haha that scene has got to be one of my favorites. I'd pay to see that on an episode of CSI haha. I have some relatives that would lose it.

John Waters, the "prince of puke," says it best...

"There's good bad taste and bad bad taste."

Pink Flamingos is probably one of the most repugnant movies ever made. And yet if you buy into its logic, it's also one of the funniest.

Waters follow up, FEMALE TROUBLE, is even more horrifically distasteful in many ways (it just didn't get as much ink because Divine doesn't nosh on doggie poo in it as opposed to its predecessor). And, again, sidesplitting.

Like Scott said, as long as you achieve what you set out to achieve, "offensive" will always remain in the eye of the beholder. If you make a putrid comedy, be sure you first and foremost make it funny... then all putrescence is forgiven.

Richard Donner received death threats from hardline Christians who took offensive to Superman being retold using Biblical metaphors.

Another interesting post, Scott. I think you're absolutely right that the writer's main responsibility is to the story. If you treat your story honestly, I think you'll take your audience with you. And a lot of it's down to genre conventions and audience expectations; people will generally know what they're letting themselves in for. (I remember reading a great newspaper column somewhere about someone who inadvertently ended up watching Blue Velvet with their prim and proper mum).

I know this is stating the bleedin' obvious, but 'offensiveness' is such a subjective concept that it's impossible to draw a line for yourself while you're writing; 'Oh no - that gag measures 17 units of offence, and I'd promised myself not to go above 14'.

If you want to be provocative in your work, or create heightened emotional responses in your viewers, then the chances are you're eventually going to cross someone's line. But people will generally sniff out when it's a cheap trick or gratuitous.

A bit different, but mostly the same:

Stephen King has always said that he writes what the story tells him to write. He can't concern himself with the reader's opinion on what is or is not offensive.

He mentions in "On Writing" that he received letters from animal/dog lovers criticizing him for being an animal/dog hater and abuser because one of his characters kicks a dog.

The point, as Scott already mentioned: someone will find something to be offended by and they won't consider that the story is a fictional expression of reality.

So write what stays true to the story. If you're true to the story, the audience/reader will respect you for it (or possibly take it so seriously they'll hate you for it).