Yesterday, there was a 're-union' of an old TV show from the 70s which was set in the 50s.

During the show, they made reference to some community behavior change based on the on screen behavior of a major character.

I won't mention which character or show at this point, but will later.

The bottom line is...

"When key characters who have a large public following are seen to endorse certain behavior, there is a significant change in community behavior as shown in the character"

Now.. there are a number of aspects to this issue which must be considered.

1/ If the character makes a behavioral choice which parents can support, then it is more likely to receive support and encouragement at the family level. An example might be 'study harder'

2/ If the character is seen to be successful after having made a 'rebellious' or 'evil' choice.. it also stands to reason that a significant element in the community will be encouraged in that direction irrespective of family or parental support. It might even be in spite of it.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. Let's say there is a behavior which at the time of airing a show is considered 'deviant'

For example full mouth kissing of someone you have just met of the opposite sex in front of their partner, rather than (perhaps) a kiss on the cheek or a handshake.

Imagine if a highly respected character from a popular show with a long standing following did this, and the scene shows all the other characters with a little 'huh' surprise at first but then..they just laugh it off as "Oh well.. I guess it's ok" and the show goes on..with this kind of behavior becoming part of the norm. (at least for the character who initiated it)

I contend...that such things not only can, but do influence community values and behavior.

Thus.. it is up to all of us to ensure that our media maintains high moral standards in all productions and does not play fast and loose with community standards in the interests of 'ratings'.

Channel 10 Sydney is about the grossest of the commercial television channels.
If we look back, and recall, theres been a large number of deviant sex related programmes starting off just after foundation of Channel.

In fact I think I remember the openning promo of the new Channel Ten in Sydney and they had a young girl dancer, dancing in a loose very skimpy dress...and lo and behold... out popped her breast half way through the dance.
I reckoned that was a planned event.
Ever since then, the spirit realm has had a sexual/deviant hold on that TV station...the worst show being the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
No wonder the kids got corrupted into 'deviant', porn and decay.

You haven't got that on video have you Gibo?
Sorry could not resist a switch exists on every set if you look you will find you can turn it of.
Not sure any of us should impose our standards on others.
Are you blokes aware how awful I find those yank Evangelist shows?
But I have located the on and off switch.

Hi Belly.
Sorry cant help with a clip of the event.

What we forget, with the immorality on TV/the Net these days, is that it has social consequences.

The young mind is like a fresh sponge.

If we feed it sexual immorality its going to want sex immorality and when the sin is full blown, it leads to death (Bible).
The lust grows and can in certain cases can lead the victim into sex crime.

Theres no doubt that the television media corrupted a generation (at least two generations) from the early days of 'No.96'...to today.

I watched it happen over four decades...and we shouldnt play it down.
Along with the sexual immorality in the media, and the growth of porn, civilisation slid backwards into the dark hole its now in.

Brutal censorship might reverse the 'media-created' sex crime, but I doubt anyone has the courage.

Hi Belly.
Sorry can't help with a clip of the event.

What we forget, with the proposed censorship on the TV/Net these days, is that it has social consequences.

The desire for control is like a sponge.

If we feed it permission to dictate our lives, it's going to want control over us. When it is full blown, it leads to megalomania and idiotic internet filtering schemes. In certain cases, it can lead to dictatorship.

There's no doubt censorship enslaved a generation (from the early days, the 1950s, McCarthyism) to today.

I watched people try to do this again - we shouldn't play it down.

Along with fundamentalist extreme Christian wowserism, civilisation might slide backwards into the ignorance it's trying to outgrow.

Brutal censorship might satisfy some Christian activists, but I hope none of them have that power.

---

On a side note, for your definitions here to be in any way logical, you need to believe that all of us folk who oppose censorship are corrupted and incapable of making judgements for themselves. Essentially, your argument hinges on the idea that people can't make decisions for themselves.

Well, screw that. How about you give up your freedom to make such commentary? How would that kind of censorshop feel?

TRTL
Your apathy, and Bellys, is part of the problem...the danger to society.

You waifs want your freedoms at all costs...even the death of a civilisation.

In a true sense the inclinations of todays waif/porn youngsters is the destroyer of what was once not perfect... but better than 2008.

Gibo, Polycarp, I am not taking the Mickie out of you this post is how I truly feel.
Yes number 96 seemed to start something, we seldom heard of homosexuals before ,but we would have sooner or later.
Now I have been around for a while, remember my childhood was spent in a stern Christian home.
Mum came from a family of 13 kids, her dad had been wed before and had 13 kids in each of two family's.
Mum and dad had 16 kids 8 of whom still live.
Dad probably fathered that many outside the marriage.
While we feared God every bush town knew fathers day could be confusing.
We had our sex lives controlled by Church's, but those who told us it was dirty or wrong had active sex lives with many partners.
I wonder if we would be different if your Gods servants stayed out of our beds?
Humans are what we are, I am far more concerned about bigger issues than others sex lives.
What ever television bought us the family sizes I tell of show we needed no help in our sex lives.
Sure you can not get that video Gibo?

