Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Gonna be fun with the repeats of Dukes of Hazzard. Always makes me wonder when such as Bubba Watson is gonna repaint the roof of the General Lee. Why on earth didn't he do so four years ago? " they've already pulled DofH from American networks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Gonna be fun with the repeats of Dukes of Hazzard. Always makes me wonder when such as Bubba Watson is gonna repaint the roof of the General Lee. Why on earth didn't he do so four years ago? they've already pulled DofH from American networks "The American golfer who bought one of the original General Lee cars used on the Dukes of Hazard is now having the roof repainted to remove the confederate flag. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
meanwhile pete townsends rocking out on prime time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original?" "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme." . Who decides what's gets brushed.. You! Me or king salmon History should never be altered to pander to peoples _iews, peoples _iews should be altered by history | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme.. Who decides what's gets brushed.. You! Me or king salmon History should never be altered to pander to peoples _iews, peoples _iews should be altered by history" Gotta agree with this right here  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme.. Who decides what's gets brushed.. You! Me or king salmon History should never be altered to pander to peoples _iews, peoples _iews should be altered by history" Was it a history documentary presenting fact or a light entertainment programme? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme.. Who decides what's gets brushed.. You! Me or king salmon History should never be altered to pander to peoples _iews, peoples _iews should be altered by history Was it a history documentary presenting fact or a light entertainment programme?" . I don't know I think you start treating people like children you can't moan when adults act like children! Personally I think any show from thirty years ago is a history documentary of sorts and should remain that way | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme." So all traces of homophobia are removed from everything, and therefore all we get is a sanitised version of how things used to be?.. hey, presto! Homophobia never existed! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme.. Who decides what's gets brushed.. You! Me or king salmon History should never be altered to pander to peoples _iews, peoples _iews should be altered by history Was it a history documentary presenting fact or a light entertainment programme?. I don't know I think you start treating people like children you can't moan when adults act like children! Personally I think any show from thirty years ago is a history documentary of sorts and should remain that way" I don't really see why I should have to put up with homophobic slurs being broadcast as entertainment on mainstream tv though. You wouldn't broadcast racist slurs. Why homophobic slurs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the BBC was accused of airbrushing history after removing Roger Daltrey saying "watch your backs" just before a video of The Village People, on TOTP from 1980. People are calling this political correctness gone mad. So the question is, should we be allowed to alter old programs or should they be broadcast the same as the original? "Political correctness gone mad" = when something you personally think is ridiculous is taken seriously by other people. Good on them. Out of date homophobia doesn't need to be broadcast in an entertainment programme.. Who decides what's gets brushed.. You! Me or king salmon History should never be altered to pander to peoples _iews, peoples _iews should be altered by history Was it a history documentary presenting fact or a light entertainment programme?. I don't know I think you start treating people like children you can't moan when adults act like children! Personally I think any show from thirty years ago is a history documentary of sorts and should remain that way I don't really see why I should have to put up with homophobic slurs being broadcast as entertainment on mainstream tv though. You wouldn't broadcast racist slurs. Why homophobic slurs?" . I would broadcast racist slurs in that context! Just as I'd also broadcast homophobic, sexist or any other derogatory remark! Whitewashing the slave trade from history because it's unpleasant didn't stop it from happening and it certainly won't stop it happening again! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop?" You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop? You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels." But you have a choice to watch a repeat of a programme that was broadcast years ago too, all tv's sky and cable has programme information and re_iews in some cases. So kinda ruins your own point you made in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop? You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels. But you have a choice to watch a repeat of a programme that was broadcast years ago too, all tv's sky and cable has programme information and re_iews in some cases. So kinda ruins your own point you made in the first place. " It's likely you'll be able to - say - go online and find a blog dealing with re_iews of just tv reruns though. It's a bit different to a film which after being out in the cinema for a day or two will have comments