»Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex?«
|
|||
 The "powers to be" at least in the US show violence and gore in movies, news, etc all the time. Yet they censor nudity and all love making scenes from movies. The biggest excuss I hear is that "it is so the kids don't see". This seems backwards to me. Although at a young age, I wouldn't want my kid seeing either, I don't understand the logic behind not wanting kids to see nudity, but allowing them to see every type of violence that can occur. You could reason that violence gets ratings and that's the purpose, but then so does nudity. So that's not the whole reason. Does this seem backwards to anyone else? 
So my 2 questions to you are 1. Why would the media allow depictions of violent behaviour and not depictions of love making? One leads to death, destruction etc., the other leads to life, creation? 2. Which would you rather your child see, someone acting like they are killing someone, or acting like they are making love? Think about it...You might say violence because we have been desensitized to it for so long, but in an ideal world, which is worse for a child to actually see the next time you happen to be flipping channels? And i know in some foreign countries they allow topless nudity on TV, so you can't use that as an arguement! posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgEntertainment & SportsEntertainment & Art (Assorted topics)Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex? |
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: So my 2 questions to you are
1. Why would the media allow depictions of violent behaviour and not depictions of love making? One leads to death, destruction etc., the other leads to life, creation? 2. Which would you rather your child see, someone acting like they are killing someone, or acting like they are making love? Think about it...You might say violence because we have been desensitized to it for so long, but in an ideal world, which is worse for a child to actually see the next time you happen to be flipping channels? And i know in some foreign countries they allow topless nudity on TV, so you can't use that as an arguement! One word. Christianity. The bible is packed w/ God-sanctioned violence but very little sex other than for procreation. Sex is one of the strongest bonding acts for a couple, yet xians often see it as sinful unless all these rules are attached. But how in the world is a full-on rule-following xian couple supposed to know how to really enjoy sex if they know nothing about it? Violence has been a standard practice in spreading xianity. Xianity is still in control of much of America as exampled by the Nov elections. Some hardcore xians will kills doctors for performing abortions. Eye for an eye shit. Now sure, many, likely a large % of modern xians are "moderate". But how moderate would they be if they lived in the 1800s? the 1400s? Where xianity was in power right next to or above kings. They are moderate because of the times they live in where the past actions and order-spreading control of xianity will only be allowed to go so far. Xianity lost its huge powerbase with the fall of victorian society. However it lives on and grows in power more and more by spreading hate against the way the world is and wanting to return back to a time which never really existed for everyone. So that's my answer. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
yes the US is a christian majority nation, but the media? i beg to differ. they are about the futhest thing from religous concepts or ideals, christianity as a whole in our nation may be at the core of the reason, but our media is deffinantly not christan at it's base. you could even go with the conspiracy that the Jews run the networks, movies etc.(but this is off topic) just a way to show the media is not christian ran so there's got to be more to it than that... posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: yes the US is a christian majority nation, but the media? i beg to differ. they are about the futhest thing from religous concepts or ideals, christianity as a whole in our nation may be at the core of the reason, but our media is deffinantly not christan at it's base. you could even go with the conspiracy that the Jews run the networks, movies etc.(but this is off topic) just a way to show the media is not christian ran
so there's got to be more to it than that... Indeed there is more to it than that, I just wanted to get my shots in. One thing about the media though, if someone complains enough and in enough numbers then the media will often cave in on the topic in question. Not always but often. And who is doing that complaining? Xians. Now xians can complain about shows like Real Sex on hbo all they want and everyone will just laugh at them. My main point concerning xians here is that they contribute a decent portion to not having as much sex on tv as there is violence. Who has gotten howard stern thrown of the air in many cities? He has one of the biggest grossing, most popular radio programs ever. It was conservative groups that influence/run the FCC that want to censor sex since clearly that is the worst thing wrong w/ the country right now. CLEARLY! posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: And i know in some foreign countries they allow topless nudity on TV Hahaha, topless? They allow freakin sex with erected penises! Prostitutes having ads running on TV "Meet me at..." USAnians are usually shocked when they watch European TV for the first time. It's a strange thing indeed: Massacrated soldiers are shown on TV, but not anatomy. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: One word. Christianity. The bible is packed w/ God-sanctioned violence but very little sex other than for procreation This seems to be true, however the bible doesn't mention porn nor nudity nor masturbation nor abortion. Thus there is something underlying to it. Probably Christianity is highly attractive to persons that are anti-sex anyway (e.g. have underdeveloped testicles like maybe ›John Ashcroft‹). volonteshiva: Violence has been a standard practice in spreading xianity Moreover, having sex weakens your desire to invade and kill. volonteshiva: But how moderate would they be if they lived in the 1800s? the 1400s? I have always the feeling that Christians would establish a new reign of suppression if they just could. volonteshiva: wanting to return back to a time which never really existed for everyone. Hey, what did I just say? 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: yes the US is a christian majority nation, but the media? i beg to differ. The media is restricted by laws to do it. Please also consider how the legal process goes: Someone shouts: "Forbid beastiality." Then some politicians sit together and forbid beastiality. Now what do you actually do to ALLOW beastiality? You'd have to say "I want to allow beastiality" which would label you as the "Beastiality guy". You see that PUSHING laws through is a lot of harder than abolishing them. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: volonteshiva: But how moderate would they be if they lived in the 1800s? the 1400s? I have always the feeling that Christians would establish a new reign of suppression if they just could. It's just hard to imagine that anyone would want to go back to a time where, as a scientist who claims that the earth revolves around the sun, your 2 choices are to die at the hands of the mother church who can never be wrong, or you can say that the work you have done for years is false and incorrect and still remain under house arrest. Some xians are so fearful of evolution that they would want to return to a time where xians in power could strike down people that scare them w/ science and facts and reason. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I was having the debate on this with a friend the other night. Just to sort out a few things first in view of relating my conclusions to the title of this thread: 1) What is censored is not simply sex acts. It is nudity in general. Initially this should have you even more confused since surely there is nothing immoral about the presence of the human body? 2) When we talk about violence this is also quite broad. Children will come across comic violence quite early in their life. Take Tom and Jerry for example! (hence the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon parodying it in the Simpsons) Violence tends to be classed in terms of a scale with more graphic gory violence higher up the scale. We'd just gone into a bar where the wrestling was playing on screen. Strange thing was that before showing a fight they had this whole big thing of calling out several women to ring who then proceeded to remove their dresses and frolic in their underwear. (Do remember that wrestling isn't such a popular thing in Britain) Later on a match started and three blokes proceeded to fake each other. Very much comic violence. Even a little kid could've told that this was not a real fight. For no apparent reason (from what I can tell) several kids from the audience came onto stage. It was at this point that my friend said "I hope they didn't see the bit with the girls earlier". To this I replied "surely there more reason to upset that they are being shown a fight? Isn't violence worse than a moderate bit of nudity?" There followed a very heated argument. Mostly 'heated' because I didn't understand her point of view and she got very upset when I didn't agree with her confusing responses. In the end I agreed with her to a certain extent though I insisted on clarifying a few things. Nudity isn't wrong in itself, but in our society there are rules that you do not simply take your clothes off in public. People taking their clothes off for an audience is not normal and the incident we had seen on tv represented it as such. My friend pointed out that children are very suggestible and will quickly start copying things they see. She sees it as unhealthy if they are convinced that it is normal to expect women to strip to their undies. This is not to say that you always have to worry whether a child will copy events onscreen. There is no helping stupid children who decide to jump out of a window in order to copy superman. However, it seems that we can expect unusual behaviour to be depicted as unreal. When I was younger a friend of mine's parents found it very important to stress that violence in films is never real. I think to a certain extent it is also evident in the wrestling matches that the violence is not real - though not perhaps quite evident enough. There is a feminist principle at heart here. (Don't worry - not a man hating one). If people (notice not men or women) are depicted as stripping for an audience then older viewers will be better equipped to distance this from real life where people should not be seen as objects in everyday life. I am not saying that stripping for an audience is always inappropriate, but that there are conditions which make it appropriate that younger audiences would not understand. So here the argument that: Children can't understand the relvance of nudity and therefore it can't hurt them. is replaced by the argument that: Children can't understand the appropriate conditions under which nudity does/should take place. As a result it can confuse them and possibly even have a damaging affect on their social behaviour. Any thoughts on this? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: 1) What is censored is not simply sex acts. It is nudity in general. Initially this should have you even more confused since surely there is nothing immoral about the presence of the human body? Xians are deathly afraid of the naked human body. Parents are afraid to talk to their kids openly about their bodies and sex because the parents are uncomfortable w/ the subject to begin with. This is how things can go wrong w/ kids experimenting w/ sex or just being accepting of their body. fatpie42: 2) When we talk about violence this is also quite broad. Children will come across comic violence quite early in their life. Take Tom and Jerry for example! (hence the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon parodying it in the Simpsons) Violence tends to be classed in terms of a scale with more graphic gory violence higher up the scale. I think being bombared w/ violence in certain contextes as being acceptable from childhood to adulthood really gets deep into our psyches and shows why people can't control their aggressive emotions. fatpie42: We'd just gone into a bar where the wrestling was playing on screen. Strange thing was that before showing a fight they had this whole big thing of calling out several women to ring who then proceeded to remove their dresses and frolic in their underwear. (Do remember that wrestling isn't such a popular thing in Britain) What time did you go to the bar/when was the program on? fatpie42: So here the argument that:
