The issue is we are talking about network TV, and there 57% voting NO (myself included btw).

I didn't vote No because I am against those things, most of my favorite shows these days are on HBO. I like having the distinction between what I watch on HBO and what my whole family watches together on network TV.
As my kids get to different ages of understanding in their development, I have no problem with exposing them to new ideas and more adult themes. They are called adult themes for a reason, though.

More or less vulgar isn't the issue. Whether the show is good or not is the issue. Two and a Half Men wouldn't be good even if it could be more vulgar. Curb would still be good if it chose to be less vulgar. Quality is king.

I agree with most of the (I believe) enlightened opinions in this thread. The issue isn't so much whether the material is off-color or risque. It's more a matter of whether it's witty or in service of something that is aesthetically meaningful. Most dirty jokes are not really that funny to anyone above the mental age of fourteen, but sexual or even scatological humor can occasionally have comedic/artistic merit if it is A) cleverly placed in context, and B) not overdone or gratuitous.

Unfortunately, much of television programming (network or cable) is aiming for the broadest audience and intends to appeal to lowest common denominator, and consequently ends up violating both precepts. Two and a Half Men is probably the worst offender of network shows, because it truly does "dumb it down" with the risque humor. But several very good shows have occasional (or even frequent) risque jokes that don't make the viewer feel they are being regarded as having the mental development of Beavis and Butthead by the show's writers. I don't personally regard such humor as "vulgar" but rather as adult-oriented. "Vulgar" to me implies "sophomoric" and "idiotic," rather than any moralistic value.

Exactly. 'Arrested Development', for example, often had some of the filthiest jokes on TV ("oh, great - now I'm gonna smell like a tuna melt all day" "who's gonna want to go into that old claptrap?" "that's not a Volvo - oh, sorry, that's from sitting on the copier - glad I didn't spring for color" the visual of Lindsay and Tobias seperated by a bunch of hot seamen or, really, anything involving Lindsay's Kegel exercises) but they were written so that, if you got them, you got them. Except for possibly some of Tobias's material, any young kid watching would have no idea that there was a sexual subtext to the dialogue. If you were mature enough to appreciate that there was a joke, you were mature enough to handle it. If you weren't it sailed right over your head.

Shows like 'Two And A Half Men', by comparison, have dirty material that's dumbed down, bolded, headlined, underlined and topped off with an excessive laugh track. It's prety much written for the express purpose of amusing the very audience that would be too immature to see sex as anything other than humiliating, degrading or embarrassing.

"Away. Good news, the new girl is blowing everyone away at the office."

I'm glad your impressed with me.

And rightfully so.

It's not about buying porn or seeing titties jiggle (tho that is nice) it's about opposing the moral minority crowd and their thugs at places like the Parental Advisory Council.

And as TV morphs from being a free service to a subscriber platform that enables those of us who opposes those like the PTC to use our media dollar as a counter to them to demand media we want to watch.

Sure AMC would likely get flack if they flashed titties on basic cable (even if blurred) but IMO alt scenes shots on DVD is fair game.

If the next 'Mad Men' (a show I may be able to get into but am on the fence for paying for) wants my media dollar this is what they'll have to do.

1) You're the one who made the decision to have children who need to be protected from "adult themes". I made another decision.

2) Are your children up late night if OTA stations ran risque content past midnight?

3) I assume you make a distinction between OTA which is accessible to everyone and HBO because HBO is a pay service where adults make the choice to buy?

If so does that mean you'd support more obscene content on cable since, like HBO, it's a subscription service which adults need to make a choice to receive?

4) We're at a 45/55% split here. Even with "only" 45% of the marketplace it would appear there's a large segment of the population not being served by the current media model. I would contend that's a lot of cash siting in limbo waiting for the right business/distribution model to come along.

isn't that the title of Death Cab For Cutie's next album?

And if I want to see titties jiggle, I can watch porn. You asked "would you watch more TV if it was obscene?" My answer is no. I didn't watch Weeds because there were tits in it. I watched it because of the quality of the show (for the first 2 seasons, anyway). Adding more nudity in the later seasons did not get me to come back and watch the later, crappier seasons. Nudity/obscenity (two different things, IMO, but that's a whole separate discussion) don't necessarily add QUALITY to a show. And I think quality is what keeps most viewers tuned in. Except for the ones who watch Jersey Shore and its ilk. I don't know what the hell they're thinking.

Quality is subjective dependent on ones personal tastes.

Some may love or hate Married...with Children while others may feel the same about 7th Heaven completely unrelated to if the show was risque or puritanical.

I had believed that "would you watch more TV if it was obscene and you liked it" (aka your view of quality TV) but i can see that assumption was incorrect.

