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.