Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Lewd shows, lewd films...........why?

My sister saw Westside Story on stage here in L.A. a few weeks ago.   She said it was a little weird because Maria and her boyfriend get in bed on stage..".....was that in the original show?"    I told her it wasn't and she said it was a little weird to watch...so abruptly out of the normal show.

My friend who loves opera said that the operas now have the biggest stars in barely any clothing and even Anna Netrebko (see image), a gorgeous soprano, maybe the hottest name in opera right now, might as well be having sex during Puccini or Mozart or whatever opera she's in.... "They put her in see-through clothes and she and the male leads do all but actual penetration on stage......"WHY?, " my friend asks, "...when Puccini would roll in his grave, that's not in the opera!  Does the music suddenly not hold up enough that they have to do this?"

A lovely, very with-it friend of mine saw THE BLACK SWAN with her new beau.........she said she was almost unbearably miserable watching the girl masturbate very, very realistically in her bed, with her mother watching.......but when the highly explicit drugs/alcohol lesbian scene happened, the new beau said "You're uncomfortable, you want to leave?"  (He gained major points with her for having done that).  They did leave.   As did a few others around them in the theater.

These are only a few examples, aren't they...you know so many more.

Why mess with Westside Story or Puccini?   Remember The Quiet Man, where they're standing drenched in rain, very close to each other, and nothing happens, but your pulse is racing because of the amazing raw sexuality of the scene? Wonderful stuff!   Remember films where they kiss and the door closes and you know what's going on and it's so exciting, never to be turned into dull disappointment in having to see the actual act which, let's face it, isn't ever QUITE as good as if YOU were doing it? (Smile!)


Can we ever go back to original stories, respectful of the audience, great sex scenes only in our imaginations, which is SO much more wonderful?

Is this a case of liberal entertainment people deciding for us that it's what we want to see, deciding we're prudes if we don't want to see it, or what?   Is this 'real FREEDOM!" or is REAL FREEDOM when the whole audience has true advanced warning about whether it will enjoy the show?  You tell me.........And can we put that horse back into the barn?

geeeeez

45 comments:

Always On Watch said...

A few years ago, my middle schoolers and I attended a production of Romeo and Juliet. The production was promoted as "suitable for elementary and middle school."

We got the shock of our lives with some of the doings on stage! Several of the homeschool families walked out -- can't say that I blamed them, either. The vulgar body motions were clearly unsuitable for young children, never mind how the production was promoted.

The theatre's manager said that she had no objections to the fracturing of Shakespeare's work until we complained.

Brooke said...

Deplorable.

It's like the old horror movies that left the horror to the imagination; now they just throw buckets of blood at you and it is awful and not scary at all.

Same thing.

I do think this horse can be put back in the barn, but it will take demand for more 'class.'

Dave Miller said...

Apparently the studio owners, as good businessmen and capitalists, have made a decision that they can make more money with this type of programming.

Unless and until that is proved wrong, the current trend will continue.

It's pure business.

Ducky's here said...

Why? I really don't know. Why do you have a following for directors like Gaspar Noe? Beats me.
Why is there a big following for gangsta rap and metal? You've got me.

Part of it goes back to two very seminal films in America, "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Wild Bunch". Both are serious films but it was discovered that there was an audience for choreographed graphic violence. The audience is there and producers will find it.

What bothers me most is that the audience is young. They've been raised on attention disorder editing and the action film. And it is really just one film. Action is not drama or tension, it's the resolution of drama and as the film fills with "action" it is emptied of content. Pretty shallow stuff and pretty easy to produce.

I have no idea how Aronofsky managed to revive after "The Fountain" and other early jokes on the public but he has decided he has to be more graphic in order to get attention. And as you grab press you grab the audience because very few people are out there looking for something with substance like Claire Denis' "White Material".

It wasn't that long ago that I finally watched "I Am Curious: Yellow". I remember the hysteria when it first came out in the 60's. Actually pretty tame now.

I have about 2000 films in my library and very few are either graphically violent or sexual. I don't understand the attraction but the audience is there (young) and that young audience has been given money so producers will cater to them.

"Black Swan" sounds like a hack job vamping on Bergman's "Persona".

Ducky's here said...

@z -- Does the music suddenly not hold up enough that they have to do this?
-------------------

Or is the audience unable to handle a complex musical production and needs the sex to hold its attention?

Anonymous said...

I agree Z.

As AOW points out, you sure couldn't take children to an opera and trust that you'd be exposing them only to great music, beautiful voices, and the story as it was meant to be portrayed.

