If Apple is smart they'll simply label movies with their MPAA rating (G, PG, R) and TV shows with the ratings that they already use.

Ok, so nobody really knows wha Y, Y7, or 14 mean (I sure don't) but at least that way, if someone complains, Apple can tell them to take it up with the ratings-people, whoever they might be.

I don't think it's a big deal. Not any worse than some of music they have on their.

Didn’t know SI was into body paint these days. Thanks, Vern, for the heads-up; i’ll check it out.

While i think this is all rather silly, clearly in a mad society where cartoons are justification enough to kill people, i can see where there might be some truth in those iTunes Music Store IPO rumors. If i were Apple, i’d just as soon spin it off too and distance my brand from any potential controversy. I bet it happens.

continue to exist... as prudish as we are does anyone dare touch each other?

Take a lesson from the Dutch and lighten up, America.

You've got some guts bringing this up.

I thought the same thing when I saw them, but I'm one of those guys how doesn't want to touch pornography soft or otherwise with a ten foot pole. I can still vividly remember every playboy I looked at as a 12 year old—but I wish I could get them out of my head. I think it says a lot to our wives/girlfriends when we want to stay away from the stuff and instead be focused on them. Therefore, not comparing them to whatever SI has in their pub. That's not being a prude, that's loving and protecting our wives and our daughters. But I regress...

I think the real problem, as you alluded to, is it is contrary to the Apple Brand. The apple brand is a squeaky clean family friendly company. Where pictures and videos of our kids and treasured as they reside in iPhoto and iMovie, and we talk to the grandparents across the country in iChat. Even the possibility of explicit content (video or otherwise) showing in an Apple product and being identified with the porn internet industry tarnishes the trust between consumer and Apple. For that reason I think the SI should be marked explicit. Or better yet, Apple should keep the brand clean and just yank them from ITMS.

My $2.

Apple is in the business of selling to all ages, all sizes and almost all tastes. Just because SJ is on the Disney Board, doesn't mean that Apple should ape, much less adopt the Disney ethos.

This stuff is erotic, but it's not porn, not even soft porn. The kid that walks into Blockbuster can see a lot worse, but for his parent's control. Same applies here.


Vern, turn you iChat to "available" once in a while, and we can chat about it.

Jack Barker

Quote

Guest wrote:
You've got some guts bringing this up.

I thought the same thing when I saw them, but I'm one of those guys how doesn't want to touch pornography soft or otherwise with a ten foot pole. I can still vividly remember every playboy I looked at as a 12 year old—but I wish I could get them out of my head. I think it says a lot to our wives/girlfriends when we want to stay away from the stuff and instead be focused on them. Therefore, not comparing them to whatever SI has in their pub. That's not being a prude, that's loving and protecting our wives and our daughters. But I regress...

I think the real problem, as you alluded to, is it is contrary to the Apple Brand. The apple brand is a squeaky clean family friendly company. Where pictures and videos of our kids and treasured as they reside in iPhoto and iMovie, and we talk to the grandparents across the country in iChat. Even the possibility of explicit content (video or otherwise) showing in an Apple product and being identified with the porn internet industry tarnishes the trust between consumer and Apple. For that reason I think the SI should be marked explicit. Or better yet, Apple should keep the brand clean and just yank them from ITMS.

My $2.

Several points:

- If you have a problem with the SI swimsuit video, then DON'T DOWNLOAD OR WATCH IT. Unless, of course, there's someone holding a gun to your head or threatening to bust your kneecaps if you don't.

- For heaven's sake, don't ever go to a beach or a swimming pool--you'll see just as "bad" (good?) and more. Worse, some of those young ladies will be under 18. If your relationship would be threatened if you happened to watch the SI swimsuit video, it might be ruined forever if you took your SO to a beach and failed to avert your eyes from every woman/girl in a bathing suit.

- The video isn't "explicit." There's as much or more on prime-time TV. This level of "exposure" wasn't "explicit" in 1960. You're only a few years behind the times.

- There's really no need to mark the SI Swimsuit video as to its content--that's patently obvious to anyone who can read at the 4th grade level.


FWIW, I find a lot of things irritating and/or disgusting, including some music on iTMS--and not just the "explicit" stuff. A lot of Country-Western music is, to me, insipid, moronic, tedious and lacking in artistic merit. However, many people disagree and listen to and buy that music. That's fine with me. They would probably hate a lot of the music I listen to (e.g., Renaissance music) and they're entitled to, as long as they don't try to stop me from listening to it. At least I don't impose my music on others by playing my car stereo so loud that the windshield rattles. I have to put up with really bad (in my opinion) C&W music in restaurants and other public places. I just ignore it.

