Age rule discussion re: Christina Applegate and others.

[Sam Spade]

Guys, Christina was born 25th November 1971, which means she did not turn 18 until part way through season 4 of Married With Children (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092400/).

So please make sure that any caps or video of Christina from Married With Children are from season 5 or later or if they are from season 4 that they are not from episodes 1 - 12, to be on the safe side, all posts from MWC must contain information as to what season they were taken from, and in the case of season 4, what episode they came from, any posts without this information will be removed without notice.

[since84]

^^^Don't really understand this!!
It's not like she was nude, so what's the problem?
And last month i posted a reply in another thread in here. Where i told people that the top and bottom-less girl on the pictures, only were 15 years old. That reply got deleted by the admins!!

So nude 15 years old girls are ok, but fully clothed are not ??!!!

[grossnex]

^^^Don't really understand this!!
It's not like she was nude, so what's the problem?
And last month i posted a reply in another thread in here. Where i told people that the top and bottom-less girl on the pictures, only were 15 years old. That reply got deleted by the admins!!

So nude 15 years old girls are ok, but fully clothed are not ??!!!

Rules are rules my brother.

I posted clips from all seasons with the blessing of mods at the time (about 3 years ago). They're gone now & rightfully so. VEF needs to protect itself & has been consistant when enforcing rules. I understand your frustration, but it is what it is. Check with the mods in the section before you post if you're unsure what's wanted or unwanted to save yourself the headache. :cool:

[Naed57]

The "of age" rules are indeed rules. And we should follow them. But one of the mods got on my case about comments I often include with some of my dvd captures, for example.... "Al is looking at Kelly's tits," and "she has beautiful tits." I really don't understand how comments like that can be against the rules even if I make similar references in my many posts. It wasn't any of the moderators listed in the above post. It takes some time to post quality dvd captures. And to see them deleted because of harmless comments like the examples above is sad. This is a forum about erotica. It's sexual in nature. I see no reason why some of my posts are being deleted for because of sexual references. Can someone please explain why?

[Sam Spade]

I must admit to not liking some of the comments some members add to their posts, I do realise this is a porn forum, but I do not really want to read how someone enjoys choking their chicken whilst looking at images or video of a celeb. http://i6.ifrm.com/14806/136/emo/sick.gif

I enjoy dressing up as Margaret Thatcher and getting the local hoodies to beat me with rolled up copies of Gardeners World magazine http://i6.ifrm.com/14806/136/emo/spank.gif, but you don't see me posting about it, do you?

[Naed57]

I must admit to not liking some of the comments some members add to their posts, I do realise this is a porn forum, but I do not really want to read how someone enjoys choking their chicken whilst looking at images or video of a celeb. http://i6.ifrm.com/14806/136/emo/sick.gif

I enjoy dressing up as Margaret Thatcher and getting the local hoodies to beat me with rolled up copies of Gardeners World magazine http://i6.ifrm.com/14806/136/emo/spank.gif, but you don't see me posting about it, do you?

Sam, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my question in a manner of how I expect an administrator to. What are the rules regarding things like the wording of posts? Your answer doesn't clarify what the rules are my friend.

[Wendigo]

The "of age" rules are indeed rules. And we should follow them. But one of the mods got on my case about comments I often include with some of my dvd captures, for example.... "Al is looking at Kelly's tits," and "she has beautiful tits." I really don't understand how comments like that can be against the rules even if I make similar references in my many posts. It wasn't any of the moderators listed in the above post. It takes some time to post quality dvd captures. And to see them deleted because of harmless comments like the examples above is sad. This is a forum about erotica. It's sexual in nature. I see no reason why some of my posts are being deleted for because of sexual references. Can someone please explain why?

Let's be honest here, as far as I am aware any images of yours that were removed were deleted solely as they were duplicates, as I explained to you in the PM I sent a while back. I also explained why we have edited out some of your more overt comments but as far as I'm aware that is the extent of the editing and not what you appear to be suggesting.
Yes this is an adult forum but does every post have to include "great tits" or some similar banal comment?

This is particularly crass and insensitive in light of Christina's well publicised struggle against Breast Cancer. If you don't see that then I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

[Sam Spade]

Regarding your comments, we all have eyes, we can see what is happening in the pictures, we do not need a commentary, and I honestly do not see why you need to add it.

