Is "Kiddie Friendly WWE" Neccesary?

[★Chuck Zombie★]

It does not much for the product on it's own. But the whole culmination of an edgier product, which just happens to include "eye candy" divas, does help the product, ratings, and fan interest. First off, like I said, it's not a huge priority to me, but there's no doubt that eventually I would like to see some of the old edginess brought back gradulayy into the product, and all I'm saying is, that happens to include good looking divas, sometimes in things like bikini contests.

Oh I know, you're just playing devil's advocate. But look at it this way....anything involving women in WWE is often seen as "intermission" because of the pointlessness of the segments. They've been treated pretty much only as eye candy since the 80's and even when something "sexy" happens half the audience turns their attention elsewhere and that has pretty much made WWE put women in lackluster segments which just keeps people turning their attention away. It's almost like a never ending cycle, and unless the divas get their chance to show that they can put on a good wrestling show and regain some interest, it's probably going to stay that way.

 

[MikeRaw]

Oh I know, you're just playing devil's advocate. But look at it this way....anything involving women in WWE is often seen as "intermission" because of the pointlessness of the segments. They've been treated pretty much only as eye candy since the 80's and even when something "sexy" happens half the audience turns their attention elsewhere and that has pretty much made WWE put women in lackluster segments which just keeps people turning their attention away. It's almost like a never ending cycle, and unless the divas get their chance to show that they can put on a good wrestling show and regain some interest, it's probably going to stay that way.

If they can somehow put the edginess back in the product without having to do all the eye candy stuff, I don't have a problem with that. All I'm saying is, is if the only way to get some edginess back in a few years means WWE feels the need to also bring back bikini contests and stuff, I wouldn't mind that, cause I'd be in favour of the edgier characters, some more violent matches, etc... So I don't think anyone really wants JUST the bra& panties and things of that nature back. People just want some of the other edginess back, it just always seems to end up with WWE bringing back the bra & panties stuff along with it.
Speaking of that, I don't know why. They could easily leave the divas how they are now, which is for the most part wrestling, and still bring back edginess in other areas. They've just never seemed to be able to do it.

 

[Airfixx]

That's not the realms of soft porn at all. LOL.... Softcore porn

Please note that I said soft porn... I'm talking about the notion of pornography beyond certain 'genres' of mags and movies.

Perhaps I should have said mildy promographic.

= Nudity and sexual acts where the female is clearly nude, and you can see it, and if a guy is involved, you don't see him nude, and you don't see any of the actual "penetration"

LOL...Where's that from? ...Wiki ...Or is that your own personal definition?

Exactly the same 'scene' you describe above in another context would not be pornographic at all.

Fucking doesn't doesn't instantly = porn.

How is a few girls dancing around in a bikini even close to that?

If they're wearing those bikini's for no other intention than titilation then that my friend is within the realms of pornography, however tame in your view... By your logic they could slap their titties out and as long as it didn't involve fucking, dicks or pussys it still wouldn't cross said line.


Don't get me wrong I have no moral issues with porno - I just view(*) it differently to you.


(*No, I don't mean whilst standing on my head or some shit! ;o] )

 

[★Chuck Zombie★]

^ You mean you wear swimming goggles, a cape, and thigh high socks? YES! I don't feel alone anymore!!!

 

[MikeRaw]

Please note that I said soft porn... I'm talking about the notion of pornography beyond certain 'genres' of mags and movies.

Perhaps I should have said mildy promographic.

LOL...Where's that from? ...Wiki ...Or is that your own personal definition?

Exactly the same 'scene' you describe above in another context would not be pornographic at all.

Fucking doesn't doesn't instantly = porn.

If they're wearing those bikini's for no other intention than titilation then that my friend is within the realms of pornography, however tame in your view... By your logic they could slap their titties out and as long as it didn't involve fucking, dicks or pussys it still wouldn't cross wouldn't cross said line.


Don't get me wrong I have no moral issues with porno - I just view(*) it differently to you.


(*No, I don't mean whilst standing on my head or some shit! ;o] )

^No, if they were nude, I would consider it as going too far, and crossing the line, but I still wouldn't consider it to be porn.
But I still fial to see how anything involving someone just in a bikini, dancing around, or whatever, is considered soft-porn. But whatever you wanna call it, it doesn't really matter. I wouldn't agree with what you call it, but who cares.. The main topic is about whether we want it on TV, and that's all we really nee to talk about, and I've made it clear that while I don't need it, or ask for it, I wouldn't complain about it if it was on my TV.

 

[Airfixx]

The reason we're talking about it is because of it's attachment to the wider issue being discussed and the opinions voiced therein. LOL

Parting question.... (Not offended if you can't be arsed.)

You do subscribe to the notion that pornography which equates to more than simply fuckin' on film for money, right?

 

[the dark knight]

As for all the sex shit? ....Wake up to the fact that there's an entire porn industry out there that will quite happily take your money....

wake up to the fact that if you wanna watch 100% wrestling, you got the olympics.