You're right about that scene in The Quiet Man, one of my favorite movies now that I think about it.

Another sexy scene IMO, is in The King and I, when they're dancing to Shall We Dance, they stop, Deborah Kerr breathless and she and Yul Brynner just look at each other, saying nothing. He reaches out, put's his hand on her waist, and they begin dancing again. I love that scene. That's sexy, and lovely.

It's romance and burgeoning love that takes a beating in these portrayals today. If you want to watch the sex act, watch a porn film, but leave romance alone for heaven's sake.

I'm so sick of so many movies with a couple tearing off each other's clothes, as if that's what's expected of them. No tenderness, just raw sex. All day, all the time.

No mystery, no romance, no discovery, just a couple of people rushing to get it done.

What's really damaging is the combination of sex and violence. It's desensitizing and harmful IMO. Especially for young people.

I was watching a Quentin Tarantino film one night and it evolved into a sex and torture story. I quickly turned it off. It's sick, and I didn't expect it. It's going too far, way too far.

I thought, my God, are teenagers watching this stuff? What are we doing to our kids?

Pris

Anonymous said...

I do agree with Ducky. The lack of depth in so many films is pathetic.

I'm not sure though, that an opera afficionado needs that crass element to keep his interest in the production. People who aren't interested in opera, wouldn't go in the first place.

Well Dave it may be pure business, but there are people who are faithful to their art, and to a story as it was meant to be portrayed. I'd like to think they're not a dying breed.

I just miss meaningful portrayals, and grace and beauty.

Pris

Z said...

Dave, think morally, don't go to slamming capitalists first. Odd, so many in the 'business' are leftists that it's fun to see people finally admit it's the left that's rich and calling the shots.
I strongly doubt that having people in a Puccini play simulating raw sex that didn't belong there brings 'em in...except the lefty friends of the lefty producers who're laughing themselves to the bank, maybe.

Brooke, good point about horror movies, too.

AOW, in a recent production here, Romeo was pretty much naked.

Ducky, I'm really not sure; people walking out of theaters doesn't help your hypothesis that "they want it so they come" but you might have somewhat of a point.

I couldn't agree more with you about 'attention disorder editing'...that's quite different than my subject but you do have a point here.

Ducky, do you call WestSide Story complex? Audiences have loved that for fifty years or so. I can't think of a show that's too complex for anybody....sadly.

Pris, I miss those things, too. I think audiences would like that back, too.

David Wyatt said...

May be "business" but surely not pure.

Ducky's here said...

No, z, West Side Story isn't but opera requires extended attention and a lot of audiences just don't have it and they are generally older.

In order to attract the younger audience the thought seems to be that they need to spice it up. Now, if it were me I'd find that a little insulting.

... and I'd be interested in a poll of what adolescents think of the opening of the "West Side Story" film. We'd see a pretty dynamic choreography, would the kids or would they want a score by Snoop Dog?

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Hollywood is strictly business. For those that seek to affect the culture one of the most direct ways is through Hollywood. Even before such morons as Michael Moore there were good Fabian Socialists such as Aldous Huxley moving to Hollywood from England to move into movie script writing from writing novels. What better vehicle than Hollywood to "educate" people to their "Brave New World" which the Fabians embrace and promote?

Waylon

Ducky's here said...

Waylon, how did Moore become Hollywood? Which studio distributes his films?

Miramax blocked distribution of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Moore is pretty loose about letting his films be downloaded free so e might not be the best example.

Try L'il Quentin Tarantino, probably more your genre.


z, the question of editing doesn't go directly to the topic but it's part of the wider issue. The contemporary audience wants a lot of :sizzle". They don't care about the stake. Vampires are best since you can really ramp up both the sex and violence.

Ducky's here said...

Funny you should mention "Brave New World", waylon. Huxley and Orwell put out competing views of how we were going to end. What you seem not to have noticed is that Huxley appears to be the winner. Which goes to z's question.

Getting itchy for a trip to "the feelies", waylon?

Z said...

Ducky, I deleted your link...it was provocative but ridiculous and went nowhere, as you know... and I have to protect my readers from taking time to open links for NOTHING. Please don't do it again. Thanks.