We (the celeb mod team.) receive complaints about comments added to posts, i happen to agree with them and if I think the added text is tacky or pointless I will remove it, we appreciate members who contribute content, but people come here for that content, not the comments.

We obviously don't mind useful information but the celeb sections are image based, that is why we set up the celebrity discussion forum.

[Naed57]

Delete my membership or whatever you want to call it.

[Wendigo]

Delete my membership or whatever you want to call it.

It's entirely your choice, if you want to delete your membership use the contact us section in the rules and an Admin will do the necessary.

[Wendigo]

^^^Don't really understand this!!
It's not like she was nude, so what's the problem?
And last month i posted a reply in another thread in here. Where i told people that the top and bottom-less girl on the pictures, only were 15 years old. That reply got deleted by the admins!!

So nude 15 years old girls are ok, but fully clothed are not ??!!!

We will move these latest posts soon but in response to Since84's post above. which should not go unanswered.
What he wrote in answer to one post was
The same pics were in "Se og Hør", and the text said that she was only 15 years old (just so you know). Before the 90's, it was very normal that the girls in "Se og hør" and "Ekstra Bladet) was 15 and 16 years old
If the text on the photos used had shown she was under 18 they would have been deleted. If you or anyone has any evidence then you just have to scan them and send them via PM to any mod from that section.
We do need some supporting evidence before we delete posts though if you have anything Since84 then please forward it to us.
We have very little info on "Se og Hør" on VEF, it is mentioned in just 8 posts in the whole of the forum.

[since84]

We will move these latest posts soon but in response to Since84's post above. which should not go unanswered.
What he wrote in answer to one post was
The same pics were in "Se og Hør", and the text said that she was only 15 years old (just so you know). Before the 90's, it was very normal that the girls in "Se og hør" and "Ekstra Bladet) was 15 and 16 years old
If the text on the photos used had shown she was under 18 they would have been deleted. If you or anyone has any evidence then you just have to scan them and send them via PM to any mod from that section.
We do need some supporting evidence before we delete posts though if you have anything Since84 then please forward it to us.
We have very little info on "Se og Hør" on VEF, it is mentioned in just 8 posts in the whole of the forum.
I don't want them removed. I thought that people should know that the girl were only 15 years old (which were not against the law in Denmark).

[painbrioche]

So what is the beef here

These pictures are legitimate, not intimate. They were broadcast in many countries in the world. What are you saying, that her face should be blurred out as she is under-age, or "Married with children" should never be shown on TV again. What about all the magazine photos that are out there. Are you saying that they are all wrong.

where does this pointless panic end. What laws are being broken, other than every picture on this site and every other site on the net are all copyright somewhere along the line. This is panic caused by stupid laws from America, laws to protect children, protect from what exactly. If these pictures are not of a sexual nature then they break no laws anywhere.

A line needs to be drawn here, and that line is that America does not rule the world, and should get of its high horse and sort its self out and leave the rest of the world alone, just like it leaves China alone

[greywolf2859]

So what is the beef here

These pictures are legitimate, not intimate. They were broadcast in many countries in the world. What are you saying, that her face should be blurred out as she is under-age, or "Married with children" should never be shown on TV again. What about all the magazine photos that are out there. Are you saying that they are all wrong.

where does this pointless panic end. What laws are being broken, other than every picture on this site and every other site on the net are all copyright somewhere along the line. This is panic caused by stupid laws from America, laws to protect children, protect from what exactly. If these pictures are not of a sexual nature then they break no laws anywhere.

A line needs to be drawn here, and that line is that America does not rule the world, and should get of its high horse and sort its self out and leave the rest of the world alone, just like it leaves China alone

As I Subscribe To This Thread I Have Read All Of The Above, May I Just Point Out:
1) Its No Longer About Christina (Whose Thread It Is) :o
2) And More Simply, The Rules Of VEF, Which We Agree To Abide To When We All Join, Clearly State We Can't Post ANY Images Of a Person Under The Age Of 18 Years, Regardless Of The The Laws Of Country In Which The Uploader Resides. That Alone Could Be A Legal Nightmare!:eek:

So In Conclusion, Lets Get Back To What Its All About, The Ability To Share Images Of The Beautiful Half Of Creation...:p

[Sam Spade]

So what is the beef here

These pictures are legitimate, not intimate. They were broadcast in many countries in the world. What are you saying, that her face should be blurred out as she is under-age, or "Married with children" should never be shown on TV again. What about all the magazine photos that are out there. Are you saying that they are all wrong.