online like 'wasn't sure about that homophobic slur' or 'didn't like the way black widow was treated because she was sterilised' (indeed a trigger point for myself that made me walk out of the film). If they'd announced at the start that "this show contains homophobic language" then that's fine. But pretending it's ok because it was from thirty years ago (back when we also found drink driving acceptable and Jimmy Saville ruled the airwaves) just isn't on. We need to teach people that those comments aren't ok anymore, and normalising them by just broadcasting them without critical comment isn't ok. If it was a history documentary the presenter would have examined the comments and said 'we don't do this anymore, it's not acceptable in today's society, this is a quaint example of 1970s homophobia'. You don't get that with a rerun of a music show. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop? You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels. But you have a choice to watch a repeat of a programme that was broadcast years ago too, all tv's sky and cable has programme information and re_iews in some cases. So kinda ruins your own point you made in the first place. It's likely you'll be able to - say - go online and find a blog dealing with re_iews of just tv reruns though. It's a bit different to a film which after being out in the cinema for a day or two will have comments online like 'wasn't sure about that homophobic slur' or 'didn't like the way black widow was treated because she was sterilised' (indeed a trigger point for myself that made me walk out of the film). If they'd announced at the start that "this show contains homophobic language" then that's fine. But pretending it's ok because it was from thirty years ago (back when we also found drink driving acceptable and Jimmy Saville ruled the airwaves) just isn't on. We need to teach people that those comments aren't ok anymore, and normalising them by just broadcasting them without critical comment isn't ok. If it was a history documentary the presenter would have examined the comments and said 'we don't do this anymore, it's not acceptable in today's society, this is a quaint example of 1970s homophobia'. You don't get that with a rerun of a music show." Agreed if there is some value to the content staying in ie if it is some kind of documentary or it is referencing the times then that's one thing but if it's just some flippant comment that has no value and can only offend take it out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agreed if there is some value to the content staying in ie if it is some kind of documentary or it is referencing the times then that's one thing but if it's just some flippant comment that has no value and can only offend take it out " But it *does* have value. Just because you have never been affected by comments like that (or you prefer to brush them off) it doesn't mean that they don't actually hurt people and encourage others to make those comments. It's not a 'flippant comment'. It's a comment by an authoritative presenter that you have to be careful around gay men in case they rape you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop? You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels. But you have a choice to watch a repeat of a programme that was broadcast years ago too, all tv's sky and cable has programme information and re_iews in some cases. So kinda ruins your own point you made in the first place. It's likely you'll be able to - say - go online and find a blog dealing with re_iews of just tv reruns though. It's a bit different to a film which after being out in the cinema for a day or two will have comments online like 'wasn't sure about that homophobic slur' or 'didn't like the way black widow was treated because she was sterilised' (indeed a trigger point for myself that made me walk out of the film). If they'd announced at the start that "this show contains homophobic language" then that's fine. But pretending it's ok because it was from thirty years ago (back when we also found drink driving acceptable and Jimmy Saville ruled the airwaves) just isn't on. We need to teach people that those comments aren't ok anymore, and normalising them by just broadcasting them without critical comment isn't ok. If it was a history documentary the presenter would have examined the comments and said 'we don't do this anymore, it's not acceptable in today's society, this is a quaint example of 1970s homophobia'. You don't get that with a rerun of a music show." But where would it stop...a light entertainment programme one minute, a holocaust documentary the next showing Jews playing tiddlywinks with the Nazis instead of what really happened? History is just that. Just because it doesn't tie in with your beleif now, doesn't mean it shouid be erased completely. You're taking this very personally WH | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agreed if there is some value to the content staying in ie if it is some kind of documentary or it is referencing the times then that's one thing but if it's just some flippant comment that has no value and can only offend take it out But it *does* have value. Just because you have never been affected by comments like that (or you prefer to brush them off) it doesn't mean that they don't actually hurt people and encourage others to make those comments. It's not a 'flippant comment'. It's a comment by an authoritative presenter that you have to be careful around gay men in case they rape you." Roger Daltry was not an authoritative presenter