I agree with you about the editing and the sexing up...I just don't feel that the stench in our country was asked for; I believe it was given in the advertising game's zeal to sell as much as they can through sex and pure SHOCK VALUE. It's ramped up hugely in a "who can shock MORE NOW?" situation which I believe can't be stopped and that's a very dangerous situation.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ducky about Bonnie and Clyde bringing about a seminal change in American motion pictures. When was it 1967 or 68? I was all grown up and well into my twenties then, but I remember going to see this thing at my home town theater in all innocence -- not having any idea what to expect. I remember too being genuinely shocked, and hurt at what I saw on the screen. I felt like throwing up -- I was literally stunned.

What disturbed me most, however, was the reaction of most of the younger members of the audience. They laughed coarsely, hooted, cheered and jeered as each bullet smashed realistically into the skull or body of the many victims of vicious assault from both criminals and law officers alike, while blood looking all too real spurted out of the wounds.

And Oh how the audience giggled and hooted and guffawed at the scene where the little thug with the cap accompanying Bonnie and Clyde got involved in three-way sex with the couple! The simulated oral copulation the little man performed on Clyde while he and Bonnie were smooching was unforgettable for its sickening ugliness and depravity -- something no decent person should ever have to know about much less witness graphically in a movie theater. And it was entirely gratuitous -- nothing needed to advance the plot -- just cheap sensationalism at its worst.

In a very real sense I've never gotten over that experience. It was one of several things that made me realize I was - and would ever remain -- deeply conservative.

END of PART ONE


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PART TWO

Ducky and Dave see capitalist exploitation of a desire people have to see such stuff. Yes, of course, but I think it goes deeper than that.

Civilization has never advanced very far from the days of the Coliseum. There IS a hideous capacity for blood lust and a morbid fascination with depravity that lies just beneath the surface in all of us waiting for what-appears-to-be a good excuse to let it loose.

The crafty, ruthless, unprincipled money grubbing merchants of corruption and degradation who took hold of the entertainment industry, and long ago wormed their way into positions of dominance in academia have pandered to this capacity for corruption to make money -- certainly -- but ALSO to undermine and ultimately destroy the culture they HATE -- a culture that would have put a halt to their evil machinations had it been sophisticated enough to be aware of the implications of what at first seemed only trivial if a bit tawdry.

Here's a quantum leap for you: It's like the sudden, irrational demand for dark wood cabinets, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances and buff-colored stone or marble surfaces in bathrooms that has taken hold of the real estate and home improvement industry. Do you REALLY think this phenomenon grew out of a NATURAL impulse the majority of people just suddenly FELT a deep need to satisfy?

GEDOUDDAHERE!

Granite counterops have become the new standard not because they're better than Formica (although they are), but because the real estate and building industries have seen that they can EXPLOIT this idea to their great financial advantage. SO through outlets like the Home & Garden Channel, they continually BRAINWASH the viewers with the notion that you just aren't ANYBODY and that your house is UNSALABLE, if you don't have granite countertops, hardwood floors, crown moldings and all the rest of it. EVERY program is heavily scripted to reinforce this dictum. It's become like a litany or a mantra.

Mass media works ceaselessly to HYPNOTIZE the public and MANIPULATE us into buying and accepting ALL KINDS of THINGS we do not REALLY want or need -- and would never dream of owning -- if it weren't for the influence of these MOGULS who really DO control almost everything behind the scenes. The Movies, TV, News and Information and what-now-regrettably-passes for "Education" reign supreme as the TASTEMAKERS.

Except for a few determined weird eccentrics like me, who prefer to buck the trends and manfully swim against the current on principle, most people are just putty in the hands of those who control the industries outlined above.

SO, it's BOTH the lust for ever greater amounts of MONEY, and ALSO the fevered ambition to DESTROY Western Christian Civilization as it has been that works to debase and trivialize our society on every conceivable level.

This ambition must be motivated by sheer spite, however, because paradoxically these MOGULS are in fact busily wrecking the very system that made it possible for them to achieve wealth and power. It's very like biting off your nose to spite your face, but apparently these types --as brilliant as powerful as they are -- can't see beyond the ends of their noses anyway so blinded are they by hostility.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

FT, I BURST into laughter when you talked about Formica vs granite and stainless appliances...YOU ARE SO RIGHT!
Sometimes, I watch HGTV and think "Does anybody have individual taste anymore?"
It's not THEM, it's hoisted on them...you'll even hear the young women buying homes say "but Marcy has all stainless appliances...." or "...this is NICER than our friends have!"....oh, my gosh.
By the way, have you ever known more spoiled young wives/partners than the HGTV "Looking for a home" set? I just cringe when I see those poor little husbands being led around by girls who lived in a double wide who now are buying a house and wouldn't DREAM of not having a granite island....or having bedrooms which all have at least 300 ft! :-) Cracks me up.