Gibo,
Are you saying that if TV hadn't promoted 'gays' and or promiscuous sex the 'moral decline' of society wouldn't have happened or wouldn't be as rampant?

Notwithstanding this I am concerned that as COMMERCIAL imperatives (including the media) tend to become trail blazers for profit (sensation is Stupendous, scintillating etc and oh yes, attention grabbing) rather than reflections of society it is they that are desensitizing the public.

The proplem is ultimately the public allowing themselves to be manipulated and aconditioned by commercial interests.

Try this, get a transcript of a news broadcast sit down and Red pencil all that which is hype, highly quesionable,you don't NEED to know and the sensation ...try it you'll be surprised.

Exactly Examinator.

Sadly there was a trend towards sexual freedom (along with drugs and general rebellion against adults) and many in the media, having come out of that 60's era, went for it as "their rights and their personal freedoms".

The media, with the help of the advertising industry, today is mostly responsible for spreading for the continuence of the sexual revolution (ratings and money and power, the goal) and with that media/advertising agency involvment comes the sexual diseases, the breakdown of moral society, the increase in adultery and the increase in divorce, the spread of sex crime.
Its not hard to grasp. We look at it everyday.

Go to the Daily Telegraph Sydneys website...its all bottoms and breasts and sleaze comment. Lust pours off the site.

The media is contaminating each new generation as it comes into the world.
Their corruption of global society is one reason we will see the Judgment of the Bibles Tribulation.

When civilisations get to the cut-off point brought about by idolatry, sexual immorlaity, sacrifice (abortion) and witchcraft...they vanish.
God Judges them and its over.

Polycarp, maybe television, the internet and the media in general are serving to drag us out of some of moral and social hang-ups.

Crikey, when it comes to nudity or sex, my view is that we are absurdly hung up. What would be wrong with nudity being portrayed on television all the time? What would be wrong with people walking nude on any beach or on their own property in full view of the street and neighbours? Why should we treat sex or pornography in such a secretive or condemnatory manner, especially when all manner of imagery is available at the fingertips of anyone, including children, on the internet?

Of course there still need to be boundaries of decency and morality. But I’d say currently the position of these boundaries is far too far towards the prudish and restrictive end of the spectrum.

Programs like Number 96, Queer as Folk, Californication, etc could be seen as progressive social liberalisers, which are slowly but surely bringing us out of the dark ages of our enormous cringe about exposed genitalia, sex and all that sort of stuff.

Actually, I blame it on the waltz.

http://members.isp01.net/hfsears/lessons/waltz4.html

"the Waltz was widely condemned as immoral, given the "closed" dance position, the rapid tempo (60 measures per minute), and the constant twirling and turning."

Or maybe the tango.

http://tinyurl.com/6o7urp (n.b. this opens a .pdf file)

"The tango must be considered an immoral dance and is consequently prohibited to Catholics" (NY Times 21st November 1913)

Or was it rock 'n' roll?

http://tinyurl.com/56obsd

"rock 'n' roll... often plunges men's minds into degrading and immoral depths"

Or could it just be dancing per se?

http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/charctr_13_social_dancing.cfm

"In the face of this moral erosion the church calls all Christian adults and parents to abstain from social dancing for themselves and their children in light of God’s desire for His people to be a separate and holy people"

Let's face it, once the waltz caught on, we just zoomed on down the slippery slope to perdition.

Ha ha,

I havent posted for ages but Pericles' last one was just too good. That last one from the Assemblies of God is just great - really is there any difference between the Taliban and fundie Christians?

The next logical step is to ban all contact between men and women in any social situation in case. In fact the article warns us :

"However, the New Testament is filled with cautions about the emotions and passions that are part of any physical contact between the sexes. We are specifically warned to flee temptation, especially lust and sexual temptation (1 Cor. 6:18, 1 Tim. 6:9-11, 2 Tim. 2:22)"

So there you have it. No physical contact between the sexes. Perhaps some sort of covering to avoid any sexual temptation? Sounds like Burqas are definitly the way to go.

Even Christian dance evenings are to banned :

"Some Christians in various parts of the country are establishing "Christian dance clubs" utilizing Christian contemporary music in an attempt to eliminate objections to dancing because it often takes place in unwholesome, even evil, settings. The very idea dancing is often connected with other vices should sound a caution to those who attempt to sanitize an activity which at best poses great moral risk."

Gibo, Polycarp et al. Surely we need to stop the evils of physical contact between the sexes before focusing on the media?

Happy Christmas in advance everyone!

gw

Any halfway decent content producer will tell you that the most popular movies/tv shows resonate in some way with what the audience already knows. You can push people's awareness around the edges, but the totally unfamiliar or unacceptable will flop.

