Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

TV3 Toy Show, inappropriatally sexual for a kids show?

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I don't think a reference to cross dressing in itself is inappropriate, just how he did it.



    Now you're backtracking. So if "how" he referenced cross dressing was the problem, what way exactly should he have referenced it? I'll tell you how, in a non pervy way.


    Lets remove the gay element altogether. Lets say it was Hugh Heffner talking about HIS favourite childhood toy. Would it be appropriate to say he undressed Barbie dolls, especially the bottom half? And then to dress them up in S&M gear?


    Maybe on one of the porn channels, NOT on a kids toy show.


  • Options
    #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    OP had a point, but it was worded so poorly and ambiguously that they have become cannon fodder for certain posters here.

    And anyone accusing the OP of being outraged for the sake of it? Look at some of the posts here...


  • Options
    #64
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,171 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Is Christmas gay?

    It is supposed to be, and merry and bright and jolly too. Though some people do find it rather depressing.


  • Options
    #65
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    newmug wrote: »
    Now you're backtracking. So if "how" he referenced cross dressing was the problem, what way exactly should he have referenced it? I'll tell you how, in a non pervy way.


    Lets remove the gay element altogether. Lets say it was Hugh Heffner talking about HIS favourite childhood toy. Would it be appropriate to say he undressed Barbie dolls, especially the bottom half? And then to dress them up in S&M gear?


    Maybe on one of the porn channels, NOT on a kids toy show.


    I'm not backtracking at all. Your OP did not mention that it was the way it was applied, more so that you had a problem with him mentioning cross dressing because you think it's entirely sexual, which was further backed up by your other post. However, it was confirmed that the way he implied it was inappropriate. That still does not make cross dressing itself an inappropriate topic for children.
    Undressing and redressing Barbie's and Action Men was one of the things you could do with them. There is nothing wrong with putting Action Man's clothes on Barbie and vica versa.


  • Options
    #66
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I love the way posters call people homophobes when they criticise a gay man for making inappropriate sexualised comments on kids tv.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I love the way posters call people homophobes they criticise a gay man for making inappropriate sexualised comments on kids tv.


    The fact he's gay is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #68
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And anyone accusing the OP of being outraged for the sake of it? Look at some of the posts here...

    I would like to point out that that post was put up before the rest of them so your point is not valid.


  • Options
    #69
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    The fact he's gay is irrelevant.

    Not to the people calling the op a homophobe.


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I would like to point out that that post was put up before the rest of them so your point is not valid.

    Your posts are actually exemplars of both points I made


  • Options
    #71
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Not to the people calling the op a homophobe.

    That's my point. There was no need for the OP to mention that he was gay because it's irrelevant, which is where the homophobe comments are coming from.

    I happen to dislike the term being thrown around. I find it can be used excessively and therefore takes away from actual cases of homophobia.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    sup_dude wrote: »
    The fact he's gay is irrelevant.

    Not to Dowling it's not.

    He's made a "career" out of it.


  • Options
    #73
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Your posts are actually exemplars of both points I made

    Again, the post made about the OP being outraged for the sake of it was made before any other posts. Therefore comparing it to posts made afterwards is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #74
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Not to Dowling it's not.

    He's made a "career" out of it.

    The fact that he's gay is irrelevant to the appropriateness of the comment.


  • Options
    #75
    Macavity.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭Macavity.


    At the moment there seems to be a dangerous trend to call out homophobia in situations where it is not present. While people may mean well, this is in fact damaging as it is undermining and trivializing genuine cases of homophobia.


  • Options
    #76
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,106 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    sup_dude wrote: »
    That's my point. There was no need for the OP to mention that he was gay because it's irrelevant, which is where the homophobe comments are coming from.

    I happen to dislike the term being thrown around. I find it can be used excessively and therefore takes away from actual cases of homophobia.

    In this case, it clearly is. And it can be thrown around if it's happening. The OP mentions gay about 4 times in his post.


    The people that thought of sex when Brian made his comments are the creepy, probably sexually repressed people, not Brian.


  • Options
    #77
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    sup_dude wrote: »
    The fact that he's gay is irrelevant to the appropriateness of the comment.

    His camp schitk was the only reason for him being there in the first place.

    It's his only gimmick, and a pretty tiresome one at that.


  • Options
    #78
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    His camp schitk was the only reason for him being there in the first place.

