Society and Nudity

[Vezon Dash]

Thread Split from Things that Annoy you.

~@Randox

 

When you can show someone being decapitated on TV, but an areola causes WW3 with the ratings administration and a huge fine. Nipplphobiacs.

 

When people with 40 thousand dollar vehicles lack the capacity to drive more than 15 miles an hour in a 45 zone when it is raining two counties over

 

It is illegal to show porn to minors, but you can show blood and gore to the masses. That is why we don't see nips on TV. (which I don't know why you have an issue with it)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, wtf. [bleep] is censored?

Edited December 5, 2012 by Randox

[champion]

When you can show someone being decapitated on TV, but an areola causes WW3 with the ratings administration and a huge fine. Nipplphobiacs.

 

When people with 40 thousand dollar vehicles lack the capacity to drive more than 15 miles an hour in a 45 zone when it is raining two counties over

 

It is illegal to show porn to minors, but you can show blood and gore to the masses. That is why we don't see nips on TV.

This is the idea that he's arguing against in the first place though.

[Vezon Dash]

We don't need society becoming anymore hypersexual than it already is.

[RSBDavid]

When you can show someone being decapitated on TV, but an areola causes WW3 with the ratings administration and a huge fine. Nipplphobiacs.

 

When people with 40 thousand dollar vehicles lack the capacity to drive more than 15 miles an hour in a 45 zone when it is raining two counties over

 

It is illegal to show porn to minors, but you can show blood and gore to the masses. That is why we don't see nips on TV.

This is the idea that he's arguing against in the first place though.

 

Nudity != Porn, before I get another warning point, I will end the sex vs nudity topic here.

[Vezon Dash]

I'm not arguing that point because I agree with you, but I'm going to assume that the law is in place because people would pass off porn on TV by calling it art. It eliminates the grey area, which is a good thing.

[Tim]

Actually in M/MA Ratings, nips/breasts are viewable, when genetalia is involved it becomes close and beyond R, but it also depends on the context. Sexual scenes it's Porn, while....Jackass stuff is more of Public nudity.

 

Just a little 2 cents.

[Hedgehog]

We don't need society becoming anymore hypersexual than it already is.

 

You could argue that we don't need society becoming any more hyperviolent than it already is.

[Alg]

Actually in M/MA Ratings, nips/breasts are viewable, when genetalia is involved it becomes close and beyond R, but it also depends on the context. Sexual scenes it's Porn, while....Jackass stuff is more of Public nudity.

 

Just a little 2 cents.

It's somewhat similar for film/games in the States, but TV is just different. You can have a show with graphic violence (With limits, of course), incredibly suggestive dialogue (Especially if comedy, moreso if produced by Chuck Lorre), plenty of swearing (Again, with some loose limits), and enough crime and immorality to make Al Capone think you've crossed a line. Female nipples are apparently unacceptable in any context, even if the show is fine with showing the rest of the breast, implying its presence, discussing it in detail, and so on.

 

I understand the reasons for it, I just wish they'd be more consistent.

 

Urge to debate... Rising. Somebody help please :sad:

[Giordano]

As much as I don't want censorship, I'm glad sexualized images are not shown on TV. It would be done to such an overkill.

[Alg]

Like what we're currently doing with violence. :twss:

[Giordano]

Violence is just an extension of our competitiveness, which we possess naturally: the want to exceed, to surpass our opponents. Competition doesn't have to be violent, like films where the hero and anti-hero have to outwit each other, but violence is just an easier form to express. I do agree that violence is played too much sometimes, but it's a lot more logically than sex.

 

Sex isn't competitive, it doesn't solve a problem or end a crisis. In fact, most of the times it makes more problems. There are no ideals with sex, you cannot defeat a villain with sex or fight for freedom with sex. The only goal in sex is to please the character's biological need: normally you shouldn't care about the sexual needs of others, why care about the character's? All sex does is bring in viewers and spice up just enough controversy to get attention (e.g. nearly every trailer in the damn world. Sherlock Homes, crime detective? Show a clip of sex. The life of Emperor Napoleon? Show a clip of sex. Construction of the Hoover Dam? Show a clip of sex. It's totally unrelated to the main plot).

 

Also lets be honest, that's why sex is on TV. It occasionally provides advancement to the plot but that can be suggested and not shown. It's done because every producer wants more viewers so they'll add an unnecessary sex scene. It'll be overkill. Unnecessary overkill at that.

[Alg]

I'd argue that it's a tool like any other, though one where it's more rewarding to use it as often as possible than it is to use it well. Less is more.

 

It's character-driven rather than plot-driven.

[RSBDavid]

While some directors and shows would push the limits, I believe the opportunity for TV shows to feature "sexless" nudity would be a step towards a more open culture. Everyone in America is so afraid of the word "[bleep]" or a breast it is just annoying. In the UK there are several nude drawing show on TV which are actually interesting. The art really shows the human body in it's true form. I mean, you can't even have educational medical shows which cover more personal topics. You can't really watch UK shows from America without getting a ton of porn ads. Basically, if someone doesn't want to see a boob, they can just change the channel. It is what many families do with violence or language or anything else they don't want to see.

 

I actually wouldn't mind in the future if there was an option on cable boxes to totally filter out whatever you want, basically a more advanced version of what already exists. They can send the censor data alongside the media data and then based on your box settings, apply a censor where it is needed.

[decebal]

While some directors and shows would push the limits, I believe the opportunity for TV shows to feature "sexless" nudity would be a step towards a more open culture. Everyone in America is so afraid of the word "[bleep]" or a breast it is just annoying. In the UK there are several nude drawing show on TV which are actually interesting. The art really shows the human body in it's true form. I mean, you can't even have educational medical shows which cover more personal topics. You can't really watch UK shows from America without getting a ton of porn ads. Basically, if someone doesn't want to see a boob, they can just change the channel. It is what many families do with violence or language or anything else they don't want to see.

