Why is it okay to show murder, blood, guts, etc on TV, but not tits?

[Robert]

I have always wondered why is it okay to show murder, blood, guts, etc on TV, but not tits?

Is a pair of boobies more dangerous for (especially young) TV viewers than and all sorts of violence shown on the TV? The news reports show lots of violence on a daily basis.

Or not to mention all the violence in movies.

It seems our society thinks that if people see too much nudity, they will be severely harmed/damaged somehow (how?), but seeing people getting shot, blown up to pieces, etc, is just fine.

I personally have no issues with my 7 year old see naked people, but I don't want her to watch violence. A naked body is beautiful and natural. Shootings, killings, murder and violence of that nature is not.

I hope we can talk about this without getting into politics/religion. If the thread derails into bashing politics and religion, it will be deleted.

[sunvalleylaw]

Without getting into too much of it, my answer is the remains of historical restrictions based on religious beliefs. But that really doesn't answer the question. After all, murder and violence is wrong too by the same beliefs. I guess it is just a different sort of "taboo". Again, without getting into religious based politics over the issue, I guess beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not necessarily "rational" or "logical".

And I have no problems with people having beliefs that cannot be proved scientifically or logically. But in this instance, the results on TV don't seem to make sense. I hope I skirted (pun not intended) the religious/political line ok. Pretty hard to talk about this one without at least touching on religion.

[tunghaichuan]

Without getting into too much of it, my answer is the remains of historical restrictions based on religious beliefs. But that really doesn't answer the question. After all, murder and violence is wrong too by the same beliefs. I guess it is just a different sort of "taboo". Again, without getting into religious based politics over the issue, I guess beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not necessarily "rational" or "logical".

And I have no problems with people having beliefs that cannot be proved scientifically or logically. But in this instance, the results on TV don't seem to make sense. I hope I skirted (pun not intended) the religious/political line ok. Pretty hard to talk about this one without at least touching on religion.

Steve, you hit the nail on the head. The answer is religion. Since that topic is off limits I'll say no more.

Robert, you can't have a discussion on this topic without discussing religion.

[Eric]

I don't like violence on TV either, so I really don't think either are acceptable. People will do what they want, but it saddens me a little when my morals force me further from popular society.

[R_of_G]

I have to agree with what SVL was able to say. While both violence and sexuality are both taboos of the cultures which initiated our system of morality, it seems those in charge would like to pick and choose which ones are okay for tv and which are not.

However, what bothers me about it, and I will keep this as respectful of forum rules as possible (ie. no politics or religion) is the association of a female breast with sexuality.

If you show violence, it's always violence. It can be nuanced or mitigated (ie. self defense is not the same as murder, etc) but in the end, it's still violence whether justly used or not.

Depictions of female breasts are not as easily categorized.

Many firmly believe that any depiction of a bared female breast is necessarily sexual in nature and borders on pornography and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from ever appearing on television screens in order to "protect" the children.

Others feel the human body, male or female, is perfectly natural and if a bare breast (or two) is shown in a non-gratuitous matter is not necessarily indicative of sexuality.

Personally, I find it little wonder that so many young American women have such emotional issues with their bodies. We've allowed censorship to tell them they're bodies are only useful for sex and while they're nice to look at, they should be ashamed of them as well. The mixed messages must be incredibly confusing to a young woman.

[Lev]

You should move to Europe, we have too much violence AND too many tits on tv!!

[Robert]

RofG, nail on the head there about young women and emotional issues. So true.

I'm not sure if I should have posted this. Can we try discuss religion in a respectful manner? Without attacks? I think politics are involved too.

The point of the forum rules are to be respectful and not have hot topics, that often turn into hate fests and personal attacks. Not sure if this thread will work - let me know what you think.

[Eric]

My personal opinion here, but I would delete it. It just seems to be bordering on trolling. I'm sure we can leave it open without anyone getting himself (or herself) banned, but it's really pushing the limits, and that's not really what this forum is about. You got your answer on your original question, didn't you?

[sunvalleylaw]

RofG, nail on the head there about young women and emotional issues. So true.

I'm not sure if I should have posted this. Can we try discuss religion in a respectful manner? Without attacks? I think politics are involved too.

The point of the forum rules are to be respectful and not have hot topics, that often turn into hate fests and personal attacks. Not sure if this thread will work - let me know what you think.

I'm ok with trying it. We have to be careful, but I think most of us are. It respects our members to allow a little room for discussion.

