Okay, last night on David Letterman, in the Ed Sullivan Theather, where Elvis was not allowed too show his pelvis,

Steve Martin performed live on stage

""Steve Martin's Singing Balls",

he came on stage, lowered the mike to his privates, a small circle spot light was on the same area and Steve performed the song with various movements and adjustments to his privates keeping in tune to the music.

Now I ask you, are we getting wild and crazy, more perverted, liberal or what?

and to think that my humor causes people to call me a pervert

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 2 times, lastly by Nathen on Jan 05, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

Television in general is trying to compete with Cable, which is pretty much anything goes. Especially in the late night time slots, when they expect an adult audience.

Personally, I am completly against censorship of any type. It is the sole responsability of parents to control what their children view, or listen to. When you choose to bring children into the world, you agree to that responsability. You have the power to shut off the tv, or change the channel, or watch what cd's your kids buy. You have the power to speak with the parents of their friends to make sure they are hangin with like-minded families.

What you should not have the power to do is pressure the artistic community into changing all content to kid-safe mush at the expense of the adults who do not share your worries about content, or who wish to view more explicit material, ala say a good French film!

The stuff I find most offensive is the fluff on TV, mindless sitcoms, Wrestling, Nascar. We should be more offended by the lack of intelligent programming than by the amount of sexual content. Stupidity and ignorance is obscene, not sex.

by golly I agree with your comments 100 per cent, I know both the BBC and CBC show nudity and it does not seem to harm anyone

Wrestling and NASCAR, huh..you just described my husband's viewing habits, along with science fiction - good or bad and horror movies. Should I be worried?

I'm not even going to go there with the idea that parents can effectively monitor everything their kids see. Can't be done unless you lock them up in a sealed room, but I'm not much for censorship either and Letterman is on late anyway. The issue that concerns me here is..this was supposed to be funny? Sounds real, real stupid to me. Are both Letterman and Steve Martin having some kind of late mid-life issues?

I agree, pat. I don't think that it's possible for parents to control their children totally, but I agree that they have the responsibility for what their kids see/do.And if you see some of those computer games that children often play,it makes you wonder if they'll be "normal" when they grow up.
I don't like censorship either but maybe in some cases it is justified.
You can see more and more of this stupid TV stuff that you described Nathen, I agree that it isn't at all funny and that it's amazing that apparently many people like this stuff (because some people apparently watch it and many seem to like it because otherwise they wouldn't show it) (it's the same over here by the way)

For some reason, as I read the posts and visualized the performance, an adage came to mind that goes soemthing like, "Small things amuse (or absorb) small minds."

I can't imagine who would find it funny, other than a group of pubescent boys who, in an attempt to be "bad," have surrepitiously sneaked liquor from one of their parents' bars -- and are even staying up past their bedtime on a school night, without permission. I didn't say I understand why it would seem funny to them, but I'm pretty sure their response would be uncontrollable hilarity. What I have difficulty imagining is anyone past the age of 13 conceiving it or performing it. Maybe you had to be there?

Whoever the target audience is, it's surely got to be the same one the Sci-fi Channel's series, "Lexx," is written for. Yeah, I'm kind of frightened by the fact that the creators of Lexx seem actually to believe they've come up with anything original -- and that they managed to sell the show, on top of it.

That was a repeat (taped before Thanksgiving)

*The main part of his act, was to see if Oprah Winphrey would be offended...Of course she probly was.....Two grown men laughing at a women offended.... well it's heart-warming to say the least!

*we're not talking Mother Teresa here? RAL

Or maybe she just found it kind of dumb, and sophomoric at best.

I really don't mean this, in an elitist way, but.... I'm forever amazed as what some people think humor is. Many times, it's things I see as crude, crass, or spiteful... I think humor is a way of looking at life, from a slightly ironic perspective, seeing absurdidty, human foibles and sharing a common sense of the absurd, with others. It's a transcedency, we can share, making life a bit easier. To me, Steve Martin, manipulating his genitalia, to music, doesn't quite qualify

To be honest with you I did notice it was stolen from a movie plot "Virginia the talking Vagina" which was a funny flim, I mean Virginia did get her owner in a lot of trouble. I did see the humor of what Steve was doing but did not laugh until he and Dave started to discuss just how Steve had rehersed the show.

While I do not express any desire for any copy cats to follow Steve, I have noticed from the new Kotex ads on TV, just how much fun a period can be, (are you ladies keeping other secrets from us men?). The question here is how far we have come from the shocking show where Lucy a married woman was seen to be having a baby, (could not even say PG at the time)to Steve Martin's latest show, and live births on tv?


Bumper you had not posted this yet but I agree "from a slightly ironic perspective, seeing absurdidty, human foibles and sharing a common sense of the absurd" and that is why I could see the humor in rehersing the show but not in the performance.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Nathen on Jan 05, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

Sax and violins make good music....what's the problem?? <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/confused.gif" width=15 height=22>

Yeah stuff on tv is defininately more off colored than it used to be. So I enjoy re-runs of old 50's/60's/70's shows. Much more entertaining & less sex in them. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

I guess I'd rather they show Steve Martin playing with himself than some of the violence they show. I'm not in favor of censorship, except--most people have an "except"-- that I think a line has to be drawn at child porn. If someone enjoys adolescent humor, what's the harm? Just don't make me watch it. What a bore!

Personally I find Tom Green much funnier when he plays with his balls...btw...Martin wasn't bad. I like the way he got to the high notes....

**Like that guy on Neil Young's pay-roll...He gets 50 bucks for kicking Neil in the balls, just prior to a show...

I don't believe in censorship at all, and I think we have to put into account what Bob Dylan sang..."The times they are a-changin'..."
I guess it's whatever appeals to you. Or, whatever will get ratings. I don't necessarily dig that type of humor, but who am I to deny someone access to a quick laugh?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, well, to each his/her own. I don't want someone to tell me what to laugh at, or restrict me from entertainment.
As far as children go ((EDIT: I can't believe I am calling people "children"! <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/laugh.gif" width=15 height=15> )), I seriously hope their parents have the authority to truly parent the children. I guess it's easy for me to say, not having the responsibility of offspring, but I feel that a good parent would know how to restrict adult material from the eyes of their youth.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Kerry on Jan 05, 2002 ---</FONT></center>