The bottom line is that adults are responsible for their own actions and, at least for the moment (it may change if some have their way), free to choose what they read, watch, view, and think, at least in most of the western world.

In the case of children, ultimate responsibility lies with their parents. IMNSHO, any parent who allows her/his child to download any pictures, music or videos from iTMS or other source without supervision is derelict. The child should have to get permission each time, until/unless she/he has demonstrated that she/he can make appropriate decisions based upon the family's ethical and moral values. Obviously, those values will vary from family to family. Just don't try to impose your values on another person's family--or they might try to impose their values on yours. (That's something that rigid moralists often don't consider.)

George Carlin put it well many years ago when there was a lot of controversy about AM radio. He said (paraphrasing) that every radio has two knobs--one to change the station, the other to turn it off.

Quote

Guest wrote:
For that reason I think the SI should be marked explicit. Or better yet, Apple should keep the brand clean and just yank them from ITMS.

My $2.

Way to go dude. My wife is offended that you think she looks "explicit" in a bathing suit. I guess you could call insulting women "respecting them," but I don't get it.

There are quite a few other countries where women aren't allowed to be uncovered. That's great for them, but I'd rather NOT see those policies put in place on the American iTunes store, if you don't mind.

should sexy = dirty, and lack of sexual arousal = clean or "family friendly?" What kind of values are these?

The puritans - the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons - were no better for us in the 1600's than they are now. Perverted is not a healthy interest in sex, it's turning that interest into something to avoid or be ashamed of. Sex is wonderful; demonizing sex is disgusting.

My US$.02.

The SI swimsuit edition is pretty tame. Check out the French Maid podcast on the iTMS if you want something more titillating (pun intended) than the lingerie adverts in the newspaper.

If you want a good laugh in regards to Macs and pornography check out today's Joy of Tech http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/index.html

Interestingly my wife is currently writing a college paper on pornography.

Definitions are important:

Erotic - a feather

Kinky - the whole chicken

I'll get back to work now...

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
For that reason I think the SI should be marked explicit. Or better yet, Apple should keep the brand clean and just yank them from ITMS.

Just don't try to impose your values on another person's family--or they might try to impose their values on yours. (That's something that rigid moralists often don't consider.)

I have to side with Mr. Guest on this one. If you follow gslusher's point to its logical end, then there should be no laws against drugs, child porn, etc, all because it is OK with the values of society's lowest common denominator. Do we allow drug pushers at elementary schools just because the guy selling drugs doesn't have a problem with it? Of course not! We don't expect kids to make those sorts of choices because they are still kids...they haven't developed morally to the point of being able to make those sorts of decisions yet.

The point of Vern's article is that Apple has to draw the line somewhere, a point that should be obvious to everyone, even if it is only drawn at not selling content that is illegal.

parental controls are an important part of software in america for families...like it or not...But of course think it would be a great idea if iTunes did a better job of rating content and improving parental controls....if your a parent who doesn't believe in them...that is great...i'm not saying you have to use them...you just wouldn't...but for those that do want to make use of them they would be there...and should be better then they currently are. Its all about choices...it isn't forcing beliefs or values on others as some here have hinted at....it is giving more options to everyone as to better suit the mixed values our society has.

[quote="Guest"]I have to side with Mr. Guest on this one. If you follow gslusher's point to its logical end, then there should be no laws against drugs, child porn, etc, all because it is OK with the values of society's lowest common denominator. Do we allow drug pushers at elementary schools just because the guy selling drugs doesn't have a problem with it? Of course not! We don't expect kids to make those sorts of choices because they are still kids...they haven't developed morally to the point of being able to make those sorts of decisions yet. /quote]

That's the common logical fallacy called the "slippery slope" argument. By your reasoning, we shouldn't allow anyone to read anything, because that might lead to allowing them to do all sorts of bad things. In fact, by that slippery slope non-logic, we should lock up everyone, just in case. (See the absurdity? That's the slippery slope argument in reverse. That's no more true about what you think than what you wrote is true about what I said.)

The key is whether some behavior causes harm, especially to other people. Selling drugs can cause harm, as can producing child pornography. We have laws against possessing or using both drugs and child pornography, not necessarily because such possession/use is harmful in and of itself, but because possession/use creates a demand, which would be met by those who do harm.

