November 15, 2007
Now, we arenÂ’t normally ones to get all hot and bothered about such lascivious titles. After all, television is pretty much a lowest-common-denominator genre, and it would be foolish to get oneÂ’s dander up about a few programs with prurient names.
But here, we think, is the rub: Of all the umpteen shows that sport the “naked” title, not one of them features nudity. You read that right, dear reader: Not one of them.
This strikes us as militantly annoying. You can’t very well title your show “The Naked Plumber” and then fail to parade this particular blue-collar craftsman without his proverbial blue collar! You can’t put “The Naked Hairdresser” on the air and then cut out the pictures of her in the buff.
ItÂ’s just not bloody fair, now is it? WeÂ’re talking about nudity, after all. This is not the time to get all metaphorical on us.
We mean, come on: At least have the decency to label the show “The Scantily-Clad Chef.” Sure, the appearance of a fully-clothed cook will still rankle, but it won’t be as galactically upsetting as it is with “The Naked Chef” moniker.
ItÂ’s a crime, if you ask us. And the FCC should drop its whole Janet JacksonÂ’s Boob thing and get on it pronto. ShouldnÂ’t the government enforce truth in advertising?
Perhaps we, taking a page out of the sordid book of television executives, should call ourselves the crack young naked staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”? Or we can go one better: The crack young naked and nubile staff.
Or, even better: The crack young naked, nubile, and frightened staff. That all may be completely bogus, but, if it drags in a few extra perverted goons, apparently itÂ’ll all be worth it.
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.
34 queries taking 0.0337 seconds, 101 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