More on the topic, there was news blurb about a female who was walking around NY topless, and got a citation. It was thrown out by the NY courts due to discrimination between male chests and female. I think it is the right result, but certainly controversial in our world today, still.

[R_of_G]

More on the topic, there was news blurb about a female who was walking around NY topless, and got a citation. It was thrown out by the NY courts due to discrimination between male chests and female. I think it is the right result, but certainly controversial in our world today, still.

I agree Steve.

I'm not sure why there should be a difference between the two as far as being able to enjoy toplessness. Again, the notion that a female breast is automatically a sexual object is not objective (though, ironically, it does objectify), rather those are individual perceptions (though shared by many).

It's not even just the way these things impact young women either. I cringe at the way many in society treat mothers that breastfeed their children in public and find it rather saddening that some find this a "dirty" act that needs to be hidden from view. "But what if children see?" is the question most offered up and the answer should be obvious, then children will learn that some mothers breastfeed their children. Is that such a terrible thing for a kid to know?

As to Robert's question about keeping this topic open, I'm always going to be on the side of allowing these discussions to take place. If it becomes disrespectful of forum guidelines I understand closing it, but until then, it seems we're able to discuss the salient points without insulting each other.

[Commodore 64]

Without getting into too much of it, my answer is the remains of historical restrictions based on religious beliefs. But that really doesn't answer the question. After all, murder and violence is wrong too by the same beliefs. I guess it is just a different sort of "taboo". Again, without getting into religious based politics over the issue, I guess beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not necessarily "rational" or "logical".

And I have no problems with people having beliefs that cannot be proved scientifically or logically. But in this instance, the results on TV don't seem to make sense. I hope I skirted (pun not intended) the religious/political line ok. Pretty hard to talk about this one without at least touching on religion.

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

[piebaldpython]

Where "sexuality" is concerned, Americans are sort of stuck in the Victorian (read; prudish) Age when compared to Europeans. The problem is not with religion per se, but the vague idea that Americans are time-warp stuck in 1850 and Europe in this regard is so much more modern.

It can't be a "religious" issue because Europe has the same religions that we do. To specify, Europe is as "Christian" as we are.......but for some reason, we are more "prudish" (for lack of a better word).

So, yeah, we can discuss this as adults......especially because this has nothing to do with religion per se.

[Commodore 64]

America was colonized by religious extremists...peibaldpython. The analogy to regular "Christians" falls apart there. This is still a young country, culturally speaking. There's enough of a majority of "puritanical" heritage here that we are well-behind in some metrics (IMHO), and this happens to be one of them.

[tunghaichuan]

As to Robert's question about keeping this topic open, I'm always going to be on the side of allowing these discussions to take place. If it becomes disrespectful of forum guidelines I understand closing it, but until then, it seems we're able to discuss the salient points without insulting each other.

But that's the trick, isn't it? Almost all of the religious and atheist BBS sites I frequent have flame wars. Religious and political discussions always degenerate into flame wars. It is due to their emotionally charged nature. It is hard not to make ad hominem attacks, they are human nature. And for that reason, I've bitten my tongue on more than one occasion as I like most of the members here. This forum is remarkable in that there are virtually no flame wars, members get along, and for the most part discussions stay on topic.


As to the issue of violence.
The main problem with violence is that it is an extremely effective tool for change. It works quickly and it works well. And in Western culture, the underlying message is that might makes right; it's ingrained into the culture. I've always wondered how a truly pacifist society would protect itself against violence. Ultimately, I figure that they can't. Pacifist societies either have to become violent to protect themselves (and thereby are no longer pacifist) or they allow themselves to get wiped out.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

IMO, this question is not so much about religion and/or politics as it is about the social psychology concept of compartmentalization. The kind of question presented here by Robert, a thinking person's question, is not even entertained by many people because of the Cognitive Dissonance that it creates.

[Eric]

I've always wondered how a truly pacifist society would protect itself against violence. Ultimately, I figure that they can't. Pacifist societies either have to become violent to protect themselves (and thereby are no longer pacifist) or they allow themselves to get wiped out.
Yup, I think that's why you don't really see pacifist cultures, like, ever.

I recently took a trip to the Balkans, which seems like it has been a stomping ground for foreign occupation throughout the years, and it reminded me of how war and violence will probably forever be a part of the world. It seemed like every fricking city had been a part of at least 3 or 4 different empires.

