I guess the lesson is if you don't want to be seen naked on TV, don't go on a TV show where you take your clothes off, especially if the producers are sleazy. Quicktip: The only producers who would work on a show like this are sleazy.
Still sounds better than that Keith Chegwin game show (shudder).
Sounds more like viral marketing than anything remotely to do with pain and suffering. If you're willing to go tromping around through a large set of strangers filming video, I have a hard time believing you're actually offended by being seen naked by the public. Sure, contractually speaking, the sleazy show should be respecting their contracts and should be held accountable, but give me a break.
I saw the clip of it, and I'm of two minds here:
On the one hand, yep, the show is sleazy, a really obvious ratings grab.
On the other hand: it's called Naked Dating. Here in America, we've got this screwed up idea that if we see a woman's nipple or a person's genitalia, we all go wild and start fornicating in the streets as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. The thing is...y'know, I know there's people who will react with "misogyny" and "slut shaming" to this, but these people agreed to be naked for a TV show and someone is shocked that the censor failed to blur out a shot of her genitals.
I hope it gets thrown out. This is frivolous. Really? Your friends, family, and potential employers would have been okay with this up until the point they saw your unblurred vulva?
Also, I'll be glad when this show is eventually cancelled, because the Google ad algorithm has decided it needs to plaster every website I visit with ads for the show.
I must admit to being a bit confused. If normally all nudity is blurred out, why would anyone be watching it? Isn't the nudity the whole point?
I've deleted every post arguing over the use of a term of condescension and the gendered quality it has in this context. Without judging that specific term with respect to our policies, I'll just say that the entire subthread and every post in it were offensively dumb.
I suspect their target demographic is those who find even blurred nudity titillating.
I'd say that the real lesson is, if you're a reality show producer or broadcaster that somehow manages to be surprised that one of your show participants is willing to sue you for a fortune at the slightest pretext, the exit to your fool's paradise is clearly marked.
It reminds me of the Onion article about the Victoria's Secret Christmas Special, which is apparently aimed at those who've never heard of the Internet.
Good point, but he's probably assuming that people won't have any sympathy for the participants, even if he oversteps the agreed upon limits. If the contract stipulated that private parts would always be blurred out, they need to stick to that. While I get the idea that most people see this as borderline porn, it's also possible that the participant was sold it as a dating show where they were being completely open with each other (so the idea is that they have nothing to hide, not "look, you can almost see her tits!"). If that distinction matters to her, she has a right to defend it.
Your site, your rules, so I'm not complaining here...
But Rob, look at the story you guys posted and tell me the whole situation isn't "offensively dumb."
- It's a NYPost link.
- It's about a VH1 dating show
- Where the contestants have to be naked to participate
- You led with "crotch" in the headline.
Also, your headline is technically inaccurate as the name of the show is "Dating Naked" not "Naked Dating"
Before marriage some grave matron presents the bride, naked, whether she is a virgin or a widow, to the bridegroom, and after that some grave man presents the bridegroom, naked, to the bride. We, indeed, both laughed at this, and condemned it as very indecent. But they, on the other hand, wondered at the folly of the men of all other nations, who, if they are but to buy a horse of a small value, are so cautious that they will see every part of him, and take off both his saddle and all his other tackle, that there may be no secret ulcer hid under any of them, and that yet in the choice of a wife, on which depends the happiness or unhappiness of the rest of his life, a man should venture upon trust, and only see about a handsbreadth of the face, all the rest of the body being covered, under which may lie hid what may be contagious as well as loathsome.
- Utopia, Thomas More
Aaaah, 90s Channel5 Did you ever see nude ping-pong on Bravo? It went, IMO, beyond sleaze and into art terrorism. I was very high in the 90s though.
Middle-school aged me would've found this to be a nice supplement to "watching" scrambled Playboy and late night "Skinemax" cable shows.
Never saw that. The only thing I remember seeing on Bravo was some gaming programme with, mmm, Violet Berlin.
I did try to introduce the better half to Eurotrash the other day though.
It's a shame viewers can't sue them for making shit TV.
I think her case is valid in that a contract was breached, but I'd be more sympathetic if she didn't come off like a closeted exhibitionist out to make a buck.
Many may be watching for the exposed ankles.
I think the problem is that America has a big culture of lawsuits. It's quite possible she didn't even mind having her crotch shown on TV - and that, rather, she was absolutely thrilled at the possibility of suing. They breached their contract with her, they have to pay.
I find the situation distressing, but this particular instance of it is perhaps one of the least distressing I've come across.
I'm afraid your complaint was not posted as an animated GIF, and is therefore not eligible for consideration.
next page →