The post assumes that tv makes society what it is, but the opposite argument is also valid. It's a two way process. Try limiting tv to reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies, the Flying Nun, Happy Days and Greenacres and see how the ratings go.

I seem to have a different concept of morrality than most on this thread.

I do not consider revealing clothes, nudity, exotic dancing, sex between consenting adults immoral. Nor prostitution or sex outside a partnership, wirh the partners consent, immoral. As there is some music/art I do not like, some sexual acts I find distasteful but not immoral.

What I find immoral is lieing, cheating, deceiving, conning, fraud, theft, exploiting and taking advantage of another for ones own gain.

So Polycarp if media promote that immediately above I think we should act to prevent it.

Gibo,
Perhaps I phrased it wrongly. Nothing we see today in the media is new.
All this debauchery (sex and drugs) has been a function of human nature since the year spot (you choose which creation suits your mind). If the media went prim and proper the problems would still be there and would continue as a steady state. They are influenced by other factors e.g. Homosexuality is a fact not a choice.

The moral decay I was referring to is that which comes from social disintegration when we are desensitized to the plight and responsibilities of others. This in my mind has occurred because of the ever expanding need to sell more. To facilitate this we are indoctrinated with half truths, biased information and false reasoning i.e. wants and needs are interchangeable, that current capitalism as it is now is THE only way.
Self is more important than We et al.

The media is just the vector NOT the cause WE ARE THE CAUSE because we buy all the goods from AMMORAL corporations that exploit the less powerful because it’s cheap or we’re willing to believe those goods will some how make us happy.

Logically if this Pap wasn’t effective then Commerce wouldn’t use it. We need to stop blaming non human victims and others for OUR failures. Then maybe we can then fix the world.

Well.... I guess it was not difficult to predict where the thread might go... but my intention was to examine the 'process' than focus on the 'sin and degradation' aspect.

The show which was my source was the Happy Days Re-Union.. and the character in question was 'The Fonz'.

According to the show, when the 'Fonz'...went to a library and took out a library card membership....the impact was so great and so measurable... that the enrollment for library cards went up by 500% after that episode.

The psychology of behavior (or at least Attitude) change is usually linked to opinion leaders.

This is not an issue that I think any reasonable person would argue against in principle.

The one where it appears argument does arise, is when the actual change is of a 'moral' nature. Library cards will hardly send us to perdition.

A study of this should look at:

1/ 'Is the change of a perceived 'negative' direction or positive'?
2/ 'If it is perceived as negative, how much will parental influence effect the outcome'?
3/ How much will Peer pressure/peer group opinion leaders add to the influence of the negative moral direction?

The Process might be:

a) Highly popular TV/Movie identity takes a morally negative direction, and the show portrays him as highly successful in that step. He seems to have gained reward.. satisfaction and perhaps a degree of glory.

b) Fan begins to question parental/accepted moral norms.

c) Peer group opinion leaders/shapers of the fan decide to opt for the same direction.

d)The fan and most of those who are followers rather than leaders modify both behavior and attitude in line with that of the Star/Show.

THE QUESTION. Which we seem to be debating here, is whether such change is in reality of a negative/positive nature?

The opinions seem to break down into the 'Christian' camp (me, Gibo Runner, katie and a few others.. you may refer to us from now as 'The Enlightened ones' :) (couldn't resist that.. to see if anyone is reading) and the 'rest'.

Deviant Behaviour “For example full mouth kissing of someone you have just met of the opposite sex in front of their partner, rather than (perhaps) a kiss on the cheek or a handshake.”

Polycarp… not sure I would call that deviant, unless your words have been “full mouth kissing of someone you have just met of the same sex “

I think we need to understand, the “media” be it TV, newsprint, internet, books, magazines, radio programmes or bark painting are not there to form our moral norms or values. They are not even there to necessarily reflect them.

Media can be divided into two categories, informative and entertainment.

The purely “informative” is providing information for us to consider, and for which "moral content" is irrelevant.

The entertainment component is there to entertain us, possibly by challenging our sense of what is "moral" and “normal” (versus "immoral" and “Deviant”) and not to dwell on turning us into righteous citizens, the SBS programme “Shameless” (which I enjoy for its “cringe value”) comes to mind.

Regarding “Thus.. it is up to all of us to ensure that our media maintains high moral standards in all productions and does not play fast and loose with community standards in the interests of 'ratings'.”

No, it is up to us to decide what we wish to watch, turning off or away form what we find either offensive or (more often) pointless and understand that what suits some of us does, not suit all of us and therefore everyone must expect some things to rancor with our personal standards and expectations

I was wondering what particular hook you had discovered to kick off this particular morality tale, Boaz.

You really don't check anything, do you, when you find the need to make a point.

>>According to the show, when the 'Fonz'...went to a library and took out a library card membership....the impact was so great and so measurable... that the enrollment for library cards went up by 500% after that episode.<<

This claim was made by the show's creator, Garry Marshall, and repeated on the Reunion show by Henry Winkler.