This is not a television channel, this is not a lifestyle magazine, this is a porn forum, what part of that don't you get?

If we did allow images of under 18's that were not "sexual" or "titillating" who decides just what is "sexual" or "titillating", is it a skirt that is 5 inches above the knee or 6 inches, is it a bikini or is it a one piece swim suit, is it bare shoulders or cleavage?

By sticking rigidly to the age rule we make things a lot easier and straight forward for both members and mods.

where does this pointless panic end. What laws are being broken, other than every picture on this site and every other site on the net are all copyright somewhere along the line. This is panic caused by stupid laws from America, laws to protect children, protect from what exactly. If these pictures are not of a sexual nature then they break no laws anywhere.

A line needs to be drawn here, and that line is that America does not rule the world, and should get of its high horse and sort its self out and leave the rest of the world alone, just like it leaves China alone

Just what does America have to do with this?

We have 3 Admin here, none of us are Americans, most of the mods are either Brits or European, and we all debated this age rule and agreed on 18 as a cut off point.

Obviously not all images can be dated, and no one will be warned or banned for posting images of a celeb when they were 16 or 17, I am sure there are many such images still in the threads, however, if we identify those pictures they will be removed, we do this to protect us and our members.

This is the rule, we expect members to adhere to it.

[since84]

Then please tell me why it's ok to post pics from the movie "Streets "?? She was 17 when she made that one!

[Sam Spade]

Then please tell me why it's ok to post pics from the movie "Streets "?? She was 17 when she made that one!

I, nor my fellow mods are walking encyclopaedia's of actress and movie trivia, if you have info like this then please click on the http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/images/buttons/report.gif icon which is at the bottom left of the post concerned, fill in a few details and submit, a section mod will then deal with it.

[deserotica]

My tuppence worth....Im gratetul for this "FREE" (not much is nowadays) site..the arent arent too many rules to be honest and something is always going to slip throught the net....there are plenty of other sites to post any kind of content we wish..but this is one of the best ones out there!!! So lets relax..............and enjoy!!! :thumbsup:

[cylnzz]

Ok, just read this entire thread. This is an old old issue. Since all this celeb collecting started back in the bbs days there has always been a risk of a site shut down due to underage material. I've personally seen it happen 3 times in 20 years, and yes, it did totally screw everyone officially associated with those sites, even legally. The biggest thing is the negative attention it garners for our hobby. That affects the entire community and gives valid excuse for the watchdog busybodies to try and wipe us out. And the movie industry would really love to wipe us out, believe that. Yes, we do drive a lot of dvd/br sales, yet we also blatantly infringe on IP daily. I'm not an IP freak by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happily recognize I'm stealing their content (Hell, I revel in it). By posting under age material we give them a handle they can use to stop us from sharing.

Just dont do it.

It may be stupid, (why was "Pretty Baby" released mainstream?) Why does the media industry get away with all those underage girls bouncing around dressed like Bangkok whores on tv, in the movies, in music videos?

It doesnt matter.

If the celeb collecting sites/forums want to survive, they MUST keep all that titillating content out.

It's the biggest handle the mpaa/riaa/media conglomerates have to shut us down.

If you have it, enjoy it, for what its worth. There are lots of ways to share with your friends that wont get public places like VEF shut down.

[zplonk]

I don't get it either. As long as Applegate isn't nude, why is the forum scared of being sued by whoever? Nude is nude, and it seems ridiculous to expect that Applegate would be nude in Married with Children, so why limit screencaps to season that she was under 18? Banning the showing photos of underage children, I get that. Even then you have problem because do you follow Kansas rules (age 16) or California rules (age 18) In all of the EU, the age of consent is 16. My main complaint is that you seem to follow the wishes of whoever complains about whatever pic is shown. In other words, this is a PORN forum, yet you apply Sunday school rules, based upon complaints of those who can't stand porn, and the Seven Words that can't be spoken. Where in the rules does it say that on this here porno forum we will adhere to the sensitivities of the most sanctimonious, with 19th century Victorian morals? I guess you're afraid of being sued. That's fair. But 1. exactly how often have you been sued? Not threatened via Cease and Desist letters, because every vindictive older woman whose husband left her for a younger model can whip one of those up in 15 seconds. But an actual suiing? 2. Have you ever thought about calling their bluff? Sorry, mate, but it seems ridiculous to run a porno forum with Sunday school rules and to cower in fear for every complaint. Listen I DO get that every forum is not a democracy, and that it's run like a dictatorship, but this is just my humble opinion, please don't delete this! :) I suppose should add that I totally respect you and your rules, and that talking back to the admins is sacrilege.

