Oh good lord...I can't even begin to fathom how stupid that man is. "Why don't they have segments on het porn with sexy women? I think that would be good." Yeah, well, you've already got five channels dedicated to that.
Why on earth would someone think "kink" would encompass mainstream, boring het pornography? It's been mainstream for soooo long...It's barely even considered taboo anymore ;)
IMHO, there's a thin line between marginalization and abuse, but this show sounds like it has precious little of the former and none of the latter.
I don't agree, however, that in the right setting, a rich person couldn't complain about his or her problems. It isn't as if money solves many ills... and it's a known fact that it creates some of its own.
It is, however, somewhat ludicrous that a het man feels threatened by this apparently mostly gay show on kink. As others said, it isn't as if there aren't 100 times as many outlets for het lovers, if not thousands.
He did mention that it was "state sponsored art," and perhaps this is the nuance that we are missing. I know there is often an outcry when public monies go to some form of art that offends others. The painting of Jesus in a bottle of urine comes immediately to mind.
Maybe his point is that if the state is paying for "mostly gay" art to be broadcast, why shouldn't they pay for "mostly straight" art as well, and I agree, in part. There could just as well be shows on nudity and nude modeling, and perhaps he'd come to the realization that not all nude models are brainless plastic barbie toys with 7 inch waists.
No, it wouldn't work. This gentleman seems not to have the capacity to empathize, only to objectify and sexualize. He's looking for eye candy, not brain candy.
Eh. I don't know how Canadian television works, anyway, and how much of it is publicly sponsored vs. commercial. I know the satellite stations here probably have 20 or so het porn channels to every one alternative show, so far as I know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-20 06:18 am (UTC)Why on earth would someone think "kink" would encompass mainstream, boring het pornography? It's been mainstream for soooo long...It's barely even considered taboo anymore ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-21 02:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-24 06:42 am (UTC)I don't agree, however, that in the right setting, a rich person couldn't complain about his or her problems. It isn't as if money solves many ills... and it's a known fact that it creates some of its own.
It is, however, somewhat ludicrous that a het man feels threatened by this apparently mostly gay show on kink. As others said, it isn't as if there aren't 100 times as many outlets for het lovers, if not thousands.
He did mention that it was "state sponsored art," and perhaps this is the nuance that we are missing. I know there is often an outcry when public monies go to some form of art that offends others. The painting of Jesus in a bottle of urine comes immediately to mind.
Maybe his point is that if the state is paying for "mostly gay" art to be broadcast, why shouldn't they pay for "mostly straight" art as well, and I agree, in part. There could just as well be shows on nudity and nude modeling, and perhaps he'd come to the realization that not all nude models are brainless plastic barbie toys with 7 inch waists.
No, it wouldn't work. This gentleman seems not to have the capacity to empathize, only to objectify and sexualize. He's looking for eye candy, not brain candy.
Eh. I don't know how Canadian television works, anyway, and how much of it is publicly sponsored vs. commercial. I know the satellite stations here probably have 20 or so het porn channels to every one alternative show, so far as I know.