| Comments: |
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Thu, 7-Feb-2008 1:31 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
But would you say they are MILLION DOLLAR BUTTOCKS?
Or even one point four million dollar buttocks?
I'm thinking not.
Wow.
So next time I'm in the shower soaping my ass, I'm masturbating? Good to know, FCC!
That show was famous for showing man-ass. Why aren't they being fined for all the seasons of man-ass?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Wed, 6-Feb-2008 10:33 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Perhaps man-ass is not a sexual organ?
it wasn't just man-ass, it was DAVID CARUSO man-ass.
that calls for a class-action lawsuit for emotional distress.
as hot as jimmy smits ass is, it simply can't make up for the emotional damage caused by the saggy, doughy, freckled, pasty white david caruso ass.
i think i just threw up in my mouth a little.
i could make a comment about where to stick the silver spoon, but i shall graciously refrain!
I'll see your David Caruso, and raise you a Dennis Franz (shudder).
*thinks about some of the man-ass she's seen*
Okay. I might buy that, normally. But there were some hot guys on that show. I mean, Ricky Schroder!
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/26104787/6145587) | From: lohphat Thu, 7-Feb-2008 5:38 AM (UTC)
it depends... | (Link)
|
Are you a priest?
Ok, fine, but then cleavage and/or underboob is a sexual organ also.
I heard underboob termed "neathage" before. It's catchy.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/70049056/2537079) | From: dossy Thu, 7-Feb-2008 3:24 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
"Australian cleavage." You know, it's "down unda'".
Is middle finger a sex organ? (while index finger is not?)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/68102145/2537079) | From: dossy Thu, 7-Feb-2008 3:25 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Depends. Shocker?
So, the implication is... that the FCC condones buttsecks?
Or that the FCC are all ass-men.
I think it's clear from the above discussion that the FCC condemns woman-buttocks, but condones man-buttocks.
Anyway, since when were the buttocks excretory organs? Some lessons in physiology required at the FCC, or is that too close to devil-science?
FCC: Tough on buttocks, tough on the causes of buttocks.
The next No Pants subway ride should be direct to FCC HQ.
One can do a lot of sexual things using just a hand.
Note also that Dian Keaton said 'fucking' on Good Morning America (another ABC program) a couple weeks ago, unbleeped, and is not getting fined because, in essence, 'she didn't mean it'.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/90447189/10735227) | From: jey Thu, 7-Feb-2008 6:34 AM (UTC)
for educational purposes only | (Link)
|
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/6208287/1211486) | From: rik Thu, 7-Feb-2008 9:52 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Reading the original reason for fining slightly further, we find that it's likely to be a publicity stunt, one which appears to be working. They're contesting the buttocks[1] but not contesting the breast that was shown. I suspect that the breast has monetarily landed them i nmore hot water than the buttocks. As pozorvlak suggests, they may only be 0.8 million dollar buttocks at the most. In a way, I see their point - female buttocks are completely arbitrarily defined as "sexual" in this case, since male buttocks are not. On the other hand, have you ever seen a woman and thought to yourself "mm, nice ass"? [1] A phrase I never thought I'd write, right up until I did.
My admittedly vague impression is that the ass crack is the particular thing you're not supposed to show, at least based on unscripted shows' tendency to pixellate all ass cracks (both male and female). The "excretory organ" argument makes a little more sense in that context, since if you could see someone's ass crack, you might be able to see their anus. Sort of in the same way that nipples are an excretory organ, but breasts are not. Fuck you very much, the FCC.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/6208287/1211486) | From: rik Thu, 7-Feb-2008 3:15 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
My admittedly vague impression
I neglected to mention that I'm in England, and therefore, this is all the more hilarious due to the rules not only being arbitrary, but being different to my own arbitrary rules.
Your statements make an awful lot of sense, however, and, indeed, no nipple appears ot have been revealed, in the clip posted in the first reply.
And don't even try to comprehend the absurdity of why we can show people being killed, maimed and mutilated in every way you can imagine (and possibly a few you can't), but we can't put a very beautiful naked woman on television. I'll never understand the logic.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/6208287/1211486) | From: rik Fri, 8-Feb-2008 11:38 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I'm reading Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Big Country" right now. It's full of this stuff, and quite an entertaining read, if you like his style.
Nice icon... reminds me of this statue in Worcester. | |