Oh, come on people. Way back in the 1940s Wonder Woman was an open lesbian bondage fetishist, with panels like this:
http://www.superdickery.com/bondage/3.html
and this
http://www.superdickery.com/bondage/25.html
and this
http://www.superdickery.com/bondage/63.html
Yeah, we had all that Wonder Woman bondage goodness in a kids’ comic book, back in the mid-1940s, but was there some kind of sexual explosion or revolution or anything like that 20 years later? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Just a note for Evil Captor or anyone else thinking of going to a superdickery link, that site is a known source of malware.
And yeah, I’m gonna write Charter Cable a letter.
:eek:
Incestuous S&M, at that.
EC’s links are okay, Happy. Superdickery was hijacked, and cleaned up.
I said that it was like eating - some people eat dinner quickly and some people eat for a long time - and that it’s personal and not anyone’s business but the people having sex.
Then I said “So what brought that up?” and he was ‘just wondering’ - I still have no idea where the random sex questions come from.
That word- I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yeah, the ad was not explicit.
This is explicit:
http://www.superdickery.com/bondage/54.html
Yeah, it’s Wonder Woman again. Bound again. Gagged. And apparently, having sex with some sort of Hawkman.
I think it’s from the JLA cartoon show, which is either recent or still current.
Kinda makes you rethink the appropriatesness of Mistress Kandi for that PSA ad.
Note to break up the little party, but she’s grabbing him with her legs for the purpose of injuring him prior to getting free. So sorry, no sex here. Stick with the comics?
(And while I’m at it, Jessica Rabbit doesn’t have a history of being in shows broadcast as children’s television - unlike the Avery girls she’s homaging.)
Suuuuuure she is, begbert2. You go right on believing that. Mmm-hmmm. 
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. "
If you can’t handle questions from the kinderlachen then I pray you don’t have kids.
Why have commercials aimed at parents during kids programming? Because some of us watch with our kids and are aware of what they are seeing.
No problem with that spot. As has been already pointed out the objectionable part is in the knowledge that you bring to the spot and of which any one who needs protection from learning about, by definition, does not possess.
Chill.
I seem to remember using that quote before myself. Thanks for remembering, sweetie! The only problem is, I don’t care what you watch. Hell, I don’t even care what I watch. But when a company I am paying money to is beaming in smut at inappropriate times, I have the right and probably the responsibility to complain. I am not trying to save humanity or rule others. I just want a company that I hire for cable to exercise a modicum of judgment in what they beam into the commercial breaks on Spongebob. They failed miserably, as have the dopers that think this is fine for kids to see, or are treating this thread like a joke for laughs. Shame shame shame on all of you.
You know, I’m with you on the inappropriateness of the commercial, but only because it specifically mentions that Mistress Mandy’s show is inappropriate for children. Your average SpongeBob watcher isn’t going to pay the slightest attention to Mistress Mandy *until * they hear that they’re not supposed to see her. When a kid (or most adults, for that matter) realize that they’re witnessing something that they’re not supposed to, they sit up and take notice.
That said, there is nothing explicit about the commercial, and I seriously doubt that your nieces are scarred for life. By all means, call the cable company. But perhaps you could take the shrill ***“Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaame!!!” *** directed at those of us who don’t see this as a huge deal down a notch.
As a parent, which I noticed you’re not, frankly, I don’t forsee any questions raised by this commercial that can’t be answered with “It’s about a grownup game that kids don’t play. Like charades.” 
Shame on you, for calling an ad trying to get parents to be responsible about their children’s TV viewing smut. You’re either making a gross exaggeration to make your point, or you’re completely unable to divorce the reality of the commercial from your perception of it. If it’s the latter, don’t take it out on those of us who can.
Apropos of not very much, whenever I see the thread title, I imagine a scene from a hundred years ago or so wherein a guy enters a dockside general store and is directed by the counter clerk to the projection machine in the back next to the U-Needa biscuit barrel.
Of course S&M play is “deviant,” in that deviates from the average. There’s no value judgement there.
Me, I engage in all sorts of deviant behaviour. So what? I certainly don’t equate “deviant” with “sick,” and the only people who ought to are those poor wretches with uncontrollable homogeneous compulsions.
What can I say, the hypocrisy made me laugh.
If your children are that damaged by the commercial, maybe you should take a look at your parenting skills.
Am I really the first one who didn’t immediately click on the YouTube link and first thought the OP referred to the second title character from “Billy and Mandy” in dominatrix regalia? It’s certainly in character for her.
After clicking the YouTube link, I feel much better about the commercial. At least they weren’t sexualizing a popular children’s cartoon character.
Well, Billy and Mandy are Cartoon Network. It’s easy to imagine parents on Nickelodeon wanting to block that.
She’s broadcast on family channels, and at all hours of the day. It’s not explicitly set aside as “kids only” TV, but it’s practically there.
As for those MGM Tex Avery cartoons – I haven’t seen those in years on TV. A combination, I suspect, of people being wary of the content (sexy ladies) and of disdaining the old for the new. I’ll bet it’s infinitely easier for a kid to see Jessica Rabbit than Red Hot Riding Hood on their TV.