October 21st, 2005

Previous Entry Next Entry
02:32 am - on domineering housewives...

Eva Longoria
Let's just pretend I made some witty,
womanizing comment here. I'm too tired.
You know, not that I really need a reason to post another picture of Eva Longoria. Really, I could just give up ranting now and look at her, but I actually do have a point here. And I'll get to it as soon as I finish staring at that ass just a little bit more...

Ok... good... oh yeah... that's the stuff right there... ok, moving on...

So some of you have probably heard me bitch about the PTC before. The Parental Television Council, or NAMBLA (heehee, thanx Jon) are the self-appointed moral watchdogs of decency in this country. You know how when an aging sex symbol of a pop star shows some boobie on TV halfway through the year's most watched television program and then within 12 hours you find out that the FCC has already received 6,492,346,120,821 complaints. Well it turns out that all of those phone calls come from the same 14 people – A bunch of joyless neo-religious zealots who don't feel that fucking up their own kids minds and lives with their bullshit is enough, so they have to get off by butting into the rest of their lives as well.

So anyway, every year the PTC releases a list of the top 10 Most and Least acceptable TV shows on primetime broadcast TV for that year. On Wednesday, they put out this years:

1.  Extreme Makeover: Home Edition ABC/8:00Sunday - Returning show1. The War at Home Fox/8:30 Sunday - 1st Season
2. Three Wishes NBC/9:00 Friday - 1st season2. The Family Guy Fox/9:00 Sunday - Returning show
3. American Idol Fox/Returning in spring '063. American Dad Fox/9:30 Sunday - Returning show
4. The Ghost Whisperer CBS/8:00 Friday - 1st Season4. The O.C.Fox/8:00 Thursday - Returning show
5. Everybody Hates Chris UPN/8:00 Thursday - 1st Season5. C.S.I. (Crime Scene Investigation) CBS/9:00 Thursday - Returning show
6. Reba
WB/9:00 Friday - Returning show
6. Desperate Housewives ABC/9:00 Sunday - Returning show
7. Bernie MacFox/8:00 Friday - Returning show7. Two and a Half Men CBS/9:00 Monday - Returning show
8. Dancing with the Stars ABC/Returning in spring ‘8. That 70's Show Fox/Returning in November ‘
9. 7th Heaven WB/8:00 Monday - Returning show9. Arrested Development Fox/8:00 Monday - Returning show
10.  Not available.10. Cold CaseCBS/8:00 Sunday - Returning show

My favorite part is that they couldn't come up 10 accpetable shows. 126 hours of primetime television to choose from every week, 52 weeks a year, and they couldn't even come up with a tenth show they deemed acceptable to fill out their top ten. Wow. That's harsh. I mean seriously, just off the top of my head, what about Supernanny. Is there anything offensive at all about Supernanny?

I really don't get the list sometimes. I mean, yeah, I totally get that the PTC are a bunch of kooks. I also totally get that they basically hate pretty much anything that causes me to think a show is interesting. And now that they pretty much can't pick on the WWE anymore for fear of being sued for slander, they have to pick on other targets. Desperate Housewives seems like about as easy a mark as anything. It's popular and it's pretty much just about sex and violence. I think I've seen four episodes, and each of them has prominently featured titties, gunplay, kidnapping and more titties. The War at Home, one of my favorite new shows on the air, again an easy target. So far this season Michael Rappaport has scolded his daughter for stealing his stash of pot, and then encouraged her to fuck her black boyfriend (whom he hates) because his parents are members of a country club with a nice golf course. Now that, my friends is quality TV. They also hate the Family Guy. But I mean, that's pretty obvious.

What I don't get is some of the shows they seem to love this year. Traditionally the PTC likes pretty much any show that purports to teach strong Christian values. They were huge fans of Touched by an Angel and Joan of Arcadia? Lacking a token God show this year, they decided to latch onto Ghost Whisperer because since, well, she talks to ghosts. That's religious, right? They even excuse it because it hasn't had that much bad language or violence and no sex... yet! I love how they specify that the episodes "so far" haven't had any problems. They reserve the right to change their mind. Did you know the PTC used to love Smallville? Back when it was all just goody two-shoes boy scout stuff. It seems they don't like it as much what with all the sex and stuff that it has now. Look, I'm a huge Jennifer Love Hewitt fan, but lets face it, there's a reason she's famous. Two reasons, really. Let's see how they feel come sweeps.