No evidence was provided by either individual.

Nor, according to the American Library Association, could any evidence have been produced, even if they wanted some.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=alafaq#46

"there is no report in ALA's American Libraries or in any other library press periodical telling of a surge in signups in the months following the episode. The number of library cards in the United States is one statistic that isn't collected for the Public Libraries in the United States federal survey series by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Neither does a number appear in The Bowker Annual Library and Book Trade Almanac. There's a hesitation to collect and present such numbers, due to the fact that the accuracy of them would vary from library to library."

It has never been checked, tested, verified or even vaguely supported by a second opinion or anecdotal evidence.

Yet on our wonderful, reliable internet, you will find twenty categorical, unqualified repetitions of the ridiculous, self-serving claim, for every one expressing reservations.

So, Boaz, given that the entire foundation of your argument that we are led by the nose by television personalities has been washed away in the oncoming tide of reality - what was your point again?

Holy Hairshirts BatPoly and Gibo!

How on earth are we meant to go forth and multiply if we can't get physical?

Or was the big G refering to math?

Getting physical's fine Fractelle.

The Bible standard is not outside of marriage vows before The Lord, no homosexuality or lesbianism (His Commands), no animals (they got stoned to death in the Old Testament), no incest etc.

If we move from the standard then we can get the Judgment...and that can mean loss of civilisation.
So many civilisations have gone now, that had something for a while, then fell into immorality (the big one) and vanished shortly after.

Alright then gibo, lets get this absolutely specific. I don't want to go encouraging fire n' brimstone for the inappropriate secks (better be careful about which words I use too).

So, I've got the first few rules. No gay secks, no animals and only marital secks. Gotcha.

But, we need to be a little more specific here (well, not too specific, given the nature of the topic, but there's a grey area, I think) after all, in the modern world, issues are more complex.

Firsly - dildos. If we have a happily married couple, who are down with all the proper rules and requirements, are they allowed to be creative with a dildo? With a nod to the censors, I won't be explicit and won't mention any anatomical games here, but it's a valid biblical question. I'd like to know what the Christian fundamentalist dildo policy is.
Is it just the shape that's objectionable? What about vegetables? Will a cucumber suffice? I'm told they're rich in antioxidants.

Secondly - I'd like to know about clothing standards. At what point is the dress judged to be too revealing.
I'm assuming ankle is acceptable. The knee appears to be a grey area, but evidently the thigh is liable to provoke extreme acts of wanton lust.

But, I haven't heard of anyone picketing speedos. Presumably, they're acceptable as swimwear. So, I wonder, are budgie-smugglers contraband outside of beach zones? Bikinis? Are only one pieces allowed? Maybe we can have some flags for proper swimming areas and a different coloured flag for the 'safe speedo zone.'

So, I'd also like to know the christian fundamentalist policy on Speedos and bikinis, and the required amount of sand and/or water (in litres and cubic metres please, though if tradeoffs are possible I'd like to know the ratios, is sand worth more than water?) that must be in close proximity to the individual in question to warrant the wearing of the aforementioned aquatic paraphernalia.

Your answers are imperative. I wouldn't want to inadvertently cross the morality line.

Hi there Pericles. Well done! No..I didn't check it, so your work deserves full credit. I just accepted at face value this time.

I suppose this further re-inforces the reality of 'secular' myths again eh :)

My premise would not be based solely on that particular episode or that type of content. It would be based in basic psychology and social dynamics...how people and groups work. As you would have noticed, I mentioned opinion leaders/shapers etc.

I would still maintain that quite apart from the fumbling fonz speech, the issue is still quite true.

I would hazard a wild guess that if most of our TV content about females portrayed them as sex objects, chances are pretty high that eventually that's how they will be regarded.

One example from today.. FM station. The female dj was saying how she chucked on another person.. and this evoked a "ohh..yeah.. hahahaha" response rather than a "cringe/digust...eeuuuuwwwww ur kidding" one.

How we regard 'disgusting' behavior seems to me to be influenced by or reflected in...the youth fm stations.

Fraccy..what are you on about.. cannot get physical? huh? Back to the medicine cupboard but this time TAKE the pills. 0_^

SOLUTION. (which of course applies only if you see a problem)

Col & TRTL mention a few things...

For me..

SEX.... alluded to..not portrayed.
LOVE...should be featured.. as a common theme.
JUSTICE..as for Love.
DEVIANT behavior. Not shown or.. only shown with very negative consequences. Never shown with positive consequences.

There will be some exceptions to some of the above, but they would absolutely HAVE to be story based and not gratuitous.

Fratelle, I think that you are in big trouble for even considering pointed vegetables or other artificial aids. Gay secks is already out and any possible use of such a device by a male is obviously crossing that line. Perhaps if women were meant to get some pleasure from secks there might be some uses but her man can supply all the pleasure she needs.