[Sam Spade]

I don't get it either. As long as Applegate isn't nude, why is the forum scared of being sued by whoever? Nude is nude, and it seems ridiculous to expect that Applegate would be nude in Married with Children, so why limit screencaps to season that she was under 18? Banning the showing photos of underage children, I get that. Even then you have problem because do you follow Kansas rules (age 16) or California rules (age 18) In all of the EU, the age of consent is 16. My main complaint is that you seem to follow the wishes of whoever complains about whatever pic is shown. In other words, this is a PORN forum, yet you apply Sunday school rules, based upon complaints of those who can't stand porn, and the Seven Words that can't be spoken. Where in the rules does it say that on this here porno forum we will adhere to the sensitivities of the most sanctimonious, with 19th century Victorian morals? I guess you're afraid of being sued. That's fair. But 1. exactly how often have you been sued? Not threatened via Cease and Desist letters, because every vindictive older woman whose husband left her for a younger model can whip one of those up in 15 seconds. But an actual suiing? 2. Have you ever thought about calling their bluff? Sorry, mate, but it seems ridiculous to run a porno forum with Sunday school rules and to cower in fear for every complaint. Listen I DO get that every forum is not a democracy, and that it's run like a dictatorship, but this is just my humble opinion, please don't delete this! :) I suppose should add that I totally respect you and your rules, and that talking back to the admins is sacrilege.

http://i6.ifrm.com/14806/136/emo/banghead.gif


Talking to, or back to admins is not sacrilege, though rehashing something that has been discussed, at length many, many times is punishable by death.;)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with us being sued, it has everything with us doing what is necessary to protect this forum, ourselves and our members from being prosecuted for distributing child pornography.

It is precisely because we are a hard core porn forum, first and foremost that we have to be very rigid on this point, it was decided by the mods several years back to have an age rule, and that age was 18, in the UK 18 is the legal age to do most stuff kids look forward (or not) to, drinking, gambling, getting married without parental consent, getting a tattoo, posing in porn magazines, movies etc.

Where would you draw the line?, seeing an actress in sexy attire such as a bikini or skimpy shorts and top, 17, 16, 15, 14?????

Again I say, this is the rule, we expect all members to adhere to it, if you like seeing under 18's then this is not the forum for you.

[zplonk]

I'm sorry if this has been discussed to death, I don't want to rehash anything, but I've read the thread, and up till now, the discussion didn't make a whole lot of sense, I was completely lost when the argument seemed to be made that we shouldn't post Applegates non-nude pictures because she had breast cancer?

Where would you draw the line?, seeing an actress in sexy attire such as a bikini or skimpy shorts and top, 17, 16, 15, 14?????"Do you have credible proof that showing such pictures or videos, of non-nude girls, of which there are THOUSANDS on Youtube, will lead to being prosecuted for child pornography??

I draw the line at NUDITY, just like major sites like Youtube do.

Where would you draw the line? Showing the face of under 16 girls, that's distributing child porn?

Seriously, to equate linking to pics of girls in bikinis with "distributing child pornography.", is quite insulting to the actual victims of child pronography.
Also, it's NOT the same.

And please, don't try to muddle the issue here with accusations about anyone liking em young.

My issue is the extremism in your standards and overzealousness. I really can't believe that you really think that linking to a prime-time/day-time show like MARRIED with Children is the same as child porn.

Applegate is always fully clothed in the show, no nipples, no underwear, no bikinis, at most she show legs. if I'm wrong, please point out the specific episode.

If that's distributing child pornography, then all the moms from my Midwestern suburb should be sued, because they all have 12-18 year old daughters who wear skimpy shorts to school.


