»Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex?«
|
|||
 I think violence and sexual content are two very different issues. But if you are thinking that I have said nudity is harmful then you simply haven't understood my argument. Nudity is fine. Wonderful. But that is because nudity does not have to be suggestive. I would even say that there is nothing wrong with children seeing sex either (though I may be strung up in the town square for saying so). The problem is when the suggestive nudity has an fantasy element that isn't made explicit. If it is made to look as if people stripping for an audience (ie. not people simply undressing, but actually suggestive) is normal behaviour and should be expected, then it demeans the position of women. Adults can better recognise that this is a fantasy element being performed under controlled conditions - and can better seperate it from real life. Sex too, if shown as a loving act between two people, could be perfectly reasonable to see. But I do not think it is appropriate for children when a fantasy element comes in and men and women are talking dirty and calling each other names. This suggests that this is normal behaviour when it is actually a fantasy element that we, as adults, recognise has no bearing on how couples treat each other outside of the bearing (or at least shouldn't). In the same way violence should be shown in the right context so that is recognisable as fantasy. When violence is shown as real it is important that it is shown responsibly. When the depiction is more controversial and more graphic it is necessary to keep children away from it. I actually think there is not enough of a comic aspect to wrestling to make it suitable for young children. But then again I can't stand wrestling anyway. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgEntertainment & SportsEntertainment & Art (Assorted topics)Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex? |
|
|||
|
knn: 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. I do. Wrestling suggests that blokes being macho and beating each other up is normal. Older viewers can better recognise that this is comic violence and seperate it from real life. Children cannot. In one country they had a wonderful law passed, though I'm not sure how well it worked. The law banned the showing of adverts aimed at under-12s. If you wanted to advertise toys you would have to aim the advert at the parents. - Once again the problem is that children do not understand that the advert has a different approach to normal and that is why they are more susceptible to them. Children can be very trusting of what they are told, because they have not got the experience to back up their own opinions. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: In the same way violence should be shown in the right context so that is recognisable as fantasy. But this not the premise of this thread. Showing murder on TV (real murder on real news channels, e.g. the killed US soldier being dragged thru dirt) is allowed, while real nipples are forbidden. You try to bring in another element "fantasy". But even that doesn't apply. Sex is not allowed under any circumstances: If Hollywood makes a fairy tale and shows hardcore action between the the wolf and the gandma then this is forbidden. But it's allowed to show how the wolf eats the grandma. I don't know how children would be better in distinguishing fantasy grandma eating from fantasy grandma sexing. And guess what: Children DO fear wolves. And it's not because wolves are horny. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The plural of wolf is wolves. I don't think children would be allowed to see a wolf eating a grandmother unless it was a cartoon because otherwise it would involve showing gore. Like i said, there is a scale involved here. The point here is not what IS shown, but what SHOULD be shown. I think that showing the wolf shagging the grandmother would be bestiality and therefore obscene. However showing a woman having sex is not wrong to show to children. The point is that it should be shown in an appropriate context. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: The point here is not what IS shown, but what SHOULD be shown. I don't think that's the point. I think you are changing the topic. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I think that showing the wolf shagging the grandmother would be bestiality and therefore obscene. So? Even showing a human shagging grandma as a cartoon is forbidden, although it's pretty appropriate in a fairy-tale context, since a lot of fairy-tales are about sex (kissing the frog, talking to wolves etc). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Censored nipples? Is this an American thing? Either they are topless or they aren't - I have never seen censored nipples. In many situations on US tv and in US non-porn mags, if you cover the nipple alone then you can show all the breast. However, if you show nipple then you have to blur the whole breast. Very crazy. fatpie42: 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? ok, for one, what age group of kids are we talking about here? At age 13, women as sexual creatures and doing things sexually in public whether it's exploitive or not, should be things kids are seeing, and most likely is being experienced even younger in America by a year or so. Two, young kids, <10 shouldn't be watching that program at 10pm and shouldn't be at a wrestling match anyway, especially when sex is such a big part of the flair now. 