Your last statement is just what I said. Unfortunately, it's been used (in the schools that I attended, for example) to keep kids from reading books that are not pornographic, explicit, sexy, or immoral, but which challange the prevailing social structure, which, in my day, was segregation and racism. It's generally people who want to place restrictions on other people who are really playing to the lowest common denominator. They say that they're for "family values," but only if the "family" is just like theirs.

It's me the Guest who wrote "Bold Article". Sorry I should have registered with a name.

My earlier comments were two fold, first from the perspective of a guy who has seen many other guys mess up their lives and several marriages broken up by husbands consumed with pornography. It's a sickening thing. No where am I suggested that sex = pornography. I've heard it said that sex is like a fire, contained, it can warm a house; but, let it get out of control, it will destroy it. Give me a break guys, you know what it's like to look at pornography, you do it because you love it. Look at it enough and you'll get addicted to the rush, and you'll need more to satisfy your cravings. After a while that photo/video/whatever won't satisfy. It is like a drug that we are all born addicted to. Feed it and you'll never be free of it.

That was my guy-to-guy, save yourself-from-a-lifetime-of-heartache speech. I'm not imposing my values on you. I pleading with you to examine yours. Of course your are free to click away and stop reading. Anyway, back to this article...

Regarding Apple and iTMS, as a Creative Director at a branding and ad agency we create brands and brand messages that strive to be consistent, compelling and true. Today the benchmark from branding goes to Apple. They are incredibly consistent, and even so we Mac users are up in arms about whether the "2x faster MacTels" are really 2x faster. Because Apple's brand says "trust us" and we want to believe it and we are disillusioned if we discover what they said was not true. This isn't a little mom and pop store, but one of the most powerful brands in the world.

So I my opinion, Apple should steer clear of allowing content--that is even borderline explicit--to not be marked as such. Granted, there are boatloads of music videos with the same content as the SI videos. You can't escape this stuff in our society. But Vern singled out these videos with his title, "Are SI's Swimsuit Vids Too Naughty For Nice Apple?" I say if Vern thinks that are even borderline "Naughty", then they are probably too close to "naughty" for Apple to be messing with.

Yes I am hypersensitive—and I get paid by clients to be that way. Brand managers like myself are supposed to be. We examine through a microscope projects all day that might negatively effect a brand with the target audience.

Apple doesn't just have to satisfy creative professionals with their brand any longer, they are playing with the big dogs now, general market. Everything they do will be carefully scrutinized and watched by the public and press. So in my opinion Apple should mark them explicit, or at least not advertise them with banners on the iTMS. They can not make their audience think, even for a minute, that Apple can be lumped in with pornographers or voyeurs (who BTW started pumping MP4 videos just days after the video iPods were released.)

So I did a little googling and found this:

In a June interview with ABC News, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of the iTunes podcast directory, "We're not allowing any pornography."

I don't think Apple is actually living up to this at the moment, but they need to. If they start doing things contrary to their previous statements without explanation, they are in danger of loosing brand loyalty. And in the end customers and investors.

My $5.

I don't think these should be labelled "explicit", because....well, they just aren't. Look up the word. "describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion", to quote OS X's Dictionary app. Swimsuits are far from explicit, at least in American culture (and we're relatively prudish these days). I wouldn't call this "porn" of any kind. Again, my friend the dictionary backs me up: Pornography, noun, "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity".

Apple should implement something here, but they should NOT take it upon themselves to create their own culture and decide what's "proper" and what's not. They should simply adopt the standards of the culture(s) they're targeting. And we have these standards. We have a TV rating system that's absurdly detailed. Apple should incorporate this system into their TV show offerings, and build in parental controls for it. If they do that, they'll be doing a lot more than most other media-delivery companies.

"Explicit" and "not explicit" is hardly detailed, and completely non-standard. Good enough for music, perhaps (if only because nobody really cares about music), but certainly not movies and TV. If Apple sticks with their current arbitrary "rating" system, they'll essentially force themselves to play nanny for their customers. There's no reason Apple should need or want to do this. It's in nobody's best interest.

For movies, we also have a rating system. Apple should adopt it as well, if and when they start selling feature films.

For unregulated content like podcasts, it gets trickier. I don't know how Apple handles it now.