"I would hazard a wild guess that if most of our TV content about females portrayed them as sex objects, chances are pretty high that eventually that's how they will be regarded."

I'd hazard a less wild guess if that if TV content persisted on staying too far from where people were at the shows would eventually be consigned to the ratings scrap heap. They might hang around for a few seasons for the novelty value but if people don't find something to relate to it gets old fast.

R0bert

That still doesn't clarify the dildo policy, and I remain ill-informed as to the sand-water requirements and ratios with regard to the permissible locations for the wearing of budgie-smugglers.

Am I to assume both are within the 'deviant' category? Where's the line?

Regrettably the forum decorum prevents me from clarifying further issues, but presumably, there are stringent requirements as to the appropriate sexual positions. Can you clarify which are deviant and which are not?

Seeing as apparently it's not just the issues of 'who' can have sex with who, but apparently 'how' as well.

Presumably, 'why' figures into it. I get that it's about expressing love... does that mean married couples can't do it when they're just plain bored?
What about when? Are there restrictions on daylight sex?
There's also some requirements from the 'where' I gather. I take it beds are allowed.
I'll therefore assume futons are ok as well, which presumably means sofas are permissible... what about wicker furniture?
Must it be indoors? Are there requirements as to illumination levels and style? Presumably the connotations of 'red' lights make them frowned upon, but perhaps something a bit less racy in a faintly lit lilac shade may be permissable?

I mean, if the threat of immorality and hellfire is hanging over our heads, we'd really best be clear about these things hadn't we?

We are permitted to discuss such things openly aren't we? Or is biblical-osmosis the only permitted form of instruction?

Are we heathens to be damned because nobody would explain it clearly to us?

Once again, Boaz, you manage to miss the point entirely.

Go back, and re-read the post with which you kicked off this thread.

You used a specific instance of behaviour, allegedly copied by the public in large numbers from a television personality presumed to wield some influence.

>>When key characters who have a large public following are seen to endorse certain behavior, there is a significant change in community behavior as shown in the character<<

But Boaz, as we have seen, there wasn't any change in community behaviour.

The example you used as the prop for your monograph against lewdity on TV was non-existent.

It was a hollow log. A red herring. A straw man.

All that you are now left with is to protest "well, if it had been true, then I would have been right".

>>My premise would not be based solely on that particular episode or that type of content. It would be based in basic psychology and social dynamics...how people and groups work.<<

Maybe. But surely you need to provide just a little by way of evidence or proof statement to back up your claims, now that your flagship example has sunk without trace?

>>I would still maintain that quite apart from the fumbling fonz speech, the issue is still quite true<<

Well of course you would, that's the kind of guy you are.

But where's your evidence? As a stand-alone assertion it's pretty weak.

>>I would hazard a wild guess that if most of our TV content about females portrayed them as sex objects, chances are pretty high that eventually that's how they will be regarded.<<

Yep. That's a pretty wild guess, Boaz, standing alone like a shag on a rock, to go along with that great big "if".

Particularly as it is clear from the example you inadvertently provided, that incidents on TV, however dramatic, have been shown to have no perceptible influence on people.

Retire from this one gracefully, Boaz.

This parrot is no more.

And yet, I still remain dangerously ill-informed as to the christian fundamentalist policies on dildos, sex on wicker furniture or outdoors, whether boredom counts as a valid reason for marital sex, (and what positions are ok... actually, they seem vague on a lot of the secks issues, despite being awfully strict) and for the love of god, won't somebody please tell me the sanctioned (sanctified?) places where I can wear my budgie smugglers?

Oh sweet haven of budgie-smuggling bliss, where art thou? Dost thou need oceans of blue, pure in their beauty? Must I forever gird my loins in expansive shorts, so wide in their weave but narrow in freedom?
Won't SOMEBODY THINK OF THE BUDGIE SMUGGLERS!

P.S. R0bert, I best claim responsibility for the comments regarding secks devices and vegetables.
I fear Fractelle, that saucy Jezebel, has already racked up too many sin-points and will soon be spending her time whittling splintery pieces of wood into non-dildo shaped devices in some aptly titled layer of hell.

Perhaps I'll soon join her in the unrepentant smart-arse corner. At least the conversation in hell will be more amusing, I think.

(These comments aren't ill-thought out. On the contrary, I've given a fair amount of thought as to the correct calibrations of gravitas and analysis. Seeing as Pericles has aptly demonstrated that they appear to have developed a curious immunity to logic, I thought I'd try reconfiguring my approach to something less logical).

That being said, I would be curious to hear specifics on what is and isn't sanctioned in sexual activities between two, consenting partners in a private setting. More for the fact that for all the focus on sexual behaviour, there appears to be little by way of outlines as to what's permissible.

Is there a line in the bible which expressly forbids the use of cucumbers as a... lets say, marital aid, between two consenting, christian, god-fearing, married adults?