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. I agree w/ you to a point, but kids can and should only be protected from the real world so much. fatpie42: 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. For the xian/conservative groups that sex this double standard in the media, the stature 'David' has been controversial. They have wanted to cover his penis. The moron, former US Attorney General Ashcroft covered the lady of justice cuz her marble boobs are SOO offensive. fatpie42: (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) Agreed, but violence scales are more widely accepted, at least in the US posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: fatpie42: I think that showing the wolf shagging the grandmother would be bestiality and therefore obscene. So? Even showing a human shagging grandma as a cartoon is forbidden, although it's pretty appropriate in a fairy-tale context, since a lot of fairy-tales are about sex (kissing the frog, talking to wolves etc). Having a grandma and sex together is a horrible image that you should move away from as your example of violence allowed vs sex allowed. I, as an adult, don't want anything to do w/ the image of 80yrs of fat, sagging, wrinkled flesh doing the nasty. Also, fairy tales are about love and rarely if ever about sex explicitly. If there is kissing it is just that, and if pregnancy/having a baby is involved it's really glossed over and not explained. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: In one country they had a wonderful law passed, though I'm not sure how well it worked. The law banned the showing of adverts aimed at under-12s. If you wanted to advertise toys you would have to aim the advert at the parents.
- Once again the problem is that children do not understand that the advert has a different approach to normal and that is why they are more susceptible to them. Children can be very trusting of what they are told, because they have not got the experience to back up their own opinions. I like the concept of this, however legislating the media is rarely a good idea. However, ads/commercials viciously focus their claws on kids and molding the kids' wants/wishes to their desires/products. Alot of US obesity in kids is because of this. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volonteshiva: Having a grandma and sex together is a horrible image that you should move away from as your example of violence allowed vs sex allowed. I, as an adult, don't want anything to do w/ the image of 80yrs of fat, sagging, wrinkled flesh doing the nasty. To be very precise, that particular grandma could be about fourty, judging by how early they had children. That changes it a bit, doesn't it?  volonteshiva: Also, fairy tales are about love and rarely if ever about sex explicitly. Yes true, but still they are about sex. Children feel it, even if they don't voice it. How do girls start to think about romance? Fairy-tails. And these dreams involve kissing and something they don't yet know the name for. For children of certain age it's just not interesting. As they grow up, however, they get very much interested in it - and they will discuss it, with or without you. And making all this fuss about switching the channels if people are kissing, or covering their eyes at doubtful scenes only makes it worse. They see a lot of violence, starting with cartoons, indeed. And they take it that if you hit somebody hard or throw him against a wall, nothing will happen to him - no blood, no pain. Really. Fairytails are about violence more explicitly, right? Just without all those images of real blood you can see on TV, but cutting off heads, arms and tearing to pieces is pretty ok in fairy tails. Maybe that's the way they teach children, because after all sex is supposed to be something private, while fighting - not necessarily. Maybe it is the Christianity that influences what we can see. Russia is also a pretty Christian country these days, and they don't allow even breasts with covered nipples. At least I don't remember any, except special channels at special time. Violence is much more often on TV - all the news for example. Though when it used to be Soviet, it was even worse I think. They not only never showed anything having to do with sex, they also never talked about it. Violence was not depicted too. Whatever. I think it's grown-ups who make all the fuss about nudity on TV. If you don't get too excited about it, your children won't either. The problem is that they will ask questions that you will have to answer, and maybe parents just don't want that. Violence is much less embarassing to explain, isn't it? Just some bad guy trying to kill another. If you are Christian, you can explain that and even draw moral conclusions from it - good watch, good educating talk. What moral conclusions can you draw from two people having sex? Especially if you are used to thinking about sex as something shameful. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
mymla: Whatever. I think it's grown-ups who make all the fuss about nudity on TV. If you don't get too excited about it, your children won't either. The problem is that they will ask questions that you will have to answer, and maybe parents just don't want that.