Anyway, back to films...FT, you're right about your analogy...we're being FED this stuff.
I must say I have seen Bonnie and Clyde a few times and never caught the oral sex thing..>WHAT????? I'm not sure I'm THAT obtuse, but!!?? REALLY?? That's there? glad I missed it :-)

by the way, have you noticed that they now DO show dead bodies on the news, something they NEVER EVER did before? I think that's awful. Carnage,etc...anything goes. I remember being stunned if they showed a little blood in the street on the news....
And the commercials? That guy who slams into a car windshield and keeps talking about insurance? It's SO off putting!
And videos people send you of 'funny' accidents where people are REALLY hurt badly, like hitting a diving board while diving in? I can't watch those, but people are being inured to this stuff. horrible!

Ticker said...

The left, humanist, progressives or what ever one wishes to call them for they are all one, has been in the business of morally bankrupting this country for a long time and this is but another method. When the young become so morally bankrupt it is easier to convince them that there are no absolutes, no consequences, just a life of "anything goes". They have replaced morality with moral relativism, identified as "anything goes" and have replaced God with the idea that man is his own god.
America and the rest of the world has become morally bankrupt and that is why we see such lack of moral decorum in our films, or music or our theater productions. Until this sliding morality reverses we can expect nothing more.

Ducky's here said...

z, my link was a joke, and I think it was pretty funny.

Give your readers a chance. Some of them have a sense of humor.

~Leslie said...

Z your post has such valid points to it, I'm not sure I have much to add, but agreement. One cannot avoid the reality of human sexuality and we can see a place for it represented in the realness of storyline, character development, and plot progression (this coming from a writer, you see), yet the problem here lies in the cheapening of this reality. And there is a difference, despite what some people may feel or think; the topic can be done tastefully and respectfully in keeping with what is a natural human emotion and experience. But in our society today, we have producers and such who want to cheapen everything and with their own lack of respect and understanding for the whole person, human contact, and sexuality, make it lewd in order to fulfill their own warped views and unfulfilled needs.

Z said...

Ticker, so well said..and horrifying.

Susannah..they do want to cheapen; My belief is that THEY are debauched and cheap and they'll make sure all feel as they do to assuage their guilt.

Ducky, I don't think it's funny and I have a great sense of humor.
I'll be deleting again next time. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"What you seem not to have noticed is that Huxley appears to be the winner."

Ducky, funny, I think Orwell's the winner. What's political correctness but newsspeak and doublethink? Sound familiar?

Pris

MK said...

Hollywood and the arts elite are out of ideas, you know this when they turn to sex to sell their product. That and angling for public funds.

Jen said...

I have 25 year old formica in my kitchen. It's individuality influenced by frugality. :P

About the lewdness...I had no idea that even the opera was getting bad. I'm hapy to say that the last musical I saw was rated PG. (Go see Wicked if you haven't seen it yet.)

I think that the imagination is much more effective than anything on-screen.

Z said...

MK, good thought there...you could be right...I"m sure you are.

Jen, I know what you mean...I have white tile; would I change it? Probably..COULD I change it...well, maybe soon!!

Imagination is the BEST!

Anonymous said...

Ducky, I don't think Orwell and Huxley offer competing views of the future. I think both started off in the same organization and one was an honest human who upon realizing what "socialism" was all about walked out the door and attempted to alert the world from an insiders point of view. Huxley, on the other hand actually remained a member in good standing and thought the world should just resign itself to his "Brave New World". That's my interpretation anyway.

I thought Michael Moore left Flint and moved on up to Hollywood. I could be wrong since he's more your type, though.

Waylon

cube said...

I think is deplorable, but it has been going on for years. The first thing that pops into my head is
"Luna" starring Jill Clayburgh who died recently. This was a movie about a mother who engages in an incestuous relationship with her 15year old son to help him overcome his addiction to heroin. I thought this was sick at the time, but didn't have a bully pulpit to promote my vies.

cube said...

Um, that's views.

Sue said...

I am so glad I caught this post! I was really wanting to see Black Swan. I had NO IDEA about what is was about. I just usually like Natalie Portman, and it looked like a thriller. I believe I will pass...

Anonymous said...