What has the world come to when the moral watchdogs are pointing at Bernie Mac and Chris Rock as the pinnacle of decency in the media. I mean Chris Rock is "Mr. We Hate Niggas too!" and Bernie Mac? Hell, to this day I remain amazed that they even let white people listen to Bernie Mac, much less that they gave him his own show. But hell, big ups to the brother. Hell, maybe I can get a show based on my ramblings. And the PTC will love me. You know, because if nothing else, like the Wu-Tang Clan, Maverick is for the children! (We still miss you, ODB)

Anyway, I've long been an advocate of an alternative method of child rearing. I have this theory, see. In my mixed up little head, I consider children to be almost like real people. Just, you know, shorter. So I think its important to treat them as real people, able to make decisions and able to understand the complex concept of "stuff that happens in the magic little picture box over there is fake!" So I don't take a lot of stock in the theory that TV corrupts the brains of minors. I got to watch whatever I wanted as a kid and I turned out... uh.... ok, bad example. But still, some of you have kids. Most of you have got to know kids. I have to imagine 2 or 3 of you were maybe kids at some point yourselves. So I get that as a parent you selfishly want to raise your child in your own image, I get that, I support it, (that's why my kids are gonna be intelligent, artistic, sarcastic, sex-addicted anarchists) but are people really so afraid of children's independent thoughts that we have to force feed them only the most saccharine of entertainment? I have no problem with a parent censoring content from a three of four year old from watching content that they might be too young to understand (though again, not my kids, my kids will have a full awakening to crude humor, violence and sexual innunendo by the time they can walk... just think in nursery school "there goes little two-year-old Jimmy Aloiscious Maverick. Already clockin' da hos"), but does that really equate to "Cold Case is a fine show for adults, but is inappropriate to be shown at 8pm on Sundays, because kids might be watching?"

Most of the PTCs complaints seem to be with sexual topics, violence and drugs being addressed on television. Ok, for ease of argument, I'm going to let them have the drug part. I might not agree, but fine, for common ground lets just say that promoting drug use is bad (see, I'm a giving family man, where's my sitcom. Fox, UPN, c'mon WB, help a brotha' out). But violence. I hate when parents don't let their kids watch anything violent. I always hear that argument about wrestling. Kids can't watch wrestling, because there's violence. Ummm, well lets think about it. Wrestling has good guys and bad guys. And really, the good guys and bad guys are generally pretty easy to sort out at like a ten second glance. The good guys fight the bad guys. And pretty much, in the end, the bad guys lose. Sounds like a perfect christian message to me. What's the problem? If an 6 year old can't watch HHH in a wrestling ring and figure out that he's a bad person and not to be emulated inside of about 2 minutes, then I'm sorry, he has serious developmental issues that need to be looked into, and his TV watching habits are the least of your worries.

That brings us to sex. Ok, I don't get it. What's the big deal? Why is everyone afraid to let kids know that sex exists? I'm ok with saying you're too young to have sex (unless your last name is Maverick). But is it really that awful to allow your children the chance to understand the world? If only so that you can't point to it and say "watch those people. They are fornicating. They are sinners and going to hell!" Honestly, I can't imagine that an 8 year old wants to watch Desperate Housewives. But if he does, why is that so bad? Ok, I really don't get it. I've never actually had my own kids before. What is it that we're supposed to be so afraid of here. If your 5 year old daughter sees this wanton behaviour, then she'll grow up to be a slut? Is there any correlation there whatsoever? See, I think that repressing a kid makes them more wild in the longrun. And anyone would know that if they ever bothered to watch any number of these shows that they're saying should be banned. Besides, everyone knows that catholic school girls give the best head.

In other news, Lisa Loeb was on The Colbert Report for about 10 seconds earlier tonight. It made me feel all warm and gushy inside. If you're not watching the Colbert Report, you should be, and if you're not totally hot for Lisa Loeb, then you're not my friend anymore. And if you are hot for her, well, you can't have her. She's mine! MINE I SAY!!!!

