Yeah that doesn't mean you hide...did black people paint their skin white? Wear those leotards you butch-ass queens!

>> ^mxxcon:

offtopic but that reporter has some tight pants on


some tight SEXY pants on. hell why not call those leotards, they defy pants.

^I suppose there are a couple reasons. First, for nostalgia's sake. Second, I think there's something to be said about her scantily clad voluptuous figure in the knee-high hooker boots. Sexist?

Third, she's an Amazonian, and the new drawing of her is petite and less curvy. You can keep that figure for someone on the Teen Titans, because WW is a full figured woman.

Fourth, she looks too sophisticated. And she's wearing a jacket. And she's wearing leotards with stirrups. And a choker. A fucking choker.

Fifth, before WW most comic heroines were either sidekicks or girlfriends or damsels in distress. She entered the scene as a symbol of feminist power which shattered conventional thinking. The new character seems to be more interested in her Dolce & Gabbana fingerless gloves than shattering gender roles.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'flaming, gay, spandex, leotard' to 'aerobic championship, crystal light, flaming, gay, spandex, leotard, 1987' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^budzos:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I was thinking of buying it. But not now.
When I bought Rainbow Six Vegas and I saw the add placement for Repo-men I was disgusted. Rainbow Six Vegas sucks too. The multi-player was horrendous.

What the hell could possibly offend you about this to the point where you're not going to buy the game? To me, having a real ad on the TV screen in an extremely realistic game only adds to the immersion. I know it's a fine line, but I seriously don't understand your reaction to this specific example.


For you it may make immersion greater, but for me it breaks the whole survival horror immersion.

It's like a salesman in a bright red leotard standing amidst the brown haze of a horde of zombies.

well because personally I cant go and rail on my "brother in law " whatever the fuck that is. Some guy who married my sister. Aint no brother of mine. heh. But you are right, the parents are completely need a finger wagged at them and "for shame for shame " being said. I really have a problem with girls acting like whores, when I was in high school in 1996-2000, thats when the zoologist started shifting, first it was the skin tight black pants with or without the flared ankles, and then It just progressed from their. Teens now dress like wannabe strippers and It pisses me the hell off that parents allow the young ones to listen to lady gaga and beyonce and all this other tripe that passes for music. Those girls are nothing close to role models for children.


I wish I had a wooden train whistle, I would love to blow my horn, WHEWWWWWW WHEWWWWWWWW !

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
How about beating the fuck out of the parents? I saw an interview with one dad and he didn't see a single problem with it. I heard someone give the excuse of "oh, well the costume is designed so that the judges can more clearly see the lines of movement blah blah blah" So why the fuck can these girls NOT wear a fucking leotard instead? something a little less sexually charged than a two piece that looks like it came off the design table of Victoria's secret? At the VERY least, why isn't the top piece more covering? that thing is barely thicker than duct tape. Might as well have used pasties. Not to mention the knee-high fuck-me boots.

And that doesn't even cover the dance moves. Any instant you have booty-popping in a dance routine, an 8 year old should NOT be doing it.

How about beating the fuck out of the parents? I saw an interview with one dad and he didn't see a single problem with it. I heard someone give the excuse of "oh, well the costume is designed so that the judges can more clearly see the lines of movement blah blah blah" So why the fuck can these girls NOT wear a fucking leotard instead? something a little less sexually charged than a two piece that looks like it came off the design table of Victoria's secret? At the VERY least, why isn't the top piece more covering? that thing is barely thicker than duct tape. Might as well have used pasties. Not to mention the knee-high fuck-me boots.

And that doesn't even cover the dance moves. Any instant you have booty-popping in a dance routine, an 8 year old should NOT be doing it.

he's been watching us, WWE...he knows the moves. He's even wearing the little wrestler leotard thingy!

Now all we need is a hot chick in an 80s spandex leotard doing this and it could be the best video ever.

LDS - Leotard Disabled Society

Methinks her leotard is too tight.

Great reply. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

>> ^oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".
In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]
Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.
Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.
Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:
What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?
Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.
Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.
So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?
What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?
Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.
Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

Great reply. Thanks.

Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

I think this rationale should extend to other crimes as well. Shoplifters wear a sandwich board. Armed burglars need to confess in person wearing pink leotards on live television during football games. Bank robbers need to prepare a figure skating routine and wear a tutu. This could work!