What on earth could be the problem there?

TRTL - look, your repeated pleas for knowledge are just ..well..a bit icky, really. I mean, for the gods' sakes, man, you're not even married, are you? What on earth could be your motive in wanting information on all this secret married-peoples-business?

And as for the budgie-smugglers, I think you're pretty much free to fly, there. I seem to have this hastily quashed recollection of DB sharing with us that he used to favour them himself in his salad days (I expect that was so that people could tell at a glance that he wasn't Jewish, huh?).

Now get your mind off all that nasty business and spare a thought for me. I'm still reeling from the waltz info. Not only do I have to confess that I used to take part in this wicked dance of abandon... it was taught us by NUNS!!

But here's the part that has me wailing and gnashing my teeth. I used (may the Great Green Gecko protect me), I used to do this dance with (I can hardly bring myself to confess it).....my Father!!

Oh death where is thy Sting?

TRTL.. yes mate.. it is a bit... 'icky'.

Read the song of songs and draw your own conclusions :)

But full complements on your articulation.. quite good writing even if the subject matter was on the icky side.
Now..use you're powers for GOOD instead of evil.

Romany.. your post shows a sad lack of appreciation for the freedom we have in Christ.. I say sad...because it (the Christian life) just isn't like the tone of your post. If you remain in that little mental closet of misunderstanding, you will never recognize what true freedom is.

There is no true freedom without some moral/ethical framework.. so when Paul says "For freedom Christ has set us free" there is still a framework, but it is based on love not law.

PERICLES.. please don't take this thread as some kind of rigid, staunch position statement based on that example cited.
I found it interesting...and it fitted my views about the media and social dynamics..and I posted it for discussion.
You've played ur part of adding to the information with some useful background... and that's good.

You slipped up on one thing though. My assertion that the media influences society is well proven in my view, though not by the example I provided.

The specific example, to quote your article was 'neither proved nor disproved'. Makes me wonder though where Fonz got the info from?

Fractelle, my apologies for blaming you for TurnRightThenLeft's appauling thinging. How could I have thought it of you? The shame.

TurnRightThenLeft, how would you get pleasure from a cucumber?

R0bert

Boaz, just face it. Your parrot has joined the choir invisible.

>>My assertion that the media influences society is well proven in my view, though not by the example I provided.<<

Surely the obvious thing would be to go out and look for some evidence that supports your assertion, rather than simply stand there and repeat it, as if it had some intrinsic merit?

So enlighten us all, please. On what basis do you consider it "well proven" that people copy what they see on TV? Don't run down the generalist rabbit-hole of "media influences society" - of course it has an impact. Breathing has an impact too. So does religion. And potty training, apparently.

If you would like to rewrite your opening post to encompass these broader influences, please do so.

Just stop pretending that Fonz's library card is evidence. It is not.

>>The specific example, to quote your article was 'neither proved nor disproved'<<

Disingenuous. The American Library Association merely pointed out, in its logical and even-handed manner, that in the absence of any statistics at all, no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

>>Makes me wonder though where Fonz got the info from?<<

Has it not occurred to you that they might have dreamed this up for publicity reasons? To make the show sound somehow more "significant"?

Don't forget, Winkler was merely repeating the story started many years before by the show's originator, Garry Marshall.

Drop it, Boaz.

And consider for a moment how empty and sterile your original post now looks, in the absence of any evidence.

Pericles,
Off topic but a bit of trivia the original Characterization of the Fonz came from Alan Paul of the "Manhattan Transfer" or so he claimed in a number of interviews at the time.
He went on to say Fonz was an amalgum of people he knew growing up in New York.

Interesting stuff TRTL. Wouldn’t it be great if the Christian fraternity could tightly define the parameters of morality. They can’t. In fact they can’t go anywhere near it.

But, can any religions? Maybe some can. But it seems that those that have the tightest definitions are the most oppressive, often really stretching the definition of morality.

It isn’t only religions that have problems with this sort of stuff. Is there any society in the world that tightly defines moral parameters?

In many ways these parameters in Australian society are just as fuzzy as all b*ggery! Not only that, but they are highly duplicitous in many instances, with the same thing being readily accepted in some instances but considered totally unacceptable and even criminal in others, without any apparent differences in the circumstances or environment, and without anything to readily tell us which applies where or why.

There is enormous scope for confusion, and hence considerable scope for people who think they are behaving within the law and within moral parameters getting busted…and hence, scope for people who are doing exactly the same sort of thing being treated very differently and hence unfairly.

OK, that’s all very general and rather fuzzy. Perhaps some people don’t get my drift. Well, I’ll be starting a new thread on this very soon.

Polycarp (or anyone else), what do you think of the three questions I asked in my last post?

Ever since watching Happy Days, I periodically have an urgent need to stick my thumbs out and make a strange, gutteral "ayyyyyyyy" noice. I also frequently demand people see me in my "office", then go to the toilet, and I get strangely embarrassed whenever Mrs C kisses me on the cheek.