Violence is much less embarassing to explain, isn't it? Just some bad guy trying to kill another. If you are Christian, you can explain that and even draw moral conclusions from it - good watch, good educating talk. What moral conclusions can you draw from two people having sex? Especially if you are used to thinking about sex as something shameful. Great post and set of points. I would love to get your opinions on Russia in other areas/regards in some thread if you are interested. If we could just move past the shame of the body that xianity instills/weighs down upon the society, then there would be less sexual rebellion and kids would feel better about themselves and develop into better adults. It just seems that it should be harder to explain Country A troops killing Country B people, especially if Country A is considered good, than to explain two people having sex as adults for pleasure and/or procreation. The catholic church continues to spout that sex for pleasure alone is wrong. I just heard a cardinal/higher level priest say this on the radio yesterday. 
posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volonteshiva: The catholic church continues to spout that sex for pleasure alone is wrong. No, this is not the official statement. The official statement is "If you have sex you always have to be prepared to get/make pregnant. Thus if you suppress that possibility (= condoms, pills) it's a sin (because you practice sex for pleasure alone). You become a mass murder basically" It's a pity that such statements are done by people, who themselves decided to not have ANY sex, which itself could be called a sexual perversion. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: Great post and set of points.  Thanks.volonteshiva: I would love to get your opinions on Russia in other areas/regards in some thread if you are interested. Sure, that's my country, and though I cannot promise full information on it, I can at least tell as much as I know and give an opinion on how living there is. We can start a thread like "Everything you wanted to know about Russia, but were afraid to ask/had no one to ask". How about that?
Back to the topic: volonteshiva: If we could just move past the shame of the body that xianity instills/weighs down upon the society, then there would be less sexual rebellion and kids would feel better about themselves and develop into better adults. Yup, proper information about human body, how it works and what it is capable of can prevent many bad things I guess. Though I am not sure the kids will grow up into better adults, but that could solve at least some problems for them. I wonder why Christianity is so... ashamed of the body. Maybe because you cannot really control its needs and desires - it's a world by itself. Nothing helps against the basic needs the body has, not fastening, not prayer, not avoiding the world and lustful scenes. It gets even worse if you try to stop it, take for example the monasteries. And they tell us what to do. People tend to be more open about sex nowadays - and the church doesn't like it. Maybe because that lessens their influence - when people are content with their sexual life, they need religion less. Whereas if you tell them sex is bad, but they keep having it, you can make them feel guilty and therefore more susceptible. I still don't quite understand why violence is less objected to. Christainity is supposed to be preaching peace and kindness to each other, even if its history is contrary to that. Maybe they allow violence as an outlet for your emotions? Instead of sex. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 mymla: Russia is also a pretty Christian country these days, and they don't allow even breasts with covered nipples. At least I don't remember any, except special channels at special time i thought i saw on real tv or maximum exposer, one of those programs that had a weather lady in Russia that would strip as she delived the weather. Maybe it wasn't Russia... and how did this topic get onto christianity? what about countries other than the US that are less christian that still show all the violence and censor nudity? to hint that the underlying reason in the US is this might be true, but what of those other countries? what is their excuse? like in japan where they can show bukkake but not a single pubic hair? where they can show murder on the news? i'm sure japan is not a christian majority, this is an example but kinda off topic... posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
mymla: volonteshiva: Great post and set of points. Thanks.Anytime, I have been enjoying your perspective and POV in a number of threads. mymla: volonteshiva: I would love to get your opinions on Russia in other areas/regards in some thread if you are interested. Sure, that's my country, and though I cannot promise full information on it, I can at least tell as much as I know and give an opinion on how living there is. We can start a thread like "Everything you wanted to know about Russia, but were afraid to ask/had no one to ask". How about that? 100% hell yes! mymla: ...I still don't quite understand why violence is less objected to. Christainity is supposed to be preaching peace and kindness to each other, even if its history is contrary to that. Maybe they allow violence as an outlet for your emotions? Instead of sex. Another set of good points and observations. You need to say something I disagree w/ but respect so that I can apply the good points there to.
Perhaps violence is harder to root out than sex. You can shame and guilt people away from sex, but violence can fight back. Your response said it all, not sure what I can add. 
posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 21:21 php B.B. |