Children can't understand the relvance of nudity and therefore it can't hurt them. is replaced by the argument that: Children can't understand the appropriate conditions under which nudity does/should take place. As a result it can confuse them and possibly even have a damaging affect on their social behaviour. Any thoughts on this? Being sexually abused at a young age will DEFINITELY affect your mental growth and affect your life. Now what will seeing nudity do you young people? If they are taught that the human body is naturally naked and that their is no reason to be ashamed of your body, then I think it wouldn't be a big deal. Now young kids shouldn't see sex, since that will likely disturb their developing mental state depending on the situation. But people that want to cover up the statue of David because kids will see that are ridiculous. Allowing kids to see that their bodies are normal and similar to everyone else's is calming, important knowledge. Are the kids that grow up in Italy and other countries that show nudity on TV during the daytime messed up or are they more accepting and more relaxed with their bodies? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Hi Fatpie. Good post. fatpie42: Children can't understand the appropriate conditions under which nudity does/should take place. As a result it can confuse them and possibly even have a damaging affect on their social behaviour. Well, says who? If you are a kid and start to fight your schoolfriends because you saw it on TV then you parents will stop you. If you undress because you saw it on TV then your parents will stop you too. I see no big difference, except that copying sex may easily lead to unexpected pregancies. It also could be, that the major force behind forbidding display of nudity may be... women: A hidden fear that their man may watch other naked women and start to complain. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: It also could be, that the major force behind forbidding display of nudity may be... women: A hidden fear that their man may watch other naked women and start to complain. yes, this is a good point, the man woman double standard. Is it more acceptable to see naked men's asses on tv than women's for the censors? A naked man's chest isn't equal to a naked woman's but you see that on tv often. I often don't understand how they will show a woman's breasts if her nipples are covered, yet show any nip and it's blurred. how is the rest of the breast perfectly fine to show in these circumstances to the censors? It's not like anything is still left to the imagination, just show it! posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Censored nipples? Is this an American thing? Either they are topless or they aren't - I have never seen censored nipples. The wrestling was being shown at about 10 at night. The point is that 'stripping' (not 'nudity') was being shown. More importantly, stripping for an audience. There were children at the show and what kind of impression does this give to children about how they should perceive women? If children are exposed to this, they might be lead to think that it is normal to expect women to strip for an audience. Obviously we should hope they are corrected on this, but even so it is not the sort of message we should be sending to children anyway. Stripping is one of many forms of nudity, but the statue 'David' is very different since it does not express a particular form of action but simply portrays a dignified naked body. There is nothing suggestive about the statue and as such it is not controversial. (I'll admit I have been inconsistent here since I said violence had to be comic to be ok wheras David certainly isn't a comic statue - still I think it is fair to say that violence and nudity are different kinds of action which have a different type of scale) posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: they might be lead to think that it is normal to expect women to strip for an audience. And they might be lead to think that wrestling is OK for men. Sorry, don't buy it. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: If children are exposed to this, they might be lead to think that it is normal to expect women to strip for an audience. Obviously we should hope they are corrected on this, but even so it is not the sort of message we should be sending to children anyway. so your still worried about the nudity? my point of this entire thread was to show violence being worse than nudity to censor, but here we are discussing the atrocities of a child seeing stripping, was it even all the way to their b-day suit? which is in my opinion not nearly as bad are we so desensitized that we can't see which is less appealing? is the world so fucking bassackwards that we are worried about a kid seeing a nipple? if you remember as a baby that's ALL you could see! and it was your favorite thing in the world! it tasted good and kept you full, now we are not suppose to want to look at it? idiotic viewing a stripping or viewing a killing... neither are healthy to a child but i hope we can agree one is a bit worse and it is the one that we allow to be seen the most posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 22:57 php B.B. |