Porky: << No..I didn't check it... I just accepted at face value this time. >>

What do you mean, "this time"? As far as I can tell, this is just another case of Porkycrap standard operating procedure - i.e. you stumble across something that superficially fits your idiosyncratic world view, which you then use as the basis for a stupid post to OLO without conducting the most cursory of checks as to whether or not your factoid is true.

Just more Porky crap, I'm afraid.

R0bert

Your apology is accepted, although I can easily see how the mistake was made.

As for what TRTL does with a cucumber, the answer is the same thing he does with a zucchini - Duh!

What WAS the topic again? Oh yes, the media and morality.

What I find immoral about the media is, um, too many lifestyle programs, page three girls and no page three guys, adhering to the ideology of the boss (political bias), eg Murdoch. Too much sensationalising of trivia eg, someone's breast falling out and not enough investigation into important issues eg, government investment in infrastructure.

PS

TRTL a little advice for ya.
Dildos have a longer... shelf-life than veggies.

I'll save the best seats in hell for y'all.

TRTL.
Are there problems that you might need some kind of rubber activity?

The whole thing is that many endeavours (porn, additional sex equipment, impure thoughts dwelt upon for lengths of time) lead to lust and lust has great power to alter peoples lives for the worse.

If the addiction is strong enough the 'victim' of the lust (it is a spirit power that manipulates) can become the offender and go into places that he shouldnt go...i.e. the gay areas to the spreading of disease and further social immorality, the brothels and eventually, other peoples homes.

Sex crime is increasing as the porn spreads.
It really pays to watch what we think.

I wear Speedos when I go to the beach...though I dont often go any more.
It would be nice to see topless sunbaking no longer permitted.

It only makes it hard for the young guys whom think sex all the time and spreads the rotten lust factor that in the end will bring down a civilisation.

Gibo,

They don't only bath topless where I go, but pantless as well!

There's very little to lust over as there is no mystery. (Added to the fact that most of the bodies on display aren't worth perving at anyway).

Don't confuse nudity with sex. Likewise nudity is not always porn. The reason Middle Eastern men are far over represented in sex crimes is that they have been raised in a culture where they keep their women covered and they don't know how to control themselves in a society where women have more freedom about their dress standards. It's the issue with confusing nudity with sex that is causing all the controversy about breast feeding in public.

As far as young guys thinking about sex all the time Gibo, I think that's an almost normal part of growing up.

Just for the record, I live a very satisfying life without sex.

Crikey people, the cucumber's not for me. I'm all about the giving. Particularly when it's such a wholesome experience as enjoying a good, vitamin-rich cucumber. What can I say? I like creativity in all things.
Besides. For the record, we're still talking about hypotheticals. I don't want me or any of my vegetables to get struck by lightning.

Gibo, you racy harlot! You mean you show your bare thighs at the beach! Goodness gracious.

So, Gibo, you say speedos are permissible - presumably, then, it's okay for women to wear bikinis at the beach?

Is it just the beach? Can people wear bikinis at say... a stadium? What if there's sand at the stadium? What about volleyball? What if it's really hot? Why just the beach?

If it's because a beach is a place for swimming, then I'd ask - are people who wear bikinis or speedos to the beach, but don't swim heinous? What about people who just dip their toes in? How much water contact is required for it to qualify as swimming?

Gibo, if speedos are ok, if I'm wearing them at home and want to walk to the corner store to get some milk... do I need to get changed?

Pericles... let me use an example from Ally McBeal today.

Don't get too paranoid or psychotic about 'pinning me down' on this... I found it interesting and raised it as a discussion... now we are discussing..this is a good thing. I happen to believe the Media does influence morality and I also happen to think this is not a chicken/egg thing but a self evident truth.

Ally was wearing a very short skirt in a courtroom. The judge cited her for contempt for that. She went to jail rather than apologise, and when brought back to court.. called him a pig. She was asked why she wanted to wear such revealing attire in a court of law, and she said with great conviction "Because... I...WANT ... to" aaah.. the 'independant self reliant female'....

Now.. given the way the show was structured... I think at least some women would have said "You go girl!.. yep... stick it to him Ally"

So it can be an issue of 're-inforcement' as much as initiation.
I don't know why you bother to make such a fuss about the original example. You can do much better by looking at other information for and against the assertion. You seem to be rather good at ferreting out info.

Vitamin-rich, TRTL?

>>such a wholesome experience as enjoying a good, vitamin-rich cucumber<<

Only moderately endowed, I'm afraid, vitamin-wise

But many, many wonderful benefits nevertheless.

Here's what hubpages.com has to say

"The flesh of cucumbers is primarily composed of water but also contains ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and caffeic acid, both of which help soothe skin irritations and reduce swelling. Cucumbers'hard skin is rich in fiber and contains a variety of beneficial minerals including silica, potassium and magnesium"

You can't really go past those beneficial minerals, can you? But a small warning there about its propensity to reduce swelling. Not always necessarily a totally desirable side-effect, perhaps.