Of course, as a business Apple has every right to decide what they will and won't sell. Even if they decide that they don't want to sell any R-rated movies, then that's fine with me, honestly (it'd be stupid, but I could respect it well enough). All I ask is that they stick with standard measures. No standard measure would label these SI vids as inappropriate. They wouldn't even be R by film standards.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
That's the common logical fallacy called the "slippery slope" argument. By your reasoning, we shouldn't allow anyone to read anything, because that might lead to allowing them to do all sorts of bad things. In fact, by that slippery slope non-logic, we should lock up everyone, just in case. (See the absurdity? That's the slippery slope argument in reverse. That's no more true about what you think than what you wrote is true about what I said.)

The key is whether some behavior causes harm, especially to other people. Selling drugs can cause harm, as can producing child pornography. We have laws against possessing or using both drugs and child pornography, not necessarily because such possession/use is harmful in and of itself, but because possession/use creates a demand, which would be met by those who do harm.

Your last statement is just what I said. Unfortunately, it's been used (in the schools that I attended, for example) to keep kids from reading books that are not pornographic, explicit, sexy, or immoral, but which challange the prevailing social structure, which, in my day, was segregation and racism. It's generally people who want to place restrictions on other people who are really playing to the lowest common denominator. They say that they're for "family values," but only if the "family" is just like theirs.

I'm not the one saying that things should be taken to their "slippery slope" end...you were the one who said "Just don't try to impose your values on another person's family". So the obvious next question is, whose values do we use? You think drugs and child porn are bad, so those should be restricted, but SI soft porn should be OK. Others would point to the documented evidence of porn's destructive impact and use your exact line of reasoning ("whether some behavior causes harm") to say it should be banned.

Trying to equate porn with books that challenge segregation and racism is hardly a reasonable argument...people don't look at SI so they can think more deeply about the injustices of society.

Why do Americans always have a problem with nudity but not so much with violence? Why is it ok to carry a gun and shoot people in a video but not to wear a swimsuit? Reminds me of GTA. Theres a game where you can steal and break the laws every minute and what does it get trouble for? Fully-clothed awkward-moving people in something that looks like sex (It's not since they wear clothes - like in a lot of movies).

Quote

Guest wrote:
Why do Americans always have a problem with nudity but not so much with violence? Why is it ok to carry a gun and shoot people in a video but not to wear a swimsuit? Reminds me of GTA. Theres a game where you can steal and break the laws every minute and what does it get trouble for? Fully-clothed awkward-moving people in something that looks like sex (It's not since they wear clothes - like in a lot of movies).

Two things:

First, A vast majority of Americans are no more prudish than the rest of the civilized world. We get our freak on with the best of them. Remember, this is the nation that gave you 'Girls Gone Wild!!!'. What you've mistaken for prudishness is our perchant to question vocally everything. We wonder openly if it is right to sell guns at the local Wal-Mart, then gasp in horror as little Billy takes that gun to school to even with some bullies.

We embrace our freedoms, some might say a bit too much, and we live with the consequences. Remember, we are only 200 years old, a babe by European standards. I'd say that we are doing pretty good for such a youngster.

Secondly, I'm all for nudity; I do it every chance I get, but that's not what the SI vid issue is about. It is a matter of choice. If you do have a problem with nudity you should not have it forced on you in a public place. If you don't want Junior to browse Hustler then it should not be sold next to Marvel comics. If you want to keep SI swimsuit models off little Billy's iPod then Apple should make that possible. We are not Puritans, we just want to be able to choose be or not to be.



Vern Seward

VSeward said
" If you want to keep SI swimsuit models off little Billy's iPod then Apple should make that possible."

This is what is wrong with this country, people that think corporations and government should do their parenting for them.

If you dont want SI swimsuit models on little Billy's iPod, then YOU should try and do some f^@&%#g parenting.

And to Guest who said:
"In a June interview with ABC News, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of the iTunes podcast directory, "We're not allowing any pornography."

I don't think Apple is actually living up to this at the moment, but they need to."

You really need to seek help because you have some serious issues thinking women in swimsuits are anything even remotely resembling pornography.


Ok, how about this:
"Let's wrap women up in robes & turbans 24/7 so I am not offended, I'm sure women would appreciate it."
"Let's aks Apple and other corporations and the government to raise my child because I am incapable of doing it on my own."

You people need to get a life and stay the fsck out of mine with your twisted ideas of morality and corporate parenting.

Quote

Guest wrote:
VSeward said
" If you want to keep SI swimsuit models off little Billy's iPod then Apple should make that possible."

This is what is wrong with this country, people that think corporations and government should do their parenting for them.

If you dont want SI swimsuit models on little Billy's iPod, then YOU should try and do some f^@&%#g parenting.

