"Orkin" sponsors vile 'Nip/Tuck'

The history of soaps go back some 40 years or so now. I can remember catching "AMC" when I was a kid, and "General Hospital" when I was in high school (yes, I was a Luke & Laura fan). They haven't changed much. They had a lot of sex & drama then, and they have a lot of sex & drama now. I'd heard an associate pastor recently say (not in the pulpit) that he found it interesting that shows geared towards men containing sex & violence are often met with negative criticism, but shows geared towards women containing sex & violence are often passed over. He found this interesting because the largest audience during the day is women. You almost get the impression that women are saying "let us have it in our way, but you can't have it your way". Kind of like what happens between Playboy and Cosmopolitan (the wife says "no Playboy", as she reaches for the Cosmo) Not my words, so don't kill the messenger. Not sure if I agree, but an interesting hypothesis, nonetheless.

I wonder if Nip/Tuck would have been met with less fury if the stars were women, and it was airing on We instead of FX. Hmmmm... What thinks you???

 

I wonder about that too. In fact last week I started a thread about that in the "Hobbies" forum.

 

I have not watched any of these shows and probably never will. What I have a problem with is when people take up the mantel of saving us from what they consider to be evil television.

I do not need or want them to make decisions for me. And to find out that these crusaders have not even watched these shows themselves I think smacks of hypocrisy.

I have a novel approach. When something comes on the set that I don't like I change the channel.

 

Good post Terry. Not original of course, but good points can bear repeating.

 

Sorry, John, I know what you're saying, but bad example. Cosmo doesn't have pics of naked men. The two are hardly comparable. Not even Maxim and Cosmo are comparable. Maybe if Maxim had pictures of men instead of women it would be, but . . .

[/off topic]