    It's his only gimmick, and a pretty tiresome one at that.


    Yes, but what I'm saying is whether a gay person said something, or a straight person did, it doesn't make any better or worse. That's what I mean by the fact he's gay is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #79
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    hotmail.com wrote: »

    The people that thought of sex when Brian made his comments are the creepy, probably sexually repressed people, not Brian.
    A stupid and offensive generalisation.


  • Options
    #80
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    What time did the show air at?


  • Options
    #81
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,106 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    A stupid and offensive generalisation.

    I said probably.

    Why would someone think of "sex" when Brian made those comments. Why on earth did people think of sex??

    Odd.

    Are these people sexually repressed? Probably, knowing some of the people in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    What time did the show air at?

    8 to 9.30pm.


  • Options
    #83
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    I said probably.

    Nope, read your own post again.

    You said they were creepy.


  • Options
    #84
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,106 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Nope, read your own post again.

    You said they were creepy.

    Yes creepy, why would anyone think of sex from what he said?

    Odd.


  • Options
    #85
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Its more of how he said it than what he said, still, considering who started this thread I doubt it's that which worries him.


  • Options
    #86
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    In this case, it clearly is. And it can be thrown around if it's happening. The OP mentions gay about 4 times in his post.


    The people that thought of sex when Brian made his comments are the creepy, probably sexually repressed people, not Brian.



    Here is EXACTLY what I said about gayness:

    newmug wrote: »
    If you're gay, you're gay, whatever, I don't care. But I don't want my kids to know about things of a sexual nature for a few years to come yet. If that was a straight man saying his favourite doll was his sisters Barbie, and that he used to undress her for pervy reasons, there would have been uproar.



    And the only reason I mentioned the man was gay in the first place was because I didn't know his name. His overtly camp manner was the next best identifier. I have given 2 other examples of the same level of inappropriateness for straight people, but yourself and Sup_dude seem to be obsessed with the "gay" element of it all. And you's call ME a homophobe!


  • Options
    #87
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    newmug wrote: »
    Here is EXACTLY what I said about gayness:






    And the only reason I mentioned the man was gay in the first place was because I didn't know his name. His overtly camp manner was the next best identifier. I have given 2 other examples of the same level of inappropriateness for straight people, but yourself and Sup_dude seem to be obsessed with the "gay" element of it all. And you's call ME a homophobe!

    And yet you come on boards to make a big deal of it. I saw the show, saw the part you're talking about, didn't even think anything was wrong with it tbh. Watched it with my son. Don't think he found anything sexual about it either but if he did so what. Gay people are nothing to be scared of Newmug. You're children will be fine.


  • Options
    #88
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    newmug wrote: »
    but yourself and Sup_dude seem to be obsessed with the "gay" element of it all. And you's call ME a homophobe!

    You must be mistaking me for someone else. I have not, nor will not call you a homophobe.
    I'm also not obsessed with the gay element, again mistaking me for someone else, unless you count where I've explain stuff that wasn't clear. I'm more concerned about your attitude towards cross dressing, which is what this thread is about, no?


  • Options
    #89
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    That's my point. There was no need for the OP to mention that he was gay because it's irrelevant, which is where the homophobe comments are coming from.

    I happen to dislike the term being thrown around. I find it can be used excessively and therefore takes away from actual cases of homophobia.

    He was a man sexualising an action man figure. The fact that he was gay was going to come up either way.


  • Options
    #90
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    He was a man sexualising an action man figure. The fact that he was gay was going to come up either way.

    Have you said something like that before? I've a distinct memory of reading lines that on more than one occassion on boards... I just can't place them. Awful sense of deja-vu...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Its more of how he said it than what he said, still, considering who started this thread I doubt it's that which worries him.



    ?????? What are you saying? Do you think you know me?


    sup_dude wrote: »
    You must be mistaking me for someone else. I have not, nor will not call you a homophobe.
    I'm also not obsessed with the gay element, again mistaking me for someone else, unless you count where I've explain stuff that wasn't clear. I'm more concerned about your attitude towards cross dressing, which is what this thread is about, no?



    No, the thread is not about my attitude towards cross dressing. Its about sexually inappropriate behaviour being aired on a kids TV show. It is YOU and a few others who keep bringing up the fact that this man is gay, NOT me.


Advertisement