 

[MikeRaw]

The reason we're talking about it is because of it's attachment to the wider issue being discussed and the opinions voiced therein. LOL

Parting question.... (Not offended if you can't be arsed.)

You do subscribe to the notion that pornography which equates to more than simply fuckin' on film for money, right?

Of course. So actually, if they were nude in the ring, yes, you could consider that to be soft porn then. I'll agree with you to that extent. I still wouldn't consider just bikini's to be though. Definately not. You're right, porn doesn't have to JUST be people having sex. It can be just naked people. But I disagree about the whole bikini thing. Do you actually consider that to be soft porn?

 

[Airfixx]

wake up to the fact that if you wanna watch 100% wrestling, you got the olympics.

Did I say I objected to all non-wrestling content? No.

I just get pissed off by the way that neutuered so called sexiness/sexuality is peddled so openly to all ages in mainstream entertainment across the globe yet in some of these same country's the law & society have a scathing view of porn & those that use it.

They can openly sell with sexual imagery of a school girl (See Britney debut) but I can't legally buy/view an uncensored video of two consenting adults fucking for my own private viewing purposes.


My reasoning may be somewhat of a departure from the topic the topic at hand, but when it boils down to it that's the feelings that inspire my opinion on the sex shit that some peeps suggest bringing back to the WWE (My original sentiment being "If you want titilation go wacth some porn" - It's far less tacky IMO.)....





@ Mike.... Dude... You gotta leave behind the idea that the pornographic nature of something is somehow measured by the naked-ness involved.

re: the "Bikini thing".... If the SOLE purpose is to titilate then ultmately, yes.

 

[MikeRaw]

@ Mike.... Dude... You gotta leave behind the idea that the pornographic nature of something is somehow measured by the naked-ness involved.

re: the "Bikini thing".... If the SOLE purpose is to titilate then ultmately, yes.

No, that wouldn't be considered pornography. Of any form. At all. You can call it that if you like, but it'd be wrong. Pornography DOES involve either sexual acts, or nudity. It doesn't have to be both, but it has to be one. So if you see a person posing nude, you can call it pornography. But someone in a bikini, no matter what their intentions are, isn't pornography.

 

[Airfixx]

No, that wouldn't be considered pornography. Of any form. At all. You can call it that if you like, but it'd be wrong. Pornography DOES involve either sexual acts, or nudity. It doesn't have to be both, but it has to be one. So if you see a person posing nude, you can call it pornography. But someone in a bikini, no matter what their intentions are, isn't pornography.

Quoting US law (Strange I know US law on this better than UK but whatever):

"Pornography is something of no artistic merit which causes sexual thought."

Now personally, as I've already said, I beleive that should be evolved to take intent into account, but are you telling me some chick in a string bikini dancing round in hope of inspiring a few teenage boners doesn't fit that bill? (Please don't tell me that the wrestling show backdrop provides the "artistic merit" mentioned.)

 

[MikeRaw]

Quoting US law (Strange I know US law on this better than UK but whatever):

"Pornography is something of no artistic merit which causes sexual thought."

Now personally, as I've already said, I beleive that should be evolved to take intent into account, but are you telling me some chick in a string bikini dancing round in hope of inspiring a few teenage boners doesn't fit that bill? (Please don't tell me that the wrestling show backdrop provides the "artistic merit" mentioned.)

Bikini's aren't porn. For the last time. I'll give the best example I can, as well...
Porn is illegal to look at for anyone under 18. Any site that has porn has to have a warning on the site, and any magazine with porn can't be sold to kids. Yet when I go on wwe.com, I can look at any bikini pictures, or videos (the same ones you're saying are porn) without any warning. I can also walk into any store, as can anyone else of any age, and buy a magazine with girls in bikinis in it or on the cover. If that was porn, I wouldn't be able to.
End case.

 

[mancilla 86]

well i think wwe is better pg rated..at one point it was getting way out of hand, ex: hot lesbian action, live sex with edge and lita, and way too many bikini show matches, wwe loses its kid audience like that, and parents dont want to take their kids to an event like that, in the long run wwe will benefit more from it being pg rated

 

[Airfixx]

"Bikini's aren't porn"

Please don't over-simplify what I'm saying in order to make me look stupid.

"End case"...?

Not at all. All you'e done is highlight the hypocricy that I described earlier (see Britney para).

With all due respect, despite your protestations, you ARE stuck in the notion of PORNO (y'know fuck-flicks n' stuff) as opposed to the idea of what is and isn't PORNOGRAPHIC.


Look at it this way...

2 magazines:

Hot Bikini Chick Monthly = Porn (however mild/soft you deem it).
Beachwear Fashions Monthly = Not porn. It's primary purpose is not to titilate.

 

[★Chuck Zombie★]

And that's why Sports Illustrated puts on the facade that it's advertising bikinis when in actuality...............