Super bowl screw up...Last week in our Electric Sex Series we said that PORN ruins relationships...Its funny a lot of people disagreed with that statement. Read this article and you probably will be outraged...but read closely and you will see ONLY PEOPLE WHO SUBSCRIBED TO X RATED channels got to see the X Rated material. At the end one guy said he was outraged his kids say the material...here is my Question: why should he be outraged...he subscribes to the channel.

3 comments:
February 3, 2009 12:13 PM
i do not see that implication in this article. are you saying that because of "KVOA TV, the NBC affiliate in Tucson, released a statement saying that the only viewers who were able to see the material were those who receive the channel through Comcast cable." ?
it sounds like "the channel" refers to the channel that they were watching, the one showing the football game.
and *even if* the claim is true, are you really denying someone outrage about showing their young kids porn? even if someone watches porn, there's a big leap to being ok with showing it to your kids.
February 3, 2009 12:30 PM
Lmz...do you remeber the commercial where a dad walked in on his kid while the kid was doing drugs and the dad said..how did you learn about this (or something like that) and the kid answers..."i learned by watching you." Our kids pick up our bad habits even if we try to hide them. So if porn watching is your bad habit and you subscribe to the channels dont be alarmed if your kids are watching it.
Is it bad that the network showed porn in prime time absolutely. I'm not disputing that...but lets also take responsibility. The article is saying that subscribers to porn channels are the only ones who got the feed. You cant be outraged at the network when you allow porn in your house everyday.
just my 2 cents.
February 8, 2009 7:48 PM
that's absurd. so if you drink a beer, you might as well give it to your kid too. by extension, don't do *anything* you wouldn't want your kids to do right now, as children.
and again, there is no implication about the people who saw it as being receivers of the pay-per-view channel. you didn't cite the part of the article that makes the implication because it isn't there.
Post a Comment