at the time he was times long haired frontman for a band who's other bandmates were notoriously hedonistic...hardly the voice of authority and hardly promoting men being raped with that comment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's be clear though, this is a remark ("joke") that insinuates you should be careful around gay men because they might rape you if you're not keeping an eye on where they are. 1. I'm not sure rape jokes are acceptible on tv anymore. Ever. 2. I'm not sure it's ok to broadcast remarks that suggest someone will rape you because of their sexuality. It's fine to say 'it's of a time', except some people seeing this will then think it's ok to make those kinds of comments to others. Gay and bisexual men are already often bullied and there is huge stigma attached to being gay. Just look at the forums here where straight men assume bisexual men will just unconsensualy touch them because they're a raving bisexual. " Sorry but you are wrong, as you were not around at the time you are simply guessing. It was nothing to do with being raped. As someone who was around and part of the music industry at the time the remark was common due to the incidence of people (male or female) grabbing your arse (male or female). It was a light hearted quip not a homophobic slur. Airbrushing history simply distorts the truth. You are trying to put 2015 interpretations on late 1970s actions. It is very similar to the vilification of men who persuaded women to sleep with them in the 1960s and to some extent 1970s. In those days a good girl always said no and had to be persuaded to have sex otherwise she was seen as a slut. That is not to say women were raped but that to protect her reputation the woman would not consent when first asked and would certainly not suggest it to the man. Times have changed and we should respect that rather than try to make history conform to the present. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's be clear though, this is a remark ("joke") that insinuates you should be careful around gay men because they might rape you if you're not keeping an eye on where they are. 1. I'm not sure rape jokes are acceptible on tv anymore. Ever. 2. I'm not sure it's ok to broadcast remarks that suggest someone will rape you because of their sexuality. It's fine to say 'it's of a time', except some people seeing this will then think it's ok to make those kinds of comments to others. Gay and bisexual men are already often bullied and there is huge stigma attached to being gay. Just look at the forums here where straight men assume bisexual men will just unconsensualy touch them because they're a raving bisexual. Sorry but you are wrong, as you were not around at the time you are simply guessing. It was nothing to do with being raped. As someone who was around and part of the music industry at the time the remark was common due to the incidence of people (male or female) grabbing your arse (male or female). It was a light hearted quip not a homophobic slur. Airbrushing history simply distorts the truth. You are trying to put 2015 interpretations on late 1970s actions. It is very similar to the vilification of men who persuaded women to sleep with them in the 1960s and to some extent 1970s. In those days a good girl always said no and had to be persuaded to have sex otherwise she was seen as a slut. That is not to say women were raped but that to protect her reputation the woman would not consent when first asked and would certainly not suggest it to the man. Times have changed and we should respect that rather than try to make history conform to the present. " So then - you agree that the 1970s were a godawful time where many people were treated like shit and we shouldn't encourage this in todays day and age. (Also I don't agree with you about the bum comment - it's a well known rape joke that was often made and I think you're being naieve). So then we shouldn't just broadcast comments like this wholesale now, in case it encourages others to think it's ok. Instead we should only broadcast them with critical commentary - just like a documentary would provide - so that people can be told that this isn't acceptable behaviour anymore. Because many people think that making comments about gay people or believing that women say no when they mean yes is norma. Therefore we must do everything in our power to reinforce that these things aren't normal. Including perhaps cutting out dialogue that normalises these behaviours - or actively pointing out in a documentary that they were wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But where would it stop...a light entertainment programme one minute, a holocaust documentary the next showing Jews playing tiddlywinks with the Nazis instead of what really happened? History is just that. Just because it doesn't tie in with your beleif now, doesn't mean it shouid be erased completely. You're taking this very personally WH" As I said, a history documentary would have critical commentary and so it would be justifiable to broadcast such comments because they'd be being looked at as a part of our past with commentary from the presented. Not as just something to be accepted. I'm not taking it personally. I just think that decent people can understand not promoting homophobia in todays day and age when it's still a serious problem that many face in their daily lives. I understand that most people have not faced these kind of comments being used against them in their daily lives, but that's where empathy is helpful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So