Current Music: Banned In The USA by 2 Live Crew

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

on domineering housewives... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr


[User Picture]From: jeremiahblatz Date: October 21st, 2005 - 02:12 pm (Link)
Not only is Lisa Loeb a total hottie/cutie, she's got the balls to post phonecam pics on her web site.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 02:56 pm (Link)
yeah, she seems to be into that. she posts them to myspace sometimes too...
[User Picture]From: marsinthestars Date: October 21st, 2005 - 02:57 pm (Link)
I'm really amused by the ratings. Particularly looking at how American Idol is ok (no problem than those people are hyped up on Lord knows what), but That 70s Show is BAD! Where's Jerry Springer on the list, I have to wonder? Are reality shows not counted?

As far as not showing kids violence, I think it's hard to draw the line- it's ok to show them explosives with Bugs Bunny, because... because they can't get explosives? Because it's a cartoon? Who knows. But it's not ok to show a punch on screen, because... they might think that's ok? It's hard to decide.

I do know that if a kid is told not to hit, but is hit, they will end up with fucked up values and even more fucked up sense of right and wrong when it comes to defending themselves. But seeing people hitting people- good guys hitting and being rewarded for it, and then being told they can't hit people? I don't know. Does this undermine the idea that Mommy and Daddy are Always Right (at least when it comes to house rules and looking both ways before crossing the street?). Or is it a matter of teaching boundaries, and the difference between pretend and real, or the difference between school life and wrestling practice life?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 03:29 pm (Link)
American Idol is a reality show, as are Three Wishes and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Jerry Springer isn't rated because the list is only for prime-time network TV. Springer is both syndicated and generally not airing in primetime either.

Anyway, don't look too hard for consistency in the PTC. That's never been one of their strong suits. Its just about pushing their agenda, as arbitrary as it may be.

See, I'm not so much with the concept of teaching that hitting is wrong. I'm more the concept of teaching general morality. Its more important to understand why hitting is bad then it is to just know that you aren't allowed to do it. If you also understand that parents (and kids aren't) are in a position of authority and that disobediance to the authorities yields repercussions, then there shouldn't be any problems.

I hate the current popular viewpoint of "it is always wrong to hit a child, because it will teach the child that hitting is ok." Simply put, yes, but that's true of any disciplining. My 3-year-old neice thinks its ok to arbitrarilly hand out "time-out punishments" whenever someone pisses her off. And she will throw a fit if the punishments aren't enforced. Because she doesn't understand the concept of authority. She simply understands that when you're mad you ground someone. In my mind, this is not really any better than her hitting people. The issue isn't about how much physical harm a child can cause. Its about the child knowing his/her powers and responsibilities, and understanding what is and isn't allowed and how that may be different for different people.
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:35 pm (Link)
And she will throw a fit if the punishments aren't enforced. Because she doesn't understand the concept of authority.

But if she feels that authority figures always have the right to hurt her, she will have a whole new set of problems, as opposed to recognizing that authority figures have the right to set her aside when she isn't behaving. I agree that there is a need to separate between authority figures' and children's decisions, but there is also a need to separate hitting and punishment.
[User Picture]From: marsinthestars Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:40 pm (Link)

sorry, that was me above.

Sorry, that was me above
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:55 pm (Link)

Re: sorry, that was me above.

no problem... I answered it... (so you know, you probably didn't get mail aboit it)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:54 pm (Link)
I don't see how that follows. If she feels that authority figures always have the right to hit her, then she'd also feel that the authority figures always have the right to ground her. If she sees grounding as only a punishment for misbehavior, then she should see spanking the same way. The actual punishment is therefore arbitrary. I'm not saying that this justifies spanking. It just doesn't prove its wrong either. Form of the punishment is agnostic to your argument.

Now arguments about how physical punishment might affect the psyche of the child in an abusive/damaging manner, I would consider. But that's totally different.

Or is there more you're saying that I am missing?
[User Picture]From: marsinthestars Date: October 21st, 2005 - 07:03 pm (Link)
Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear.