 

I actually wouldn't mind in the future if there was an option on cable boxes to totally filter out whatever you want, basically a more advanced version of what already exists. They can send the censor data alongside the media data and then based on your box settings, apply a censor where it is needed.

The same way allowing nudity on TV will make people overuse their freedom, this option would give certain governments (maybe even a few media companies) powers I'm really not comfortable with them having because they could easily overuse them.

[muggiwhplar]

We don't need society becoming anymore hypersexual than it already is.

 

Ehh. American society is incredibly sexually repressed. I think a lot of problems in the US today stem from sexual frustrations.

[Vezon Dash]

We don't need society becoming anymore hypersexual than it already is.

 

Ehh. American society is incredibly sexually repressed. I think a lot of problems in the US today stem from sexual frustrations.

 

Maybe it is repressed because of the pedestal that sex has been put on. I'd rather like to know what you mean by "sexual frustrations" though.

[nine naked men]

The WBC probably wouldn't hate gay people so much if they got [bleep]ed, for example.

[Vezon Dash]

Is that at all relevant to the discussion? I'm pretty sure that not having sex has little or nothing to do with hating homosexuals.

[muggiwhplar]

We don't need society becoming anymore hypersexual than it already is.

 

Ehh. American society is incredibly sexually repressed. I think a lot of problems in the US today stem from sexual frustrations.

 

Maybe it is repressed because of the pedestal that sex has been put on. I'd rather like to know what you mean by "sexual frustrations" though.

 

Pretty much.

 

By sexual frustrations, I meant women generally being confused and frustrated because society tells them to want one thing, while their body tells them to want another, and society also tells them that her sexual urges are bad. As a result, many women feel guilty about having sex. Similarly, society tells men that it's bad to have consensual sex with a variety of different women-- that for some reason it's "immature" or "shallow." Instead, society says men should settle down for just one woman and limit his sexuality to only her. Meanwhile, the guys who can't get laid in the first place have no idea what the [bleep] they're supposed to do. They can't go to women for advice because the women don't know what the hell they want, and they can't go to the men for advice because they think the "successful" men are all manipulative douches. Then there's also the women who can't get laid because they're physically unattractive, and blame men instead of themselves, because society says "inner beauty" is what matters, and that if you disagree then you're a shallow douche.

[Tim]

And then people wondered why I had so many issues with relationships before I hit 20.

 

Kinda feels bad and slightly frustrating, I never got to do anything that you do as a teen, be stupid, drink, sex etc etc. Everyone shunned me, and I was that one guy who got no where and no one would or could seem to help.

 

 

....Still kinda is.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to show full body nudity or acts of a sexual nature in a TV slot where very young people may be watching, because there's a real issue there about how well they can comprehend what they're seeing. Then again, the same could be said for scenes of a violent nature, especially war. I wouldn't expect a ten- or eleven-year-old to understand these things because they lack the knowledge to place things into context.

 

However, I think that sex itself shouldn't be as much of an issue as it is, especially amongst young men. When we talk about sexuality, we talk almost exclusively about women. One of the best selling books of the year was Fifty Shades of Grey; I can't imagine a similar book written for a male audience would achieve anywhere near the same level of popularity, because society in general would think there's something 'weird' about a man reading that sort of stuff. Given that situation, is it any wonder so many young men, and even some women, turn to pornography as a way of exploring the sexuality that society denies them the right to discuss in public?

 

We like to laugh at European countries for their nude beaches and laissez-faire attitude, but for goodness sake, at least sex is there for people to see as a perfectly normal and safe thing to do. We talk to our friends, colleagues, people we've only just met about eating, sleeping, partying, energy prices and the price of clothes, all of which are also necessary to everyday life; well, sexual expression is also necessary, but we have this big hang up about it, and it makes no sense.

 

Violence on the other hand definitely is not a safe feature of daily living, but we seem to be more "Okay" with showing that all the time.

[Riku3220]

Violence is used so that there can be excitement in the conflict. Sure, arguments with raised voices can be tense and exciting, but we're expected to believe that there's no war or crime in the television universe? Implying violence doesn't work in the same way that implying sex does because showing just how the main couple bumped uglies doesn't really do much to explain or further what happened, but you can't just pan away at the sound of gunshots and return to the characters with 3 people missing. That leaves holes in the story. "Did they really die?" "What if they were knocked unconscious, believed dead and left in the battlefield?" "What if they were taken prisoner?" Of course, we can live with a little less gore porn. Thing like Final Destination and Saw really lack a point to the amount of violence they have.

[Racheya]

I was going to make a normal post but this thread has taken a turn for the interesting. I don't think its really fair for women to be told, through what is shown on TV and the regulation behind it, that their bodies are shameful and shouldn't be shown. There are lots of mixed messages. I wouldn't condone porn on primetime tv slots but after the watershed, more mature content - be it of a sexual or violent nature, is something we should have. Violence is not 'better' than sex and there is nothing unnatural about the human body so that it needs to be covered up, while its okay for horrific violence to be shown. Its all about approaching mature topics with the maturity they should be treated with.

[Kaida23]

you cannot defeat a villain with sex or fight for freedom with sex.

I think James Bond would disagree. :P

 

I do agree that, as a society, we need to start pulling our heads out of our backsides when it comes to sex.

[Riku3220]

I also think that we can stand to not be so uptight about nudity and sex, but I can't for the life of me imagine many legitimate purposes to put it into a TV show other than "lol boobies".