The New York Post's television critic par excellence, Linda Stasi, notes where you can find the following acts of depravity televised under the guise of "artsy" drama:
Chicago, a 17-year-old boy ducks into the back room of a store to have sex with his male Muslim boss --
while the boy's brother is getting oral sex from a slutty teen girl in a neighbor's house. ("Shameless" on Showtime.)
In Westchester, an 11-year-old opens her legs à la Sharon Stone, and places her fingers under her nightgown to masturbate. ("Mad Men" on AMC.)
And in (is that Baltimore?), a 17-year-old boy spends nearly a half-hour of a 40-minute show naked (albeit with naughty bits not showing), urinates on his face, on his feet, and almost in his underwear while fully aroused. Then, 28 minutes into this family entertainment, he walks down the street butt-naked with his backside on parade. ("Skins" on MTV.)
The takeover of the media by the far left has had greater consequences that their clumsy attempts to influence national elections by distorting the news; they've now allowed themselves to indulge in full-fledged sexual depravity under the guise of "edgy", and "artsy".
It's the same excuse that they use to justify their hateful outbursts against religion: An image of Jesus Christ pickled in a jar of urine is just "art", man, and you're the barbarian for not being sophisticated enough to appreciate it!
We let them get away with that, and look what they've moved on to...
Back to Linda Stasi:
I've been screaming since last season that artsy TV has become the go-to place for child sexploitation -- much to the annoyance of the TV execs, who called me "prudish."
Prudish? These scenes involved minors, and their parents should be put in jail for letting (forcing?) their kids to participate in nearly-kiddie-porn TV. Who is protecting these kids? Answer: No one. The adults involved are one step above child sex traffickers. Sure, MTV is clearly worried -- now -- but panicked? No.
Why should they be? We've allowed them to use the excuse of "artistic freedom" as a virtual human shield to protect their deepening perversions, and they have no reason to fear pushing the envelope further.
What's next? Rape broadcast live, as performance art?
This needs to stop. We are not talking about censoring "art" here, just stopping these cable networks from airing child pornography under the name of art. It's easily definable, and easily squelched: Just a threat of a million-dollar plus fine, jail time for the producers, and criminal charges for the parents involved should make these folks think twice before allowing minors to perform sex acts (or using adult actors to simulate minors performing sex acts)before an audience of drooling leches and approving liberals...
Chicago, a 17-year-old boy ducks into the back room of a store to have sex with his male Muslim boss --
while the boy's brother is getting oral sex from a slutty teen girl in a neighbor's house. ("Shameless" on Showtime.)In Westchester, an 11-year-old opens her legs à la Sharon Stone, and places her fingers under her nightgown to masturbate. ("Mad Men" on AMC.)
And in (is that Baltimore?), a 17-year-old boy spends nearly a half-hour of a 40-minute show naked (albeit with naughty bits not showing), urinates on his face, on his feet, and almost in his underwear while fully aroused. Then, 28 minutes into this family entertainment, he walks down the street butt-naked with his backside on parade. ("Skins" on MTV.)
The takeover of the media by the far left has had greater consequences that their clumsy attempts to influence national elections by distorting the news; they've now allowed themselves to indulge in full-fledged sexual depravity under the guise of "edgy", and "artsy".
It's the same excuse that they use to justify their hateful outbursts against religion: An image of Jesus Christ pickled in a jar of urine is just "art", man, and you're the barbarian for not being sophisticated enough to appreciate it!
We let them get away with that, and look what they've moved on to...
Back to Linda Stasi:
I've been screaming since last season that artsy TV has become the go-to place for child sexploitation -- much to the annoyance of the TV execs, who called me "prudish."
Prudish? These scenes involved minors, and their parents should be put in jail for letting (forcing?) their kids to participate in nearly-kiddie-porn TV. Who is protecting these kids? Answer: No one. The adults involved are one step above child sex traffickers. Sure, MTV is clearly worried -- now -- but panicked? No.
Why should they be? We've allowed them to use the excuse of "artistic freedom" as a virtual human shield to protect their deepening perversions, and they have no reason to fear pushing the envelope further.
What's next? Rape broadcast live, as performance art?
This needs to stop. We are not talking about censoring "art" here, just stopping these cable networks from airing child pornography under the name of art. It's easily definable, and easily squelched: Just a threat of a million-dollar plus fine, jail time for the producers, and criminal charges for the parents involved should make these folks think twice before allowing minors to perform sex acts (or using adult actors to simulate minors performing sex acts)before an audience of drooling leches and approving liberals...
1 comment:
forced into and trafficed for the purpose of pornography would think of that. pornamateurhd.com
Post a Comment