Skip to main content

The death of sexy television

So maybe you can tell me what happened, or which are the wrong television shows I'm not watching, but whatever happened to romance, whatever happened to sexy?

Granted, Highlander is sort of overboard in that department, and I'd actually like to get a male perspective on this, because Duncan Macleod seems so... purposefully beefcake-y... I mention this show to women in a completely neutral way, and if they have a clue what I'm talking about they need no prompt for a near universal response: a fraction of a second of complete stillness followed by an indrawn breath followed by some variation of, "Dang, he's hot."

Now I suppose a feminist scold would insist that the guy "getting the girl" in each show is a bad thing and places the woman as a reward and we should avoid that. Are we avoiding that? Common wisdom is that there is more sex on television than ever before. Is there? And if there is, what has changed? Is it simply my imagination that in the 80's and 90's that "getting the girl" was fairly common in action/adventures, and not just in Highlander? I honestly can't think of any examples to support my thesis. It just *seems* like it must be so.

I mentioned that Christopher Chance in the show Human Target had female guest stars that provided a measure of sexual tension between them, but he never slept with them. In the show Justified the guy, Raylan Givens, sleeps with Ava and also with his ex-wife Winona, but I'm not so sure it counts. In A-Team Face was always making it with the ladies, though off-stage and implied. Colonel Hogan was also what we might call highly successful.

But, in contravention of my thesis, there was Riker, the slut. Nope, on second look... 1987 to 1994 for TNG supports my thesis... except that it was done so poorly that who would believe the passion? No one I know would ever become completely still for a fraction of a second, breath in and then proclaim "Oh, he is soooo hot."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Suzanne Brockman lost me.

I just finished reading the latest paperback from Suzanne Brockmann. _Dark of Night_. I'm disappointed and that's a sad thing because I've absolutely loved her series of romances about SEAL team 16 and the Troubleshooters. Aparently I'm not alone. My complaint isn't the same as most of the others... I'm great with Sophia and Dave. I even am okay with Tracey being people smart. She and Decker did seem to come out of left field. I thought Decker was great even if I thought his overwhelming conflict was pretty lame. What I didn't care for was the politics. I read for escapism, for studly dangerous men acting like men, for sex, and adventure with guns, where our military are the good guys and the SEALs are supermen and military contractor's are heroes, too. (I wonder if Ms. Brockmann realizes that the Troubleshooters ARE Blackwater?) I do not read sexy action adventure to be presented with a *cause*. It's small things but they don...
14 comments
Read more

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Shooter

I just watched the DVD. When I saw trailers for this I wanted to see it. It's the sort of movie that I usually enjoy. It wasn't bad. In fact it was pretty good in some ways and the annoying bits weren't too hard to ignore. The end was sort of bad. Not the choices that I'd make. It took conspiracy a bit too far, away from conspiracy to "this is the way the world works." It *should* have been enough to expose the Senator and his fellows. Where was the press in this? The idea wasn't too bad. The speech his spotter's widow gave about her dead husband's choices was good. (Though why she'd go back to using her maiden name I can't imagine.) Among all those willing to look the other way were several people who were... righteous. But overall it wasn't a "conspiracy" movie. There wasn't a "conspiracy" there was only finding out the "truth" of reality. In this world president Bush re...
14 comments
Read more