The novels of Jane Austen never mention sex as such, and certainly never depict anything but the most decorous behavior imaginable, nevertheless sex pervades Jane Austen's work like golden thread in a fine brocade. The growing affection between Miss Bennett and Mr. Darcy -- a relationship which at first seems rooted in mutual hostility but ends in mutual respect, appreciation and deep affection -- is frankly one of the sexiest literary experiences imaginable.

The tension that develops between those two at first meeting is palpable and obviously based on a sexual attraction unwanted by either party, so it first shows itself as frank hostility. Yet the attraction builds gradually throughout the book till the reader longs for these two to recognize each other and fulfill the tender passion that has grown between them.

We want to get right down to business today, and that takes all the thrill of the chase and all the romance and adventure out of conducting a love affair. Too bad!

None of us would be here if it weren't for sex, so it should hardly be considered unmentionable, but in taking all the subtlety and all the charm out of it we've lost a great deal that used to make life tremendously exciting.

There may be an exception or two in the world of Opera. Richard Strauss's Salome portrays a young pagan princess in the court of King Herod who becomes obsessed with lust for John the Baptist --a prisoner at Herod's palace. Her behavior in attempting to seduce John the Baptist, who is locked up and therefore helpless to escape her unwanted attentions, starts out as that of a young girl who is experiencing her first crush, but soon become openly lewd as the captive male shows more an more resistance to her attempts to woo him. Towards the climax Salome moves beyond lewd, sheds every semblance of self-control, and in a frenzy of desire and fury at his rejection removes all her garments (during the famous Dance of the Seven Veils) and stands before him naked.

His horror and loathing at this spectacle causes here to demand his head to be brought to her on a platter. When finally this is done, she kisses his dead lips and sings one of the most oddly moving passages of vocal music ever written. Gruesome and depraved as this may be it is heartbreaking for she realizes that her victory is bitter, and that she has lost herself forever -- just before Herod, who has had enough of her obscene antics -- orders his men to crush her to death with their shields.

The true meaning at the heart of Salome, which started out life as a play written in French by Oscar Wilde, is the terrible tragedy of losing one's innocence by giving way to uncontrollable lust devoid of affection or any kid of reciprocity.

It's a valuable lesson, and the one-act opera's incredible power comes at least partially from a graphic depiction of this young girl's frenzied orgy of wanton self destruction.

Not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but I maintain that in THIS case the depravity definitely has "socially redeeming value." It is not gratuitous and merely sensationalistic.

A pagan court in the ancient world -- a brutal world that could callously order the murder of every first born son and the Crucifixion of Jesus -- could never be subjected to the rules of etiquette demanded of members of the upper classes in the drawing rooms of eighteenth century England.

Anonymous said...

The novels of Jane Austen never mention sex as such, and certainly never depict anything but the most decorous behavior imaginable, nevertheless sex pervades Jane Austen's work like golden thread in a fine brocade. The growing affection between Miss Bennett and Mr. Darcy -- a relationship which at first seems rooted in mutual hostility but ends in mutual respect, appreciation and deep affection -- is frankly one of the sexiest literary experiences imaginable.

The tension that develops between those two at first meeting is palpable and obviously based on a sexual attraction unwanted by either party, so it first shows itself as frank hostility. Yet the attraction builds gradually throughout the book till the reader longs for these two to recognize each other and fulfill the tender passion that has grown between them.

We want to get right down to business today, and that takes all the thrill of the chase and all the romance and adventure out of conducting a love affair. Too bad!

None of us would be here if it weren't for sex, so it should hardly be considered unmentionable, but in taking all the subtlety and all the charm out of it we've lost a great deal that used to make life tremendously exciting.

There may be an exception or two in the world of Opera. Richard Strauss's Salome portrays a young pagan princess in the court of King Herod who becomes obsessed with lust for John the Baptist --a prisoner at Herod's palace. Her behavior in attempting to seduce John the Baptist, who is locked up and therefore helpless to escape her unwanted attentions, starts out as that of a young girl who is experiencing her first crush, but soon become openly lewd as the captive male shows more an more resistance to her attempts to woo him. Towards the climax Salome moves beyond lewd, sheds every semblance of self-control, and in a frenzy of desire and fury at his rejection removes all her garments (during the famous Dance of the Seven Veils) and stands before him naked.

His horror and loathing at this spectacle causes here to demand his head to be brought to her on a platter. When finally this is done, she kisses his dead lips and sings one of the most oddly moving passages of vocal music ever written. Gruesome and depraved as this may be it is heartbreaking for she realizes that her victory is bitter, and that she has lost herself forever -- just before Herod, who has had enough of her obscene antics -- orders his men to crush her to death with their shields.