However thanks for the FYI on Weeds being obscene and quality TV during the first two seasons. Assuming it wasn't an episodic (so I don't get left off in the middle of the story) Ill have to give the first two seasons a viewing.

Despite being a reality show (ugh) I gave Jersey Shore a shot because it was obscene however i certainly didn't find it entertaining beyond that so it was quickly deleted from my DVRs timer menu. However, despite my loathing of reality tv, because it was obscene I did give it that chance to entertain me which I'd never give to a puritan reality show.

On the other side I just caught an ep of "Worst Week of My Life" from BBC on PBS and the *great* scene of the main character taking a piss on the Christmas goose by accident. Obscene and excellent quality TV - this is what will not only keep me watching but also pick up the series set.

It's very generous of us to want it to be quality tv and judging it on that first but the other side is doing the same. Here's the show page for Family Guy from the Parents Television Council (like the show or hate it it's just an example).

If the show has an obscene quality to it the moral minority side will automatically try to dismiss it and destroy it - that Family Guy page has convenient links to affiliates and advertisers for people to write and complain about the show.

People like this has been slowing castrating TV (and movies for that matter). If we don't do something to counter them slowly but surely over time they will win.

1 - It's not about my children needing protected from anything. It's about mental development and different levels of mental maturity to understand the themes and situations being presented to the audience.

2 - No, I'd actually support more risque content after 10:00 even - maybe that should be an option in the poll. My kids have a bedtime that doesn't go past 10:00 even on weekends. They don't have TV's in their bedrooms and we watch 90% of the content they see on TV together as a family. We discuss new themes they might be exposed to as they come up (both sexual and violence).

3 - Yes - I would, providing there was a clear distinction for what I should expect to see (and where and when). Nick jr. vs Adult Swim for instance or HBO Family vs. Cinemax after Dark.

4 - The flip side of your 45/55 split would be that the networks, who are expected to serve an extremely wide audience could stand the chance to turn off over 50% of their viewers. Do you attempt to serve the minority (45) and have the un-intended consequence of losing the majority (55)?

I don't agree with that. Try to get something like Walking Dead on TV even 10 years ago. No way they would have let it. Shows can say "shit" and "piss" and "balls" now, whereas they wouldn't have been able to 10 years ago. I think TV has loosened up a lot over the last decade.

Of course people will say we need more good TV. That's obvious but what's funny is in the USA we can have CSI and type of shows that deal with rape/murder all the time and that's not a big deal, but god forbid the word shit is used or there is a nip slip and of course the famous NYPD Blue???? bare ass shot.

I'm not that too familiar with the UK, only coming from the Big Brother show background. I think after 9PM watershed they can swear and show nudity but not an erect penis or spread vagina.

What I have a problem with is an edgy show like Breaking Bad. Yes we know they can show boobs and say fuck, but they don't want to do it because of sponsorship so they cover up or block it out.

Titties.

Thank you.

You mean Family Guy, one of the most famous and popular cartoons on TV? Yeah, that sure is being castrated by those pesky puritans.

I won't argue that our country has some whacked out views about sex, but displaying more obscene material on TV or in movies is as simplistic as a solution as saying teens should only be taught abstinence for birth control.

You gotta fight fire with fire.

This isn't a situation where we can only have one leader of the country. There's a boatload of channels and then there's other distro models like DVD and online.

There's clearly a % of peeps who voted in this thread who want more obscene media and who, if they're like me, are ready to pay for it.

So Law and Order has gone into OTA syndication (starting from season one) and, for the second time I've noticed a BLEEP despite this show airing OTA on a major network in the '80s.

This time they censored the word "ass" from what I can tell.

I'd prefer all TV to be unfettered by decency restrictions and let the creators do what they think is best for the show.

Though I wouldn't go as far to say "we need more vulgar TV", that makes it sounds like we need more vulgarity for its own sake.

I'll certainly concede I picked a provocative title to spur discussion and, in part, agree with your statement.

However, since the moral minority crowd (Focus on the Family, Parental Advisory Council etc nutjobs) is out there, as someone who pays for their content I'm inclined to avoid programming that isn't R rated or above just in case they've been influenced directly or indirectly by the moral minority.

Next you'll be demanding that all TV episodes be at least two hours long.

Well there is shorter fare like Duck Soup

but yeah...I guess that'd translate over to TV-MA for TV talk.

When the Tipper Gore Parental Advisory Warning label came about in the '90s I'm surprised that somebody didn't start a chain that only sold CDs (and now DVD's) that had a warning label/R/TV-MA rating.

+ 5,000

Every time I watched Fawlty Towers, I kept thinking, "If only they could say poo-poo, this would really be a funny show."