Let's be very clear: I fully get your rule "do not show pictures of girls under 18, even if they're fully clothed".

What really troubles me is your reasoning behind the rule: You fear to be prosecuted for distributing child porn. So that's weird to me. And to others, it seems, when said girls are fully clothed. Yes, since I don't see police roaming the beaches arresting girls wearing bikinis, bikini wearing girls aren't (Todd) Akin to spreading child porn (pun intended) ;)

[DTravel]

The issue is not the over-zealousness and standards of the staff. The issue is the THREAT of legal action, by ANYONE. Any legal action would put this forum out of business. It would simply cost too much to attempt a legal defense.

This site is not linking the posting of pictures of girls under 18 with child pornography. It IS dealing with the reality that many people WILL, for reasons that have little if any connection to reality. This is a PORN SITE, someone, somewhere will link the posting of ANY picture of someone underage by some standard somewhere in the world (or even just their own mind) with child pornography. ("Its a kid, its on a porn site, don't that make it kiddie porn?!")

The Age 18 rule is simple, clear and (relatively) easy to enforce. It also avoids problems with different Moderators in different sections applying different personal standards of "acceptable". The staff has chosen to err on the side of caution. If you cannot accept that, then you should not visit here.

(And I'm not aware of any serious argument that we should stop posting any pics of someone because they had or have breast cancer. :confused: )

[zplonk]

This site is not linking the posting of pictures of girls under 18 with child pornography. It IS dealing with the reality that many people WILL, for reasons that have little if any connection to reality. This is a PORN SITE, someone, somewhere will link the posting of ANY picture of someone underage by some standard somewhere in the world (or even just their own mind) with child pornography. ("Its a kid, its on a porn site, don't that make it kiddie porn?!")


Aaaargh!! You really are causing me head-aches. 1. Again: Why accept the standards of those people who aren't connected reality? (translation: why do what crazy people want you to do?) Why not stand up for your own, and generally accepted norms, standards and regulations: nudity is a no no, everything on day time TV is ok 2. The applegate rule especially is silly, and weird. Pray tell how a completely above board TV show, Disney like in nature, could be misconstrued as child porn. If some people do that, the issue is in THEIR minds, not ours. 3. Has anyone EVER complained about Married with Children? Did you have a sense they weren't trolling, or extremely fixated on this issue? Sorry to go on about this, but I'm really upset about it.

[fleetwood77]

http://i6.ifrm.com/14806/136/emo/banghead.gif


.... in the UK 18 is the legal age to do most stuff kids look forward (or not) to, drinking, gambling, getting married without parental consent, getting a tattoo, posing in porn magazines, movies etc.......


There's actually no such thing as "UK Law".

You can get married in Scotland [which is part of the UK] at 16 without parental consent - many moons ago I myself married a 17 year old and there was nowt her folks could do to stop it.

She and I could legally screw each other's brains out [and oh how we did - I've still got bruises!] but the current forum rules would prevent the posting of any pics of the blushing bride.

[MemoryHunter]

Zplonk,

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it...

This site is free due to (minimal) advertising, and the revenues are just sufficient to cover its operational costs. Even the mods work for free. Any legal defence incurs costs which can be immense and cases can take a long time to resolve, often running into years.

TV and movie studios, along with many actors and actresses employ their own legal teams and have access to large cash reserves.

The bottom line is that potentially any legal action could see the Forum closed for the duration of any case(s) after which the site may be able to reopen after a successful outcome, but it might then need to raise revenue to recoup the costs of legal fees.

If the site is acted against, that may well deter future advertisers and then there remain only two options; close down or become a pay site.

I like the site the way it is. I wouldn't want to see more advertising, or have to pay to be here. Worst of all I'd hate to see the place shut down, even if it were only temporarily.

The best way to avoid people taking legal action is to not give them any reason to do so. Whether it's a legitimate action, or just some nutcase(s) out to cause the site to close through lack of funds.

You may not agree with the rules, but you do have to follow them. As you have stated, the material you talk about is widely available elsewhere on the 'net. So you are not being denied access to it. It's just that you wont see it here.

Life isn't always fair, and the way we'd like it to be. Sometimes you just need to accept that; "That's just the way it is." and learn to live with it.

[Sam Spade]

I could trawl through the arguments for a more liberal attitude one by one, but I won't as it's all been said before, many times.

