Oprah asked: "So you've had men ejaculate in your face?"

[David]

So much for little Miss (what's up with that?) Wholesome

''FEB SWEEPS: OPRAH IN GRAPHIC --- TALK
Fri Feb 24 2006 09:30:16 ET

Hold on to your condoms!

Oprah interviewed a woman on Thursday who had engaged in --- with more
than 90 men during her life and who was keeping an ongoing list and a
video diary about these encounters!

Not to be confused with Howard Stern, Oprah asked: "So you've had men
ejaculate in your face?"

MORE

The February Sweeps --- special from the nation's top talkshow host,
titled "Guests discuss their --- addictions," raised eyebrows with
industry watchers.

"You've had, you know, men ejaculating in your face who you don't even
know who they are," asked daytime Winfrey.

WINFREY: OK. So tell me, what's going on when you're actually having
the ---?...Coming up, Jennifer just admitted that she's had --- with
almost 90 men.

JENNIFER: I had a one night stand last night in this room. And now I'm
obsessing about it. I was at a cafe, and there was a guy there that I
just decided that I wanted to have. Kind of like you walk into a
bakery shop and you see an eclair, and that's the one you want. You
know, I just went up to him and introduced myself and started chatting
with him, gave him my number, basically all the while thinking, `I
need to have --- with this person.' And it doesn't matter who he is or
what he is, that's the one that I want to want me. And he slept over
and I had --- with him and I had unprotected --- with him.

(Excerpt from videotape)

(Graphic on screen)

Jennifer, 25 --- Addict Video Diary

JENNIFER: There's, like, a few reasons I feel like I have unprotected
---. One, I--it's so much about the guy feeling pleasure and pleasing
him and I want it to be good for him. And the other one is I just
don't care...

WINFREY: Eighty-nine guys, unprotected ---....

MORE

AMY (Says She Has Had --- With More Than 70 Men): It's not about ---
with me. It's about the intimacy or being close to someone or feeling
needed. Even though I'm totally out of control, I still feel that I am
in control for that moment. I'm trying to think about men that I've
slept with, and I honestly can't remember, just 70 to 75, probably
somewhere around there. Currently, I probably have four or five
different guys I could call if I wanted to. I am tired of being alone.
I don't want to be this way. I want to feel good enough within myself
to not feel like I need to do this. I want to change. I want things to
be better.

(End of excerpt)

WINFREY: So you told our producers you're disgusted with yourself.
Yeah. ''

drudgereport

[Yepp]

David <rickets@knac.com> wrote in news:atnuv1damluoictp7707nd51bf81drbgis@
4ax.com:

> So much for little Miss (what's up with that?) Wholesome
>
> ''FEB SWEEPS: OPRAH IN GRAPHIC --- TALK
> Fri Feb 24 2006 09:30:16 ET



<SNIP>



Excellent cut and paste job! So should I get XM so I can hear it
uncensored? That must be the point?

[David]

On 24 Feb 2006 20:14:23 GMT, Yepp <noemail@home.com> wrote:

>David <rickets@knac.com> wrote in news:atnuv1damluoictp7707nd51bf81drbgis@
>4ax.com:
>
>> So much for little Miss (what's up with that?) Wholesome
>>
>> ''FEB SWEEPS: OPRAH IN GRAPHIC --- TALK
>> Fri Feb 24 2006 09:30:16 ET
>
>
>
><SNIP>
>
>
>
>Excellent cut and paste job! So should I get XM so I can hear it
>uncensored? That must be the point?
>
>
I don't think King World will allow any of their TV content on to the
outside radio project.

My point is that Oprah is just as much of a smut merchant as Howard
Stern.

[Dr. Droo]

David wrote:
> My point is that Oprah is just as much of a smut merchant as Howard
> Stern.

Stern provided transcripts of both something he was fined for and
something Oprah wasn't. I think Oprah's thing involved tossing salad
or something like that. For some reason the Oprah thing was suitable
for network TV an hour or two after school gets out for most children.

There's definitely a double standard.

--D

[BW Kernighan]

> My point is that Oprah is just as much of a smut merchant as Howard
> Stern.

Which is an obivously ignorant-assed remark.

Do adult topics come up on both shows? I suppose. But the adultness with
which they are handled is obviously quite different.

Sometimes, obscenity may come down to a question of "intent". For example,
it is often necessary to use graphic, otherwise "obscene" language and
innuendo in a courtroom proceeding in the description of a crime scene; yet,
that does not make the proceeding "obscene".

It isn't that I care. But some people do, and it would be difficult to
sustain an argument that Oprah is a "smut-merchant", while some would likely
classify Stern as such.

[J. Fowler]

> There's definitely a double standard.

