' opinion "stupid" is a bogus way of making your point. Homosexuality is an unnatural, abnormal practice and no child should have to grow up around it.

 

[Kagom]

I'm not talking about a movie. Perhaps the reference to an "R rating" threw you off.

Calling someone elses' opinion "stupid" is a bogus way of making your point. Homosexuality is an unnatural, abnormal practice and no child should have to grow up around it.

Okay, I concede that point. Sorry, I mistook what you had said.

Sometimes it's the only thing a person can think of on the spot. However, because you view it so doesn't necessitate it as being so. I'm not advocating children be forced to grow up around it, but they'll find out eventually. And as I said prior, if you don't want them to be exposed to it, why don't you actively prevent them from being exposed. Maybe some parents want their children to be exposed for the simple fact of knowing about others that are different, so there's no reason to try and mass-censor.