Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/26/2005 8:20:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2005 8:36:57 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:24:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:27:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2005 8:48:09 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:29:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:30:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:31:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2005 4:36:55 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:32:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2005 7:02:17 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:36:56 PM EDT
Props on 20K and a nice chronology of BOTD.
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:42:38 PM EDT
I earnestly believe that breasts will be the downfall of western civilization.
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:47:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:48:08 PM EDT
Very well crafted post. My compliments.
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:48:14 PM EDT




Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:50:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:54:44 PM EDT
Good job SA, nicely done.

I for one vote for more depraved lesbians in our modern films!

Who's with me!!!!!



Link Posted: 1/26/2005 8:55:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 9:02:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2005 9:04:22 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 9:19:12 PM EDT
I'm impressed. Good job SA
Link Posted: 1/26/2005 9:20:28 PM EDT
congrats on 20k!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 2:01:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 6:57:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:11:22 AM EDT
Awesome post.

Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:21:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2005 7:21:41 AM EDT by motown_steve]
Happy 20,000 SteyrAUG!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:28:02 AM EDT

What would barely get a notice on TV today caused a sensation in the 1940s. Some censors truly believed Jane Russell’s breasts would lead to the decay of western civilization.


And oh, what a sweet surrender.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:42:46 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:46:19 AM EDT
Very good read. I think those women from the 40's were hot.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:52:06 AM EDT

While most think acceptable standards in film are always progressive the two “Janes” prove otherwise. And this is not just a matter of selective screen shots. The pre code 1934 1932 Tarzan film actually features a nude swim scene with Maureen O’Sullivan and the above screen shot from the 1939 Tarzan is the most provocative depiction of Maureen O’Sullivan as “Jane” depicted in any post code Tarzan film.


Fixed that date for ya......

Mike
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 7:57:03 AM EDT
Great thread!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:03:02 AM EDT
If ya scroll down real fast its just like watching a movie!

Really interesting thread.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:08:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:09:28 AM EDT
I got a question for you.
If the movies have slowly moved back towards the "pre-code" days why havent firearms laws? That's making the supposition that they are linked somehow.
And I missed where 1968 was mentioned.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:13:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:16:39 AM EDT
Cool post!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:22:07 AM EDT
Excelleant work....BUT...I can't believe you didn't put in "Metropolis" That is one sexy robot.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:30:56 AM EDT
tag, for after work.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 8:56:34 AM EDT
It would seem that as entertainment becomes more important, other, more important rights, get left behind. This would seem to argue that the receding moral standards seen in film, television and print media serve to distract the public at large from caring about rights which can guarantee that our freedom lasts.

Which is worse: No T&A easily available or no right to self-defense? I know which I would choose . . .

This is only supposition, based on the declining rights to self-defense across the nation and the abounding rights to sexual depravity (yes,read that as T&A and other things).

IMHO, no research done.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 9:51:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2005 2:50:11 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 10:13:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 10:31:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 10:42:52 AM EDT
Interesting thread.

Didn't see anything about Call Her Savage(1932), though.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 10:44:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
It would seem that as entertainment becomes more important, other, more important rights, get left behind. This would seem to argue that the receding moral standards seen in film, television and print media serve to distract the public at large from caring about rights which can guarantee that our freedom lasts.

Which is worse: No T&A easily available or no right to self-defense? I know which I would choose . . .

This is only supposition, based on the declining rights to self-defense across the nation and the abounding rights to sexual depravity (yes,read that as T&A and other things).

IMHO, no research done.



Well it would seem your conclusions are in error.

First freedom is freedom, you DO NOT forsake one for the other.

Your arguement that "receding moral standards seen in film, television and print media serve to distract the public at large from caring about rights" is specifically addressed and refuted. There was no decline or recede in moral standards. In fact the restriction of firearms freedom occurred the SAME YEAR as restrictions of sexual expression on film, 1934.

The CREATION of "moral standards" on film DID NOTHING to secure other rights such as firearm rights.

Now in 1968 the freedoms associated with "expression" were re established but firearm rights were NOT. Now we need to ask why. Obviously it is again ABSURD to suggest that relaxed moral were the cause because again it happened in the SAME YEAR. And the 68 GCA was the result of things like the Kennedy and King assassinations, NOT Jane Russells breasts.

So why did the public care more about rights of sexual expression over gun rights?

More than likely it is because of people like you. Sadly, many people who champion gun freedoms also are the ones who push for restrictions on other freedoms. This meant the public at large see gun owners who advocated firearms freedoms as little more than oppressive boogeymen seeking to ban things like nudity in film. And most people feel that threat to freedom more accutely than the rights to own a gun. Simply put more people like to watch movies than shoot guns.

And sadly far too many gun owners STILL have not learned this valuable lesson. It is HYPOCRACY to cry "freedom" and at the same time bitch about sexual expression in film. You are the equivalent of a liberal who demands "freedom" and wants gay theme films but thinks nobody needs to own a gun. And again, given that the public at large will first feel freedom threatened when it comes to films and not guns, we will always lose.

What you need to realize is that everytime the Republicans on the right seek to restrict freedoms on something as universal as sexual expression or morality on film we only create new Democrats. And these Democrats in turn, seek new gun laws.

And this is not about..."Which is worse: No T&A easily available or no right to self-defense?"

That is tantamount to "Which is worse: No First Amednment freedoms or no second amendment freedoms." Which is offensive.

You have no right to restrict one any more than another person has the right to restrict the other. It is ALL about loss of "freedom" period.

IMHO, no reading or understanding done.



sorry to quote the whole post, but is so eloquent and true- i cant believe i read it on arfcom.
liberty and self-accountability.
steyr, dude, i've got to meet you someday...
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 10:49:49 AM EDT
Classy post. Well done!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 11:02:02 AM EDT
Since you're the expert, I have a question. Fatties always whine about the media brainwashing us guys into thinking fat chicks aren't hot. They imply this change happened recently. When, in the history of print & motion pictures, did they show a bunch of fatties, if ever? Thanks!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 11:08:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2005 11:09:22 AM EDT by Hoppy8420]
Awesome thread.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 11:13:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SNorman:
Since you're the expert, I have a question. Fatties always whine about the media brainwashing us guys into thinking fat chicks aren't hot. They imply this change happened recently. When, in the history of print & motion pictures, did they show a bunch of fatties, if ever? Thanks!




I think the term is "Reubenesque".(sp)
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 11:19:22 AM EDT
Very cool post SA!
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 11:24:46 AM EDT
well done
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 11:37:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2005 11:52:42 AM EDT by pbrstreetgang]

Originally Posted By SNorman:
Since you're the expert, I have a question. Fatties always whine about the media brainwashing us guys into thinking fat chicks aren't hot. They imply this change happened recently. When, in the history of print & motion pictures, did they show a bunch of fatties, if ever? Thanks!



get an art history book or google rubens or botecelli (sp?)
dont know about print but some of the early film babes seemed to me zoftic.
near the turn or the last century breasts were flattened with corsets, bussels accentuated what was considered the attractive femine aspect- and calves were not shown. ever hear of the victorian era? what is attractive or offensive changes. for instance i hear from my step kids that a rather plump ass is considered quite attractive today. big booty. i'll pass.
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 1:13:14 PM EDT
A most excellent .thread, thanks and congratulations on 20k posts
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 1:21:22 PM EDT
Well done.

Nice to see a well researched, entertaining and informative post for a landmark.

NorCal
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 2:48:38 PM EDT
This has got to be one of the best posts in Arfcom history....


Thank you for the time you took to do this...
Link Posted: 1/27/2005 2:51:08 PM EDT
Awesome!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top