Like Stern spending years complaining about the FCC and his dump button,
but then comes to satrad and dumps callers who criticize him?

[David]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:40:40 -0800, "J. Fowler" <user@example.invalid>
wrote:

>> There's definitely a double standard.
>
>Like Stern spending years complaining about the FCC and his dump button,
>but then comes to satrad and dumps callers who criticize him?

That is the most juvenile and absurd statement I've ever seen. The
Stern program is not C-SPAN. It is the hosts job to steer the show.
If a caller is lame, dump it, the sooner the better.

[David]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:33:42 GMT, "BW Kernighan" <bwk@nomail.com>
wrote:

>
>> My point is that Oprah is just as much of a smut merchant as Howard
>> Stern.
>
>Which is an obivously ignorant-assed remark.
>
>Do adult topics come up on both shows? I suppose. But the adultness with
>which they are handled is obviously quite different.
>
>Sometimes, obscenity may come down to a question of "intent". For example,
>it is often necessary to use graphic, otherwise "obscene" language and
>innuendo in a courtroom proceeding in the description of a crime scene; yet,
>that does not make the proceeding "obscene".
>
>It isn't that I care. But some people do, and it would be difficult to
>sustain an argument that Oprah is a "smut-merchant", while some would likely
>classify Stern as such.
>
>
She's doing to titillate and get ratings. I see no difference at all.

Smut with doilies is still smut.

[User X-X-X]

David wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:40:40 -0800, "J. Fowler" <user@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> There's definitely a double standard.
>> Like Stern spending years complaining about the FCC and his dump button,
>> but then comes to satrad and dumps callers who criticize him?
>
> That is the most juvenile and absurd statement I've ever seen. The
> Stern program is not C-SPAN. It is the hosts job to steer the show.
> If a caller is lame, dump it, the sooner the better.
>

That is the most juvenile response I've ever seen.
The OP didn't say "lame" caller he said "callers who
criticize (Stern)" Big difference.

[David]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:02:15 -0500, User X-X-X <"user
x-x-x"@domain.invalid> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:40:40 -0800, "J. Fowler" <user@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> There's definitely a double standard.
>>> Like Stern spending years complaining about the FCC and his dump button,
>>> but then comes to satrad and dumps callers who criticize him?
>>
>> That is the most juvenile and absurd statement I've ever seen. The
>> Stern program is not C-SPAN. It is the hosts job to steer the show.
>> If a caller is lame, dump it, the sooner the better.
>>
>
>That is the most juvenile response I've ever seen.
>The OP didn't say "lame" caller he said "callers who
>criticize (Stern)" Big difference.

Unless the host is asking for criticism such calls are inappropriate.

[Dave Zass]

> That is the most juvenile response I've ever seen.
> The OP didn't say "lame" caller he said "callers who criticize (Stern)"
> Big difference.

Last I heard, it was called "The Howard Stern Show". I think he can decide
which direction his show takes.

FWIW, he always dumps LAME callers because they add nothing to the show. I
doubt it has anything to do with refusing to be criticized. Good radio is
good radio. It has more to do with not wasting his time.

[User X-X-X]

David wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:02:15 -0500, User X-X-X <"user
> x-x-x"@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> David wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:40:40 -0800, "J. Fowler" <user@example.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's definitely a double standard.
>>>> Like Stern spending years complaining about the FCC and his dump button,
>>>> but then comes to satrad and dumps callers who criticize him?
>>> That is the most juvenile and absurd statement I've ever seen. The
>>> Stern program is not C-SPAN. It is the hosts job to steer the show.
>>> If a caller is lame, dump it, the sooner the better.
>>>
>> That is the most juvenile response I've ever seen.
>> The OP didn't say "lame" caller he said "callers who
>> criticize (Stern)" Big difference.
>
> Unless the host is asking for criticism such calls are inappropriate.
>

On the stern show?!

[BW Kernighan]

>
> Last I heard, it was called "The Howard Stern Show". I think he can
decide
> which direction his show takes.
>
> FWIW, he always dumps LAME callers because they add nothing to the show.
I
> doubt it has anything to do with refusing to be criticized. Good radio is
> good radio. It has more to do with not wasting his time.
>


It certainly is his prerogative.

But one of the reasons Limbaugh has been so chronically successful is that
he encourages criticism. It keeps the show fresh and interesting.

Stern wants total control of the controversy. Feeds his ego.

