The gory torn throats in movies, however, are actually latex & corn syrup. Tits are tits.
So? Why are tits bad?
OP, seriously: You talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.
Nah, most Hollywood tits are silicone.
Some 30 years ago a local Venture (remember them?) carried Playboy and Penthouse in their magazine racks without blackouts, deep within the store. I left open a Penthouse centerfold, in all her gynecological glory, on the magazine stand. It was funny at the time, but they stopped carrying Penthouse. 
Trust me on this: there is no better way to instil in your child shame and embarrassment regarding sex than to lunge frantically for the remote control every time a sexual scene comes on TV.
Ender24, there’s Sonny and the bridesmaid having a quicky, but they’re both still clothed. And then there’s Michael and his first wife, Appollonia, but that’s it. (I’m wondering if the OP is confusing the novel with the movie – it was a lot more explicit)
Is it just me, or would those “family shields” over the magazines just make kids want to look at them more? I know I’d just want to know WHY the magazine was hidden, and what was behind it the shield.
Cosmo’s more moronic than it is racy.
(God, I remember watching North and South on TV when I was little, and the main scene I remember was when they branded the slave’s forehead. That gave me nightmares for weeks!)
The only people I know who talk about and apparently watch those videos are Americans I encountered on the internet.
Read the OP and all I hear is wah, wah, wah.
If I had a kid i think i’d rather them see a sex scene, than a vampire movie, but i don’t have children. I don’t know that i’d want my child reading Cosmo either -mostly because it’s dumb. Seems like they have the same thing in every few months - surely there’s got to be a better magazine to read.
Keep telling yourself…“It’s only a movie”
…“It’s only a movie”
…“It’s only a movie”
…“It’s only a movie”
Cosmopolitan is demonstrably a threat to society.
No other magazine has such ability to take apparently attractive women, tart them up for its cover and yet manage to make them look unsexy (for one thing, you get the impression that if you got too close, you’d be enveloped in a chemical miasma of toxic makeup and scent).
Still, teenage pregnancy rates have been declining over time, undoubtedly due in part to Cosmo, and that is a good thing.
Lighten up, Francis. There is so much irony in Fox saying something is too explicit, it has its own magnetic field.
Just because the incorrectly named Woody was actually made of rubber is no reason to condemn the whole film.
Yup, when Hollywood can make movies like Porky’s, The Last American Virgin, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High, you know we’ve gone too far…on wait, it’s been 30 years since those were released, hasn’t it?
Hell, I’m an adult and **I **want to know why the magazine is hidden.
…which I can usually find out by looking a few checkstands over. For whatever reason, my local supermarket only puts up the Cosmo Shield™ on magazines on about half of the cashier lanes.
What’s really funny is that some weeks, they’ll put up the shield on fitness mags or Women’s Health magazines if there’s a particularly cleavagy bikini cover shot… but the 300 pound bundle of steroids masquerading as a guy flexing in a outfit that looks like a coin purse and some dental floss? He’s a-ok!
OP,
I disagree completely with your opening post.
We need more sex and nudity and less family friendly banality.
I’ve got to agree with this, I just went through the link with cosmo covers. They manage to make sexy and diverse women look like the same boring person on every cover.
I have a 10 year-old who is totally fascinated with war–the glamor, the honor, the bravado, the techno, the really cool fireworks and badass delivery systems… I want him to see Saving Private Ryan. Especially the first 20 minutes. If he can have a nice graphic of things going wrong–or maybe “typical” depending on the theater–and still thinks it’s cool, then we can all have a round of applause for a budding young Navy SEAL.
I don’t normally do this, but BAND NAME!
The thread should have been closed after this post. BTW, I hear there’s a new Chipmunks movie out.
Are they still going on about the tits in Titanic?
That reminds me, in some respects mainstream magazine covers have actually gotten less explicit than they were 30 to 40 years ago. For example, there’s no way Playboy would put on their cover today the stuff they were putting on during the 70s.
[QUOTE=Typo Knig]
I like fart jokes as much as the next person (I just recommended the Dr. Who parody Curse of Fatal Death to a friend on FB), but must every single Disney movie have fart jokes now? Disney movies used to be a refuge from that sort of crudity. Well, at least my kids are too old for most Disney fare now. And get offa my lawn you kids!
[/QUOTE]
Unless they’re using a new TV-edit, they still censor out all the fart noises from the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles. I find it extremely odd they still think they have to do this when fart jokes are a common feature of kid shows.
The last time I saw it on TV, they left in the fart sounds but obscured the name of Lilly von Shtupp.