I was watching Afghan TV, and they blurred the bare shoulders of a woman giving a concert (of traditional Afghan songs) wearing a fairly conservative western ball gown. It made the woman/outfit seem a lot more sexually alluring than it would have been otherwise, and I think a lot of people find (some) lingerie more alluring than actual nudity.
âŚand the âbudding relationshipâ that she had with a guy sheâd been dating for a month was certainly ended over the vulva shot, not the fact that she was naked and fondling/fondled by another man on national television.
In the legal world though, adding a bunch of weak arguments to your strong argument doesnât actually (theoretically) undermine your claim. So she might as well throw her damaged relationship with family, boyfriend, potential employers etc in there, since even if some of those sound ridiculous, they could be found to provide for additional damages.
On the bigger issue of this lawsuit though, I think I have to agree with her and support her suit; she has an absolute right to decide when and how she is naked. If in fact she took the trouble to make sure she was not going to be shown without blurring, then she should enforce that. Even if the rest of the Internet doesnât support her distinction between âtasteful nudeâ and ânaked and ludeâ thatâs her distinction to make. And sheâs certainly is right about one thing; in the internet age, thereâs no putting thatâŚerâŚgenie back in the bottle. Itâs always going to be out there, just a few clicks away. The only thing that she (or anyone) can do about being embarrassed on the internet is to do 20 more noble and notable things to ensure at least oneâs shame doesnât appear in the first page of results.
1 Like
I think both Dirty Jobs and Antiques Road Show both have several redeeming qualities. They are much more like documentaries vs reality based drama.
3 Likes
I was trying to figure out who the Drama Queen is on Iron Chef when I remembered the host.
2 Likes
Oh I love those shows. I also love the wedding dress buying shows. They are my total guilty pleasure, and I know they cook up all the drama, but I still tear up when I see a woman put on her dress and light up.
Also the Kleinfeldâs people have this wretched designer who makes see-through bordello dresses; about a third of the dresses featured come from her. Seeing the woman who thinks a corseted see-through number is appropriate for her special day is true entertainment.
Iâm not so sure the legal world is actually so open to getting a bunch of crap thrown at it. I mean, if you have a strong argument they broke a verbal contract, throwing in a bunch of obvious lies and exaggerations into the mix might seriously draw doubt to your original premise. If you punched me in the face, arguing that your punch caused me to lose my girlfriend and the respect of my grandfather might make people suspicious of my more valid argument that you made me lose a week of wages in unpaid leave. Likely, a good attorney will vilify any bad arguments to make the opposition seem dishonest and opportunistic. This also makes me wonder, WHY IS SHE TALKING TO THE PRESS IF SHE SERIOUSLY THINKS SHE IS OWED 2 MILLION?
Well, sure, though I guess youâll have to be happy having a very important difference explained to you at that point.
What, you mean âoffensively stupidâ isnât the kind of judgment call suitable for endless lawyering by self-described dissenters of âboingboingistanâ? 
You mean like it apparently was being explained to me here?
Hey, the term in question is considered to contribute to hostile work environments in Title VII sexual harassment lawsuits, so itâs not a huge judgment call. Thanks for your substantive post, though.
Hereâs where judgment comes in: being able to tell if thereâs actually a victim, noting that you donât work on the site, and pointing out that you still are completely unable to either make or comprehend a joke.
As far as substance goes, that is determined by pith and judgment. Endless lawyering and griefing is, at best, empty verbiage. At worst, it is an example. That is to say, you provide substance only as a lesson, not as a participant.
Thatâs not true.
TV is a business and you do whatâs good for business. And judging from some of the contestants, (Iâm sleazy) theyâre not using girls for their good looks or polished up beavers.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
