> for some tv exec Again, this is all very conjectural of you. This argument can be used to assert that a show with an attractive woman is on TV because the wo

> for some tv exec Again, this is all very conjectural of you. This argument can be used to assert that a show with an attractive woman is on TV because the woman is attractive, and not because of other merits. It's demeaning. That's not saying it isn't true. Like I said, there is solid evidence that "Dad factor" did influence the BBC. But it demands something besides conjecture. Else we could conjecture that the BBC scheduled association football because the TV execs wanted to appeal to the repressed homoerotic feelings of its viewership.[1] > Note that I've argued both sides of this w.r.t. the moog dancers and don't claim to have "the" answer. "Argue" is what people do in a bull session. Give some evidence that one or the other has basis in reality. My experience and understanding tells me that the decision to program this sort of act because of the "sexualising the women", in the "both points of view" you see IS NOT TRUE. While people can and do sexualize just about anything (people have probably shipped Rumpole of the Bailey), what I see in these video shows no signs of deliberate titillation, and yet with many opportunities to do so. And I see many parts which are a turn-off, like the crowding out by the camera. Further, unless this was part of a continuing series of sexualising acts, why would a tv exec care? It's not going to affect ratings. While on the other hand, we do know modern dance and avante-garde performance exist, and some look like this of their own accord without attempts to sexualize, and we know variety acts of that era also included novelty performances for the oddity of it. [1] Personally, I only watch Time Team because of the pure eroticism of Philip Harding, and anyone who hasn't looked at him and "let their imagination go at least a little probably has some pretty profound health issues and my sympathies".