And to Guest who said:
"In a June interview with ABC News, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of the iTunes podcast directory, "We're not allowing any pornography."

I don't think Apple is actually living up to this at the moment, but they need to."

You really need to seek help because you have some serious issues thinking women in swimsuits are anything even remotely resembling pornography.


Ok, how about this:
"Let's wrap women up in robes & turbans 24/7 so I am not offended, I'm sure women would appreciate it."
"Let's aks Apple and other corporations and the government to raise my child because I am incapable of doing it on my own."

You people need to get a life and stay the fsck out of mine with your twisted ideas of morality and corporate parenting.

Being able to choose not to let little Billy download adult material IS part of parenting. Labeling adult content properly allows parents to filter the content as they see fit. Has nothing to do with enforcing morality on anyone beyond what parents force onto their kids.

Adult material is still available for adult to enjoy, and it's labeled so that parents can choose not to let young ones view it.

It's a simple system. Has nothing to do with much of your rant.

Sounds like you might want to try decaf. Just a thought.

Vern Seward

Good grief, are we really trying to draw the line at bikinis now? Our women will be forced to wear veils next... No one is forcing anyone to click on the offending videos, let alone fork over $1.99 for one. Anyone who does click has nothing to b!tch about.

Take some personal responsibiliy, instead of trying to steal mine!

Good discussion. I think Apple does have to procede with their eyes wide open now that they are selling actual content. They do stand a greater risk muddying their pristine brand. As a computer hardware and software maker they have up until the last coule of years been on neutral moral ground. Unless you're geeky enough to get turned on by 8 Gigs of RAM and have a hard time controlling yourself.

I have to respond to a couple of issues left by other posters here:

Quote

gslusher wrote:
In the case of children, ultimate responsibility lies with their parents. IMNSHO, any parent who allows her/his child to download any pictures, music or videos from iTMS or other source without supervision is derelict. The child should have to get permission each time, until/unless she/he has demonstrated that she/he can make appropriate decisions based upon the family's ethical and moral values. Obviously, those values will vary from family to family. Just don't try to impose your values on another person's family--or they might try to impose their values on yours. (That's something that rigid moralists often don't consider.)

George Carlin put it well many years ago when there was a lot of controversy about AM radio. He said (paraphrasing) that every radio has two knobs--one to change the station, the other to turn it off.

Quote

Guest wrote:
This is what is wrong with this country, people that think corporations and government should do their parenting for them.

If you dont want SI swimsuit models on little Billy's iPod, then YOU should try and do some f^@&%#g parenting.

Ok, how about this:
"Let's aks Apple and other corporations and the government to raise my child because I am incapable of doing it on my own."

You people need to get a life and stay the fsck out of mine with your twisted ideas of morality and corporate parenting.

Quote

Guest wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to click on the offending videos, let alone fork over $1.99 for one. Anyone who does click has nothing to b!tch about.

Take some personal responsibiliy, instead of trying to steal mine!

It doesn't seem to be possible to have a discussion around here (or practically anywhere else, for that matter) without these pet arguments coming out. Please, people, come up with something novel.

The "just turn it off" and "do some parenting" arguements are short-sighted, unpractical and devoid of validity in the real world. So much so that I tend to think that those making it have never actually been parents. If they have been parents, then they must not have cared much about what their kids are exposed to. If they do care about what their kids are exposed to, then they must have kept their kids locked up safely in their own house 24/7.

Anybody who actually IS a parent knows that about the age when a kid goes off to Kindergarten, the parent has increasingly less control over what their child is exposed to. I'm not talking about school, but the fact that they are doing more and more away from home. I do believe that parenting is a huge part of the equation, but it's far from the only safeguard. I can teach my kids what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's bad, what's best for them and what can hurt them, but you have to face the fact that for quite a few years they are going through the learning process. I wish I could teach my kids what they need to know by age 5 and then rest in peace knowing that that information and occasional reminders is going to keep them away from the things they need to stay away from. But that's living in a fantasy world and anyone should recognize that. Someone earlier in the thread said this:

Quote

Do we allow drug pushers at elementary schools just because the guy selling drugs doesn't have a problem with it? Of course not! We don't expect kids to make those sorts of choices because they are still kids...they haven't developed morally to the point of being able to make those sorts of decisions yet.

