This reminds me. I was reading about Lucille Ball and Desi Arniz. And how you couldn't show a pregnant woman on TV back then. And how Desi wanted to keep the shows clean, no mean humor, no off color humor as families and kids were watching. I think when normal men stopped being in charge of studios and it became about profits over everything, things changed.Tazman said:Where do you draw the line though? How much exposure to this "media" does it take? Under what circumstances would a particular woman be open to this influence and/or how would that translate into their lives?
In an earlier post I mentioned how women love reality tv, whether it's the hood rat with 5 bastards or the responsible woman who seems to have her head screwed on straight. They all love it for the same reasons.
Honestly, I don't think the media is a significant source. I believe it's a combination of government and corporations who exploit our current conditions to turn a profit, and it simply trickles down from there.
Women, as well as men, will always push boundaries, it's what we do. There is "incentive" for Kim to behave the way she does, just like there's incentive for the local hood rat to have 5 kids that you and I help provide for through taxes.
I think of the media as more of a consequence than a source.
Did women behave this way when they relied on men to provide the majority, if not all resources?
***Nothing's really changed on that front though, because they still rely on us.......indirectly.
People back then, did drugs, had sex, were gay and bi sexual, had affairs, all sorts of stuff, but the difference was that people didn't put that sort of behavior out in public. Everything, especially in hollywood was covered up. These days they put everything out there.