Comments on: CBS won’t be a reality for Reality Kings

By: RUN PRODUCTIONS

RUN PRODUCTIONS — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:28:00 +0000

IM A KIMBO AND A REALITY KING FAN…. I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE KIMBO’S LAST FIGHT…. I KNOW $$$ TALKS BUT, YOU HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT… AND ALL HE DOES ON THE WEBSITE IS BOUNCE…. HE’S LIKE A BODYGUARD… HE SHOULE WEAR SOMETHING THAT READS “R.K.”

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: RTL

RTL — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:24:48 +0000

“MMA doesn’t need porn. Porn needs MMA.”

Umm… hey, dumb-dumb. The MMA industry minus the UFC is a couple million dollar industry, and with the UFC, is scratching $1 billion. However, the pornographic industry is a $15 billion dollar industry.

Reality Kings should be allowed as a sponsor. Both companies target their products/services for the same 18-34 male demographic. Playboy gets mentioned all the time on network television, but because it’s a public company that the parent companies of most network televisions want to be on good terms with, it always passes their standards and practices. Double standard, double standard.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: DJA

DJA — Sat, 24 May 2008 22:05:59 +0000

Say it with me slowly – the first amendment only applies to the government. Private business may regulate speech.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: mike wolfe

mike wolfe — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:44:38 +0000

So the porn guys got used and then tossed aside when they weren’t marketable anymore? What goes around comes around. LOL.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: B-Leshosu

B-Leshosu — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:16:14 +0000

I don’t blame CBS for keeping a close grip on the sponsors involved in their main even t fight. Maybe ignorant people will see that the sport is just that a sport not a bloodbath like people want to think.
Also, I can’t wait to see how CBS works it’s crowd shots to miss the fans sporting the obvious Affliction shirts… I don’t think the Affliction ban is going to last too much longer for MMA events.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Bad Monkey

Bad Monkey — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:51:44 +0000

I love those websites

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Will Emero II

Will Emero II — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:42:13 +0000

Egad81, CBS has a right to control what it airs. It’s not censorship, but product control. It’s a prudent business move – especially in light of the political climate in this country – to do so.

I’m with Eric on this, MMA doesn’t need an association with pornographers, it would only sully the sport to the world at large. And it has the potential to bring back the days of the ‘human cockfighting’ image of the sport, so to speak.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:15:48 +0000

Just thinking out loud: should the UFC ever get a network deal, do you suppose all the condomdepot.com shorts will be allowed?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 24 May 2008 14:03:35 +0000

I want to see MMA succeed and getting sponsored by porn companies will probably hurt. Can you imagine the arguments about MMA being associated with porn and how it shouldn’t be in primetime? It’s bad enough people associate it with senseless brutality without actually checking the facts and seeing what it’s about. MMA doesn’t need porn. Porn needs MMA. I’m sure Kimbo can find someone else to sponsor him, I’m not worried for him. MMA has finally landed a primetime slot, something porn could only dream of, so they are leeching on and trying to get some publicity out of this. When Reality Kings starts up their own MMA company, then it is Affliction vs. UFC all over again. Until then it is keeping some scumbag company out of a sport we love.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: egad81

egad81 — Sat, 24 May 2008 13:34:30 +0000

well… if that is not a violation of our first amendment right I dont know what is.

CENSORSHIP is wrong!!!

I could see if there were naked bitches on kimbos fight shorts that might be in poor taste but to ban a logo because of the product they sell (which is NOT illegal)
Sounds to me like AFFLICTION vs UFC all over again.

Like or Dislike: 0 0