The true meaning at the heart of Salome, which started out life as a play written in French by Oscar Wilde, is the terrible tragedy of losing one's innocence by giving way to uncontrollable lust devoid of affection or any kid of reciprocity.

It's a valuable lesson, and the one-act opera's incredible power comes at least partially from a graphic depiction of this young girl's frenzied orgy of wanton self destruction.

Not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but I maintain that in THIS case the depravity definitely has "socially redeeming value." It is not gratuitous and merely sensationalistic.

A pagan court in the ancient world -- a brutal world that could callously order the murder of every first born son and the Crucifixion of Jesus -- could never be subjected to the rules of etiquette demanded of members of the upper classes in the drawing rooms of eighteenth century England.

Anonymous said...

WHOOPS! Forgot to sign the post again.

Sorry!

~ FreeThinke

Karen Howes said...

For once I agree with Ducky-- perhaps they think the audience won't stay attentive without some t and a.

We're truly becoming Idiocracy.

Anonymous said...

Why that posted twice I can't imagine.

I did want to add one more thought:

While prim, decorous Pride and Prejudice is really very sexy, the forceful display of uncontrolled sexual desire in Salome is anything but -- instead it is terribly terribly sad.

I think noting the contrast between these two very different works is important.

There's a fine line between obscenity an poignancy. Smug Philistinism is no more moral and no more rewarding than pornography. BOTH these extremes miss the point of life COMPLETELY in my opinion.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

As for Huxley and Orwell both offer masterful depictions of a nightmarish future -- the ultimate dystopian society.

Of the two I believe Orwell is the more successful in making his case, but we should remember that long before these two E.M. Forster wrote The Machine Stops (1909) which is undoubtedly the grand daddy of the other two. It's a novella or long short story and well worth reading. Forster truly had the gift of prophecy.

Also long after Orwell the Canadian writer Margaret Atwood gave us The Handmaid's Tale, which -- though obviously derived form the other three pieces of work -- enhances and underscores the horror of these futuristic fantasies -- which have already turned out to be prophetic.

~ FT

beamish said...

I hate it when I'm watching Rated XXXXX midget amputee bestiality porn and the protaganist actually opens her mouth to say ... words.

Dialogue in porn is downright outrageous.

[I'm kidding y'all]

beamish said...

On Huxley vs. Orwell, Huxley's clearly winning.

Do you feel beleaguered? Alienated from political realities? Distrustful of the media, or of government itself? Do you wonder what you're going to do with your life, or even with your afternoon?

Ask your doctor if...

Anonymous said...

A philosophical question for the court:

Could lewdness be any more deplorable than habitual snideness, insolence, condescension, flippancy and unabashed conceit?

~ FT

Leticia said...

It is absolutely disgusting what will pass for entertainment. You can't go one day without seeing something sexually explicit on tv or the movies.

I hated the 2nd Transformers movie it was despicable and sick.

Anonymous said...

Pornography may be disgusting but there are worse things -- treating violent death and mayhem as casual entertainment is probably one of them.

Back in the days wen movies were rated G, R, X and such there was a joke going 'round that went like this:

Fondle a breast, and your film will be rated X

Stab a breast with an ice pick, or slice it off with a carving knife, and your film will be rated R

Have someone like Marilyn Monroe expose most of her bosom in a low-cut, tight-fitting sequined gown, and your movie will likely be rated G.



Not as silly as it may sound. If you THINK, there's a good point there.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Tremendous things here. I аm veгy glad to
ѕee уοur post. Thаnks a lot аnd I'm having a look forward to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?
My blog post :: unsecured loans

Anonymous said...

Hі thеre colleаgues, its gгeat pіecе οf writing about teachinganԁ entігеly exрlained, keep іt up all the time.
Here is my webpage ; loans for bad credit

Anonymous said...

Hеllo Deaг, are you genuinelу visіting this site regularly,
if so afterwаrd you will without ԁoubt take fastidiouѕ exρerience.


Visit mу wеb page diet

Anonymous said...

This is a tοpic whіch iѕ near to
my heart... Cheеrs! Whеre аre уоur contact dеtailѕ
though?

My web pаge: payday

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot for shаrіng this wіth all folκs you aсtuаlly κnoω what you're talking about! Bookmarked. Please also consult with my site =). We can have a hyperlink trade contract among us

Also visit my webpage ... loans for bad credit