[David]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:52:05 GMT, "BW Kernighan" <bwk@nomail.com>
wrote:

>>
>> Last I heard, it was called "The Howard Stern Show". I think he can
>decide
>> which direction his show takes.
>>
>> FWIW, he always dumps LAME callers because they add nothing to the show.
>I
>> doubt it has anything to do with refusing to be criticized. Good radio is
>> good radio. It has more to do with not wasting his time.
>>
>
>
>It certainly is his prerogative.
>
>But one of the reasons Limbaugh has been so chronically successful is that
>he encourages criticism. It keeps the show fresh and interesting.
>
>Stern wants total control of the controversy. Feeds his ego.
>
>
Limbaugh never puts a competent critical on the air.

He is ''chronically'' the first to get on the local blowtorches. No
one has a bigger ego.

[memory705@hotmail.com]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> David wrote:
> > My point is that Oprah is just as much of a smut merchant as Howard
> > Stern.
>
> Stern provided transcripts of both something he was fined for and
> something Oprah wasn't. I think Oprah's thing involved tossing salad
> or something like that. For some reason the Oprah thing was suitable
> for network TV an hour or two after school gets out for most children.
>
> There's definitely a double standard.


You found two graphic comments in her twenty year career and suddenly
Oprah's as much of smut merchant as Stern who makes such comments every
single day? Yes indeed that's a double standard.

[memory705@hotmail.com]

David wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:33:42 GMT, "BW Kernighan" <bwk@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> My point is that Oprah is just as much of a smut merchant as Howard
> >> Stern.
> >
> >Which is an obivously ignorant-assed remark.
> >
> >Do adult topics come up on both shows? I suppose. But the adultness with
> >which they are handled is obviously quite different.
> >
> >Sometimes, obscenity may come down to a question of "intent". For example,
> >it is often necessary to use graphic, otherwise "obscene" language and
> >innuendo in a courtroom proceeding in the description of a crime scene; yet,
> >that does not make the proceeding "obscene".
> >
> >It isn't that I care. But some people do, and it would be difficult to
> >sustain an argument that Oprah is a "smut-merchant", while some would likely
> >classify Stern as such.
> >
> >
> She's doing to titillate and get ratings. I see no difference at all.
>

How the hell do you know why she's doing it? And what does Oprah
need ratings for? She's already the richest person on TV and the
world's ONLY black billionaire.

[David]

On 25 Feb 2006 07:25:34 -0800, memory705@hotmail.com wrote:


>> She's doing to titillate and get ratings. I see no difference at all.
>>
>
> How the hell do you know why she's doing it? And what does Oprah
>need ratings for? She's already the richest person on TV and the
>world's ONLY black billionaire.

People who already have it made only go on TV to stoke their
insatiable egos.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2002/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&uniqueId=VYCO&datatype=Person

[BW Kernighan]

> How the hell do you know why she's doing it? And what does Oprah
> need ratings for? She's already the richest person on TV and the
> world's ONLY black billionaire.

This is a pretty good point -- Oprah is already the most powerful
personality on television (and soon to be radio, I suspect).

It isn't like she has to dig up dirt for her show for sweeps.

[David]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:46:40 GMT, "BW Kernighan" <bwk@nomail.com>
wrote:

>> How the hell do you know why she's doing it? And what does Oprah
>> need ratings for? She's already the richest person on TV and the
>> world's ONLY black billionaire.
>
>This is a pretty good point -- Oprah is already the most powerful
>personality on television (and soon to be radio, I suspect).
>
>It isn't like she has to dig up dirt for her show for sweeps.
>
>
She is a TV animal. No different than Jerry Springer or any other
media -----.

[Dr. Droo]

memory705@hotmail.com wrote:
> You found two graphic comments in her twenty year career and suddenly
> Oprah's as much of smut merchant as Stern who makes such comments every
> single day? Yes indeed that's a double standard.

Janet Jackson shows her boob on TV once, with something more or less
covering it even, one time, and it causes a whole lot of hooplah. I
figure if fair is fair, Oprah should be carted off in cuffs.

This is 2 situations that I know of, I don't watch her show, it's
probably much more than that.

--D

[David]

On 25 Feb 2006 13:08:42 -0800, "Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote:

>memory705@hotmail.com wrote:
>> You found two graphic comments in her twenty year career and suddenly
>> Oprah's as much of smut merchant as Stern who makes such comments every
>> single day? Yes indeed that's a double standard.
>
>Janet Jackson shows her boob on TV once, with something more or less
>covering it even, one time, and it causes a whole lot of hooplah. I
>figure if fair is fair, Oprah should be carted off in cuffs.
>
>This is 2 situations that I know of, I don't watch her show, it's
>probably much more than that.
>
>--D
>
She alternates between kinky --- and horribly disfigured Siamese
twins.

[Rich]

>>>She alternates between kinky --- and horribly disfigured Siamese
twins.

I hear that she will have a episode on mental illness, complusive lying
and multiple personalities. I wonder if Frontmed is the guest subject?