then - you agree that the 1970s were a godawful time where many people were treated like shit and we shouldn't encourage this in todays day and age. (Also I don't agree with you about the bum comment - it's a well known rape joke that was often made and I think you're being naieve). " No what you seem to be forgetting is the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men, both of whom had to have attained the age of 21, it was still illegal for homosexual acts to be carried out in public at that time. You are also claiming that the comment was a rape joke which is a total distortion of the truth, brought about by the fact that it would not be possible to consent to homophobic acts in public at the time. " Because many people think that making comments about gay people or believing that women say no when they mean yes is norma. Therefore we must do everything in our power to reinforce that these things aren't normal. Including perhaps cutting out dialogue that normalises these behaviours - or actively pointing out in a documentary that they were wrong." No people are intelligent enough to understand that society in different times and in different places have different standards of acceptable behaviour. For example at this present time in some societies it is unacceptable for women to bare their faces in public. In other societies it is acceptable for women to walk about naked. Both _iews are valid in the time and situation but if either is taken out of the context they are in they become wrong. In the same way trying to change history is wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Welcome to the difference between the past (what actually happened) and history (a set of commonly agreed on lies)" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's be clear though, this is a remark ("joke") that insinuates you should be careful around gay men because they might rape you if you're not keeping an eye on where they are. 1. I'm not sure rape jokes are acceptible on tv anymore. Ever. 2. I'm not sure it's ok to broadcast remarks that suggest someone will rape you because of their sexuality. It's fine to say 'it's of a time', except some people seeing this will then think it's ok to make those kinds of comments to others. Gay and bisexual men are already often bullied and there is huge stigma attached to being gay. Just look at the forums here where straight men assume bisexual men will just unconsensualy touch them because they're a raving bisexual. " Err...we can actually take a joke! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop? You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels." You can make the choice whether to watch top of the pops from thirty years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there goes the film scum then. So many racist slurs, homophobic slurs a rape scene. Next will be music, imagine every copy of dire straits money for nothing having the word fagot removed because a gay/bi guy used to get called it and it upset them. tv has changed, life has changed. But we cannot go around changing everything to suit others. Otherwise when will it stop? You can make a choice to watch a film though. You can decide if you want to watch it based on re_iews etc. And slurs, like swearing, are usually removed from songs before they are aired on mainstream channels. But you have a choice to watch a repeat of a programme that was broadcast years ago too, all tv's sky and cable has programme information and re_iews in some cases. So kinda ruins your own point you made in the first place. It's likely you'll be able to - say - go online and find a blog dealing with re_iews of just tv reruns though. It's a bit different to a film which after being out in the cinema for a day or two will have comments online like 'wasn't sure about that homophobic slur' or 'didn't like the way black widow was treated because she was sterilised' (indeed a trigger point for myself that made me walk out of the film). If they'd announced at the start that "this show contains homophobic language" then that's fine. But pretending it's ok because it was from thirty years ago (back when we also found drink driving acceptable and Jimmy Saville ruled the airwaves) just isn't on. We need to teach people that those comments aren't ok anymore, and normalising them by just broadcasting them without critical comment isn't ok. If it was a history documentary the presenter would have examined the comments and said 'we don't do this anymore, it's not acceptable in today's society, this is a quaint example of 1970s homophobia'. You don't get that with a rerun of a music show." Perhaps the BBC thought that it's _iewers might just have enough intelligence to come to that conclusion without being told to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave it alone Let us see truthfully how things were,and how we have changed,for better and worse "
Perfect post! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave it alone Let us see truthfully how things were,and how we have changed,for better and worse " this.. lessons from history which some need to learn from and the rest of us to be reminded just how bad it was that this was allowed to be aired on what was then one of the only 2 mainstream channels should not be hidden lest it cause upset now.. showing it can be used as a positive.. there are still not acceptable levels of homophobia, DV, bigotry and rape within our society and its the now where energies are best addressed.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