World peace is a great concept, but it seems so terribly far off in terms of viability because violence is the equalizer, and we're constantly competing to be better than the guy next to us.

[R_of_G]

But that's the trick, isn't it? Almost all of the religious and atheist BBS sites I frequent have flame wars. Religious and political discussions always degenerate into flame wars. It is due to their emotionally charged nature. It is hard not to make ad hominem attacks, they are human nature. And for that reason, I've bitten my tongue on more than one occasion as I like most of the members here. This forum is remarkable in that there are virtually no flame wars, members get along, and for the most part discussions stay on topic.

You're absolutely right. That's why I think piebaldpython's comment above is particular insightful. It's a simpler solution for many (both on the net and in the actual world) to assign blame on such a polarizing issue to religion or the lack of religion, but the reality is more nuanced than that. As PBP noted, similar religious traditions exist in places where they're not expressed in the same manner.

Intelligent people, like the members of this forum, can discuss the finer points of the issues themselves without taking the easy route of attacking the over-arching issue of which it's a manifestation. I continue to be impressed that we manage these discussions with devolving into what's seen at so many other forums.

Per violence, I tend to agree with you and Eric. While I would love to live in a non-violent world, I'm a pragmatist and realize this is not a full-time possibility. All we can really do is try our best to eliminate violence as much as possible in our own lives and communities. I do believe there are ways to greatly limit the amount of nation-on-nation violence but to get into those ideas would involve a discussion of politics/governance and while I believe we can handle that as a group, it would be too far of a tangent from Robert's initial question.

[piebaldpython]

America was colonized by religious extremists...peibaldpython. The analogy to regular "Christians" falls apart there. This is still a young country, culturally speaking. There's enough of a majority of "puritanical" heritage here that we are well-behind in some metrics (IMHO), and this happens to be one of them.

I don't think I necessarily agree with you here...but for the sake of argument, let's assume that you're correct. So, therefore, the "majority" have their mores foisted upon them by the "vastly numerical minority"....and we know exactly who that is, right? Of course, I will abide by Robert's plea not to degenerate into political discussion and that would be exactly where I was going. lolol

I do think my point above is partly to blame for we Americans "view" upon sexuality. I also, think, immigration plays a big part of it too.......to the extent, that each big wave immigration costs at least 2 generations worth of "progress" when compared to Europe. Credit us with 3 big waves of immigration and you're up around 100+ years of backwardness.

Briefly, as an example, a German immigrant who comes to America in 1875, comes here with the German morals in effect in 1875. However, a German who stays in Germany then has his "values" progress/shaped/changed by the national German psyche as it moves in whatever way it moves. However, the German immigrant stays "locked" in at 1875 because he no longer has the national consciousness to "progress" with. Not only does he stay "locked" in at 1875 but he raises his kids in much the same way.

Yeah, kinda brief, not entirely thought out but I winged it. My mother was a fabulous cook, and she could cook things German style from decades ago that aren't even cooked that way in Germany any longer. Cooking or mores, it all adds up that way.

[sunvalleylaw]

I was also thinking that United States society, like any more pluralistic society, ends up having to be more careful because of the whole melting pot thing. This society is based on the rule of law of government, but has to deal with the moral rules that come from religions or other belief systems. I have to abandon the thought there as I don't really have time to think about and express what I am trying to say at the moment. I may come back to it. But sexual traditions vary greatly among cultures, and war/violence traditions cross more lines. Whether you are from western europe, or the middle east, or somewhere else, I guess there is more common ground on violence than there is on sexual issues. That is poorly put, and not really all that I am trying to say, but is all I can get to at the moment.

[Tig]

While many of the modern trends, beliefs, practices, and taboos are based on older ingrained religious beliefs, I feel this is more of a sociological issue.

For example, most places in the world, people have little problem with a woman breast feeding in public. Usually, it is discrete and not a check-out-my-boob event! In the United States, it has remained taboo to do this in public for the most part. Personally, this is one of the most natural things a human can do, and the gift passed on from a mother to her baby is precious. It is also medically proven that breast feeding the first months provides needed immunological defenses for the child.

A highly advanced society should embrace this important relationship, not shun it. I've seen the same scene many times when a mother is discretely breast feeding: Women give her a sharp, critical look, quickly whispering to who they are with, while clearly looking down their noses.