There's more.

"Cucumbers, scientifically known as Cucumis sativus, are grown to either be eaten fresh or to be pickled. Those that are to be eaten fresh are commonly called slicing cucumbers. They are cylindrical in shape and commonly range in length from about six to nine inches, although they can smaller or much larger. Their skin, which ranges in color from green to white, may either be smoothed or ridged depending upon the variety. Inside a cucumber is a very pale green flesh that is dense yet aqueous and crunchy at the same time, as well as numerous edible fleshy seeds. Some varieties, which are grown in greenhouses, are seedless, have thinner skins and are longer in length, usually between 12 and 20 inches."

Wow.

Not to mention...

"Japanese research in the first half of this century indicated that there was a valuable substance present in the cucumber juice for the treatment of the whole intestinal tract."

Ouch.

I'm over cucumbers, I think I'll git while the gittin's good.

Lebanese cucumbers are my favourite.

Personally,

I just love bananas...

Quite so, Foxy.

Lady Fingers are the best, I reckon.

TRTL

I just checked this thread and was momentarily horrified that someone had taken a comment I made to you at face value. Then I saw it was BD. 'Nuff said.

I am very cheered to notice, BTW, that both he and Gibo, while continuing to berate the lascivious and lust-inciting bikini babes, are sensible enough to realise that the sight of their own naked thighs and bulging budgie bowers, are the very antidotes to lust that we poor sinners need.

Perhaps, actually, they're onto something: perhaps posters of similarly scantily clad and elderly members of their congregation could be shown before each episode of Ally McBeal with the legend: "Beat Lust:Rent a Wrinkly"?

Romany, FTR, my suspicion is that boaz isn't the elderly type many assume him to be. My guess would be late thirties, perhaps forties but I could be wrong, though it's all academic and beside the point anyway.

Usually I wouldn't make any comment regarding any personal detail about someone... but *apparently*, boaz has left the building anyway, besides, I don't think making this comment can be construed as being in any way derogatory.
If anyone, including the person in question finds it objectionable, then of course I'd retract it and I wouldn't object to the censors removing it as personal details I think, are private.

Pericles. Well, that was certainly educational. That will certainly spice up the cucumber dishes I'm planning.
And the earlier anatomical comment was of course, all about the appropriate ergonomic chairs. The secks comments were racy, I'll grant you, though naturally I was referring to the condoned forms, taking place strictly via the missonary position (with a name like that, it must be okay) and without any devil vegetables.
Of course, you all knew that when I said 'marital aid' I meant cooking for a partner to make things easier for her.
Like I said, I'm all about the giving.

(Is that enough to grant salvation to my sinful cucumbers?)

My point is, was, and remains that when these issues are examined closely, the ridiculousness of them becomes quickly apparent. Ludwig, I think, has summed that up rather well.

I'd still like to know Gibo, precisely what places are acceptable locations for the wearing of speedos and why. How much sand and water do I need?

Getting slightly closer to "on-topic"...

Boaz, please accept this simple fact.

When you base an argument on a premise, and that premise is removed, there remains no more argument.

>>I happen to believe the Media does influence morality and I also happen to think this is not a chicken/egg thing but a self evident truth.... Now.. given the way the show was structured... I think at least some women would have said "You go girl!.. yep... stick it to him Ally"<<

Well of course you would.

Given that you "happen to believe" a "self-evident truth", there could never be any doubt that you would draw that conclusion.

Even though it is now down to "at least some women" verbalizing their approval, as opposed to armies of them rushing into the streets in short skirts, as your Fonz example would have had us believe.

As for this...

>>I don't know why you bother to make such a fuss about the original example. You can do much better by looking at other information for and against the assertion<<

It seems too obvious, but I should like to draw your attention to the protocol here.

When you put forward a post for general discussion, it is normal to expect you to provide the evidence. When that evidence is reduced to rubble, it is not then my responsibility to do the research that you should have done, before you rushed into print.

Give it a rest.

Go learn to dance.

Good Evening Poly,

The influence of television, like that of
other media, is in my opinion, difficult
to trace with any certainty, because it is
inevitably entangled in a multitude of
other influences on personality.

Any individual, from teenagers to adults,
may be influenced by many other agents
of socialization - religious groups,
youth organisations, and later in life,
such agents as employers, volunteer
associations like clubs, political
movements, and later again, retirement
homes.

Also youth culture (to which your thread
refers - with the 'Fonz'), depends heavily
on other media as well as television. For
example, popular music, FM radio, youth-
oriented magazines, and movies.

I personally feel that the greatest influence
is family life - and parent involvement.

Bertrand Russell said it well:

"Boredom is a vital problem for the moralist,
since at least half the sins of mankind are
caused by the fear of it."