Do yourself a favor–never watch Luke Cage.
What does that have to do with what you quoted? The poster asked why they must watch the uncensored version. Their whole argument is that they should be able to watch what they want. They shouldn’t wind up surprised by the inclusion of that word.
ScreenPix does seem to be about historical preservation of old movies, in a full uncensored format. However, I would suggest that nothing about the name tells you that. It seems to me that, for their own good, they’d be better off making sure that everyone is informed these movies are uncensored and even a heads up of what kind of content a movie contains. Historical context, as you mention, is also a must.
As long as everyone knows what they’re getting into, and nothing is being marketed towards racists, I’m okay with everyone watching what they want to watch.
And, no, editing out words does not deny they were said. It’s just something some people prefer. The original still exists, as does the historical record of what was said.
My point stands - if you don’t like it, locate the channel selection buttons on your remote.
Or maybe those emptors should caveat.
Same question for you and @dropzone-What are the specific channels you’ve seen these commercials on?
OK, but I was refering to mangas, which are drawn. No need to blurr, just draw it without. Genitals are shown in graphic detail, but without pubic hair. It was strangely arousing when I was young; today it is meh.
Probably variations on Chicago’s typical classic UHF stations, The U, Me-TV, Fox 32.
I never heard of that channel, but I googled it, and the press release when it was launched said:
On Dec. 12, Epix will launch ScreenPix, a suite of library channels offering a curated collection of classic movies, uncut and commercial free. The suite includes ScreenPix; ScreenPix: Action; ScreenPix: Westerns; and ScreenPix: Voices, a channel dedicated to diverse voices.
If I ever got offended at what I saw on TV (besides from stupidity I see on it) I’d do due diligence before subscribing to a channel.
Sometimes it is part of a package.
ISWYDT.
Maybe I wasn’t clear: I was in no way offended by what I saw. Amused and surprised? Yes. Unlikely to have noticed were I not totally bored? Yes. Offended? I’m mighty hard to offend, and this didn’t do it.
the infomercials i’ve seen tend to be on the more obscure channels … spectrum here in la county has about 2k possible channels and we have 3 or 4 dedicated channels for infomercials so it was probably one of those …
Is the OP’s offending ad this one?
Seems to me that it’s less suggestive than this one, even if it’s topiary.
You are misremembering. The requirement is that genitals are censored. Although in some cases they get away with just a tiny little blank band across one part of the image.
Understood. However, for me, the difference is HUGE. Seeing one (a child’s) my reaction would be, meh. Seeing the other, or even imagining it, with or without hair, causes radical changes in how my brain is working.
I don’t think that is the look that women are going for. Just like it isn’t the look that men are trying to achieve when they shave their face or, indeed, their own genital area.
Funny, I’ve always taken the opposite tack.
In my ideal world, back in about 1960 the FCC would have mandated that all TV ads must show the actor using the product exactly as intended to be used with zero euphemisms in sight, sounds, or words. If it’s a car they have to drive it, not just ogle it in the dealership. If it’s food they have to eat it, not just wave their filled forks around while smiling winsome smiles at each other. And if it’s hemorrhoid cream, well, they damn well better smear it on their hemorrhoids while we all watch.
The point then being that we’d have been spared TV ads for Preparation H and so many other vaguely disgusting products where the ad is all euphemism and implication.
This arrives at your goal by the exact opposite path.
With that clean-stuff-only expectation fully culturally embedded in TV advertising long before cable and later the internet arose, we’d have a much nicer advertising landscape today.
One more comment from me and then I’m outta this hamster wheel thread.
I’m not saying women are “going for” that look. I’m saying that’s the look they wind up with, i.e. a look suggestive of a prepubescent girl child.
TTFN.
Way back when women only shaved armpits and lower legs, and men didn’t shave anything but their faces, that was what it seemed like to me: that the women, aside from our breasts of course, weren’t supposed to look like adults.
Now I’m not sure that anyone’s supposed to look like adults. Or, possibly, everyone’s supposed to pretend that we’re not animals.
Or, of course, there’s a whole lot of money to be made by selling various hair-removal products; and the more people who can be gotten to remove more hair, the more money there is to be made. I expect head hair will continue to be exempted because a whole lot of money can be made from various products for cleaning and styling that.
It’s very bold of you to stand by the position everyone agrees with and was never in doubt.
It’s like all the posters flipping out on @dropzone when nothing he said indicated he was remotely offended. It’s bizarre.