Talk about a society that has truly lost its way? Artificial environments have replaced natural ones. We have removed and isolated ourselves from the natural world so much, people are chronically stressed and out of balance. We even attempt to cure psychological diseases with, yes, more artificial ingredients (pharmaceuticals)!

So, no wonder it remains taboo for a display of a woman's breasts, when even discrete public breast feeding is considered "wrong" or "crude". While we consider ourselves as a society to be advancing, in reality, we are drifting away from the critical associations we had with a more natural existence.

[R_of_G]

While many of the modern trends, beliefs, practices, and taboos are based on older ingrained religious beliefs, I feel this is more of a sociological issue.

For example, most places in the world, people have little problem with a woman breast feeding in public. Usually, it is discrete and not a check-out-my-boob event! In the United States, it has remained taboo to do this in public for the most part. Personally, this is one of the most natural things a human can do, and the gift passed on from a mother to her baby is precious. It is also medically proven that breast feeding the first months provides needed immunological defenses for the child.

A highly advanced society should embrace this important relationship, not shun it. I've seen the same scene many times when a mother is discretely breast feeding: Women give her a sharp, critical look, quickly whispering to who they are with, while clearly looking down their noses.

Talk about a society that has truly lost its way? Artificial environments have replaced natural ones. We have removed and isolated ourselves from the natural world so much, people are chronically stressed and out of balance. We even attempt to cure psychological diseases with, yes, more artificial ingredients (pharmaceuticals)!

So, no wonder it remains taboo for a display of a woman's breasts, when even discrete public breast feeding is considered "wrong" or "crude". While we consider ourselves as a society to be advancing, in reality, we are drifting away from the critical associations we had with a more natural existence.

Very well said.

When my wife was nursing our daughter she used to carry in the diaper bag a copy of the Florida statute permitting women to breastfeed in public in the event she was ever confronted by someone for doing so. She was as discreet as one could be in public and we got the occasional eye-roll or disparaging look but nobody crossed the line to tell her to stop. Unfortunately, many women are confronted on the issue and made to feel as if they've done something wrong by nourishing their child.

[Tig]

When my wife was nursing our daughter she used to carry in the diaper bag a copy of the Florida statute permitting women to breastfeed in public in the event she was ever confronted by someone for doing so. She was as discreet as one could be in public and we got the occasional eye-roll or disparaging look but nobody crossed the line to tell her to stop. Unfortunately, many women are confronted on the issue and made to feel as if they've done something wrong by nourishing their child.

About 7 years ago after a woman was told to stop while at a local mall, women gathered to protest the mall security's actions with a "nurse-in".
Article here (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/2658535.html)


They came with strollers and diaper bags, lifting up their shirts ever so slightly to champion mothers' rights to breast-feed their babies -- in public. Call it the nurse-in. A peaceful protest without the screaming banners but with hungry infants 3 to 18 months old.
About 50 nursing mothers gathered Thursday for a demonstration at the Galleria near, aptly, the Baby Gap, where four days earlier Julie Doyle-Madrid said a female security guard asked her to cover herself in the middle of feeding her 4-month-old baby, Will.

[R_of_G]

About 7 years ago after a woman was told to stop while at a local mall, women gathered to protest the mall security's actions with a "nurse-in".
Article here (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/2658535.html)

That's fantastic.

[Robert]

Super well said, Tig. I could not agree more.

I think our society is royally screwed up when it comes to this topic.

When my Canadian family came with me to Sweden 10 years ago, we went to an outdoor swimming pool, and most small kids ran around naked around the showers. Nobody thinks there's anything strange about that, in Sweden. The "North American background" of my Canadian family was noticeable, however. They were immediately wondering why they were naked, and should they be, etc. That would never happen here in Canada, the same way as it does in Sweden. Are Swedes morally corrupt as a result? Hardly.


While many of the modern trends, beliefs, practices, and taboos are based on older ingrained religious beliefs, I feel this is more of a sociological issue.

For example, most places in the world, people have little problem with a woman breast feeding in public. Usually, it is discrete and not a check-out-my-boob event! In the United States, it has remained taboo to do this in public for the most part. Personally, this is one of the most natural things a human can do, and the gift passed on from a mother to her baby is precious. It is also medically proven that breast feeding the first months provides needed immunological defenses for the child.

A highly advanced society should embrace this important relationship, not shun it. I've seen the same scene many times when a mother is discretely breast feeding: Women give her a sharp, critical look, quickly whispering to who they are with, while clearly looking down their noses.