I think it's easier to teach a child "I can ground you as punishment because parents are allowed to do that. You can't ground me because you are not an authority figure, you can't enforce this, and you're not allowed to" than to teach them "I can hit you as punishment" for all the same reasons. On a basic level, simply because a child can hit back, and can learn the power of violence- because, yeah, it does hurt mommy or daddy just as much as it hurts little jimmy. Also, I think if it's hitting instead of grounding, the focus of the child turns away from "I did something I'm not allowed to do" into "that hurt, and now I'm angry."

So yeah, I guess I'm saying that I do think the actual punishment matters. But I do agree with you on the authority/child distinction.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 07:23 pm (Link)
ok, that's a viable argument. I don't know that I agree or not. But I do understand what you're saying now.

Thanx for the clarification.
[User Picture]From: gigglefaerie Date: October 21st, 2005 - 03:43 pm (Link)
You're gonna hate me. I went to see Lisa Loeb in Cleveland last weekend. She was at her mech table after the show and we waited in line for her to sign my bud's poster and I ended up buying a CD which she signed for me. I now own something that Lisa touched. How jealous are you? =)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 04:03 pm (Link)
I'm going to have to chop off your head and absorb your quickening. Nothing personal, you understand, right?
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 21st, 2005 - 07:28 pm (Link)
Bah... only foolish parents don't want their children to know sex exists. What stupid parents (a group that includes just about every parent who doesn't live in my house) don't realize is that children find sex profoundly boring.

The only real interest that children have in sex is the little power trip that they get when their parents try to change the subject.

If you want to have real fun with your kids, watch Family Guy with your kids and then have a MEANINGFUL TALK with them.

They won't gain a damn thing from this, but its fun watching them squirm. Playing with the little bastards minds, that's what being a parent is about.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 08:05 pm (Link)
ooh... parenting out of spite... good idea.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: October 21st, 2005 - 11:57 pm (Link)
I find DH really offensive. If there's one thing I hate more than an obnoxious voiceover, it's an obnoxious and syrupy voiceover. Makes me wanna claw my eardrums out.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 22nd, 2005 - 12:00 am (Link)
wow... you actually listen to Desperate Housewives?

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to just watch it and lust after Eva Langoria.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: October 22nd, 2005 - 12:53 am (Link)
Too late...I've already heard it, and I already find all the characters (except Teri Hatcher's) to be excessively annoying, which detracts considerably from their hotness. Incidentally, that's why I don't kust after Kristin Kreuk anymore.

Come to think of it, I pretty much hate everyone on TV these days, except for Veronica Mars and House. And House isn't really lusting material.

[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 22nd, 2005 - 03:28 am (Link)
when did you stop watching Smallville? It must have been before Lana got the evil kryptonian tattoo and got all sexy and badass and less good two-shoes. Huh?

Also, there's nothing that Kristin Kreuk can do as Lana that can make her less sexy in mind than she was as Fiona in Eurotrip.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: October 22nd, 2005 - 04:01 am (Link)
I'm still watching smallville...this very minute actually. I just don't lust after Kristin Kreuk anymore. As far as the tattoo thing, well, at first I was just pissed that they stole elements of my Andy story. But then that whole plotline turned out to be rather lame and nonsensical. It was like, "Oh hey, people are complaining that Lana is lame and always has to get rescued, let's give her some mysterious superpowers for no particular reason." Kristin is still hot, but I'm just sick of the character, so unless I see her in something else, no more lusting.

Not that I didn't appreciate the Lana-in-the-shower shot.

I do think Lois is kinda hot, actually.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 22nd, 2005 - 04:04 am (Link)
So actually, there's long standing mystic ramifications for the Lana character in the comic. I think they were trying to shoe-horn them into last season on the series, because it was her senior year, and they realized "oh shit, we never talked about all the magic she was supposed to be involved in during highschool."

Yeah, Erica Durrance (Lois) is also hot.
[User Picture]From: katieboyd Date: October 25th, 2005 - 04:36 am (Link)
Wait, the Colbert Report actually exists? I thought it was just a fake commercial they put in to fill space.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 25th, 2005 - 04:44 am (Link)
it was. Up until last Monday when it became a real show which directly follows the Daily Show now.

It's quite good. Adjust your TiVo.

• Go to Top