This site has an owner, he lets the mods create and uphold the rules of the forum, we debated the age rule and the consensus was 18, it's much easier for us to police and for members to adhere to.

If you have a picture of an actress aged 17 in a short skirt and a tight top you might well wonder "does this image violate the forums rule?


(This "rule" is for illustrative purposes only. )


No provocative or sexual images of subjects under the age of 18 ~ non sexual images are allowedYou post it as you think it's OK, a mod then hits you with a formal warning for breaking said rule as he views it as a provocative picture.

You get bent out of shape as you think you have been hard done by, you then debate it with the mod as you disagree with the definition of "sexual" or "titillating".

The bottom line is this...

The rule is fairly straightforward to understand for both mods and members alike, it is not going to change no matter what you may think or say, if you do not like this rule I suggest you find another forum that allows such images.

End of story.

[zplonk]

Don't get me wrong, there's much about this site that I like, and your rules are your rules, (~Removed~) I don't really expect you to change them, because, you know, who wants to admit they've been wrong about anything? I respect that emotion, I really do.

"The best way to avoid people taking legal action is to not give them any reason to do so. Whether it's a legitimate action, or just some nutcase(s) out to cause the site to close through lack of funds."
Yah. There's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit, though. This applies to the Applegate rule.
Seriously now: has anyone ever threatened the site, or ANY site with allegations of child porn because it has linked to screencaps of Christina Applegate on Married with Children?
No one seems to want to give me a straight answer on that one???!!
This is specifically about Applegate case.

And it's not true that people can just frivolously sue you, threaten to prosecute you, which the D.A. has to do, not "people" and I guarantee you, "Christina Applegate is child porn... because she was filmed fully clothed when she 18 in prime time", does not a good case make. DA's wanna be re-elected and all that.

I guess my other question is:
Can you give a link to any case where a site was threatened with any legal action, because they linked to screencaps of Christina Applegate on "Married with children"?

I agree with the need for clear rules, and the clearest rule is: no nudity.
No "sexy clothes" seems silly to me.

And the best way to avoid anything is not run a site at all, esspecially a porn one. (Also, with all due respect, this site is certainly not a hardcore porn site, it's quite softcore. Which I like.)

PS. you've worn me down. I'd like an answer to my questions, but at this point, I don't think I will get a straight one, so for me, this is quits.

[DTravel]

Zplonk, you are not going to get an answer to the question as you are asking it. When sites like this go down they do so for one of three reasons. 1) The owner doesn't want to run it anymore; 2) It runs out of money; or 3) Legal problems. AND THAT IS AS MUCH DETAIL AS THE USERS EVER GET 99% OF THE TIME. There are no "This site is being shut down because we were sued by XUZ on DATE over the posting of these images [DETAILS OR COPIES OF IMAGES]. You might get "This site has been shut down for violating the DMCA." But probably not.

This is the simple rule for here. This is an adult oriented site. As part of that the decision has been made that only images of adults will be posted here and the owner and staff have decided that 18 is the minimum age of "adult" for the purposes of this site. End of rule.

[69 chevy]

3. Has anyone EVER complained about Married with Children?

Actually, yes.

On January 15, 1989, Terry Rakolta and her children watched the Married... with Children episode "Her cups runneth over" (306). She was shocked by several things she saw when Al and Steve were shopping at a lingerie store in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. There was a homosexual, a man in stockings and a woman who took off her bra (see the picture of topless Playboy Miss June 1985 Devin Velasquez playing "Vicki"). Therefore she wrote letters to all Married... with Children sponsors, protesting against their support for such a scandalous show, and several sponsors decided to cancel their commercials. This encouraged Terry Rakolta to leave her home in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, to visit some talkshows. On March 2, 1989, this story made it to the front page of The New York Times. Other newspapers and TV shows also reported about her campaign against the show. Finally Rakolta even founded the group "Americans for Responsible Television" to fight for traditional values on US TV. However, this publicity made the people curious about the show and its ratings increased tremendously. The producers have sent a fruit basket to Rakolta every Christmas since then, and she was even mentioned twice on the show: we can hear a TV announcer refer to Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, in episode 414 (talking about sluts!), and Marcy mentions Rakolta as "woman from Michigan" in episode 909. Hustler magazine made her "Asshole of the Month".