That's exactly right. How do I "turn the knob" when my kid is at school? How do I "just not allow it" when my kid is at a friend's house after school? I agree, gslusher, that any parent who doesn't supervise downloads is direlect. But who are the direlect parents and who aren't? Do they have a sign in front of their house? Do they all have green teeth or some other recognizable trait? Every time my kid makes a friend in the neighborhood do I have the chance, or is it practical, to make sure that my 8-year-old isn't spending his time playing GTA or Doom? Am I to ask the other child's parents what their policies are about computer/internet access at their house? Do they have a filter? Is the computer in a public place? Do you own any guns? Are they locked up? How do I know your other 15-year-old son doesn't have a porn stash that he shares with his little brother? Shall I do a background check on you to make sure you don't have any history of abuse or neglect before I let my kid play with yours? And on and on and on.

When it comes right down to it, society as a whole DOES have at least SOME responsibility for its influence on its individuals. Whether it's corporate, municipal, institutional, whatever. To completely ignore what's available to people and especially to kids is not in the best interests of society. To quote a certain liberal darling, "It Takes a Village".

I just visited iTMS. Here are lyrics from "Today's Top Songs":

No. 2
Oh lord, gal I got the right tactics to turn you on, and girl I...
Wanna be the Papa...You can be the Mom....oh oh!
down in Jamaica we give it to you hot like a sauna
test the mattress out.

No. 4
I Need to get her over to my crib and do that night thang
Cause Im N Luv Wit a Stripper
Goddamn Lil Mama
U know u thick as hell u know what im sayin
Yea u know U got them big ass hips god damn!

No. 5
I can tell you wanna taste it, but I'm gone make you chase it
You got to be patient, I like my men patient
More patience, you take might get you in more places
I'm keep my hands in my pants, I need to glue em w/ glue
I'm in a trance all eyes on you and your crew
If you don't go braggin, I'ma let you have it

No. 6
There she goes shaking that ass on the floor
Bumpin and grindin that pole
The way she's grindin that pole
I think I'm losing control
Get buzzed, get drunk, get crunked, get f***ed up
Hit the strip club don't forget ones get your d**k rubbed
Get f***ed, get s***ed, get wasted, sh*t faced
Pasted, blasted, puke drink up, get a new drink
Two to the one from the one to the three
I like good p***y and I like good trees
Smoke so much weed you wouldn't believe
And I get more a$$ than a toilet seat

Do you honestly think my 8-year-old won't hear these lyrics just because he won't be able to hear them under my supervision? How naive.

And my experience isn't limited to my 8-year-old. I have four kids and oldest will be in college this fall. I know my way around the block.

Quote

Guest wrote:
And to Guest who said:
"In a June interview with ABC News, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of the iTunes podcast directory, "We're not allowing any pornography."

I don't think Apple is actually living up to this at the moment, but they need to."

You really need to seek help because you have some serious issues thinking women in swimsuits are anything even remotely resembling pornography.

Another well-reasoned comment. No, I don't consider the SI swimsuits pornography. But be honest, Guest. I'm going to assume you're a guy. Sorry if I'm wrong. As you're watching the SI video, tell me everything going through your head and everything you're seeing with your mind's eye. Are you going to tell me that what you're seeing and thinking isn't "anything even remotely resembling pornography"? Really? Yeah, right.

If it were possible, I'm sure the USA would ban sex alltogether if not for procreational purposes, when done with a sheet between the participants and especially not enjoyed.

Of course, that wouldn't be called sex then, it would be called "making little voters for the best freeest most special free country in the world, now shut up, sing the anthem, greet the flag and praise GOD"...

Following my Christian traditions, I try not to see women as objects for sexual consumption. But let me be perfectly frank, it isn't easy -- every time spring comes around, I fight my eyes away from the short skirts and the bikinis and God help me the halter tops.

You can call me a prude or not, but I feel by marrying her, I have given my wife exclusive rights to my emotional arousal as well as my physical intimacy. When we're in bed, I don't have fantasies about supermodels, nymphomaniacs, weird positions, vibrators, and I don't care to gin up sex with porno flicks. I think about 22 years of life together, our children, our hopes, our future. That gets messed up when I see lewd material.

That said, I understand I am not living by standards that many other men have. And in fact, I don't trust the government, the MPAA, or any other group to set the standards I like.

I'd really prefer to have a mechanism where I can 'subscribe' to ratings from a body I trust -- Focus on the Family, for example -- rather than see ratings standards change with each administration. And I really don't expect Apple to have much of a clue about my personal standards the way some of these other groups do.

And I think I agree that unless something happens, Apple must spin off iTunes or give people some way of showing Sports Illustrated models or Sex in the City only to its subscribers that really want it.