Talk about a society that has truly lost its way? Artificial environments have replaced natural ones. We have removed and isolated ourselves from the natural world so much, people are chronically stressed and out of balance. We even attempt to cure psychological diseases with, yes, more artificial ingredients (pharmaceuticals)!

So, no wonder it remains taboo for a display of a woman's breasts, when even discrete public breast feeding is considered "wrong" or "crude". While we consider ourselves as a society to be advancing, in reality, we are drifting away from the critical associations we had with a more natural existence.

[Eric]

Huh. I don't think I've seen women being shunned for breastfeeding before, but not being a parent, maybe I just haven't been paying attention. Ironically (for this discussion, anyway), most of the times I have noticed women breastfeeding have been in church, and nobody seemed to care.

The issue I have with boobs and guts on TV is that it seems so exploitative. At this point, it's simply a cash grab for the TV producers. How increasing it would serve to stop objectification and exploitation, I am not sure. I suppose the counterargument would be that the loss of novelty would lead to a more mature handling of those topics, but I'm not sure.

Though people frequently try to deny it, there always has to be a line for morality. People will always challenge everyone else's line, but to act as though each person doesn't have a moral standard is ludicrous. It's the whole why-are-we-so-uptight thing, but my point is that if you move the moral standard, it's still there -- just in a different location. I'm getting off-track here...

One thing you alluded to, Tig, that I've thought about before, is the idea of losing our way, and what is or is not natural. I get your point, but my counterpoint would be that we are so far down the line of a synthetic dependance (just look at how much we use computers) that the idea of getting back to nature isn't just a quick change. Many many things need to be undone before a simple, natural way of living can exist again. So your point is a good one that I endorse -- it's just not very easy!

Crossing my fingers that this post is even mildly readable...

[R_of_G]

Huh. I don't think I've seen women being shunned for breastfeeding before, but not being a parent, maybe I just haven't been paying attention. Ironically (for this discussion, anyway), most of the times I have noticed women breastfeeding have been in church, and nobody seemed to care.

I never noticed it as an issue either until we had a kid and my wife chose to breastfeed.



The issue I have with boobs and guts on TV is that it seems so exploitative. At this point, it's simply a cash grab for the TV producers. How increasing it would serve to stop objectification and exploitation, I am not sure. I suppose the counterargument would be that the loss of novelty would lead to a more mature handling of those topics, but I'm not sure.

Right, which is why I prefaced my request for more boobs on television with "in a non-exploitative manner."
I agree with you, most instances of female nudity on television are salacious, exploitative and really only serves to deepen the notion that boobs are always sexual.

[sunvalleylaw]

Super well said, Tig. I could not agree more.

I think our society is royally screwed up when it comes to this topic.

When my Canadian family came with me to Sweden 10 years ago, we went to an outdoor swimming pool, and most small kids ran around naked around the showers. Nobody thinks there's anything strange about that, in Sweden. The "North American background" of my Canadian family was noticeable, however. They were immediately wondering why they were naked, and should they be, etc. That would never happen here in Canada, the same way as it does in Sweden. Are Swedes morally corrupt as a result? Hardly.

I agree. Your example shows how out of balance it gets. Also, then fear of attracting weirdos that might look at naked kids at the pool is a fear, so fear motivation plays a role. And that perpetuates normal nudity being viewed as taboo, which seems to lead to furthering prurient interest in the taboo, etc. As Eric says though, none of it is easy to unwind.

[Tig]

The issue I have with boobs and guts on TV is that it seems so exploitative. At this point, it's simply a cash grab for the TV producers.

Excellent point. What sells, gets used.


Though people frequently try to deny it, there always has to be a line for morality.

Morality is such a fuzzy grey area, but there should be limits, be it self imposed (preferable) or mandated.
A quick digression that is related:

Here are four types of societal security systems:
* moral systems - any internal rewards and punishments
* reputational systems - any informal external rewards and punishments
* rule-based systems - any formal system of rewards and punishments (mostly punishments) - laws
* technological systems - everything like walls, door locks, cameras


One thing you alluded to, Tig, that I've thought about before, is the idea of losing our way, and what is or is not natural. I get your point, but my counterpoint would be that we are so far down the line of a synthetic dependance (just look at how much we use computers) that the idea of getting back to nature isn't just a quick change. Many many things need to be undone before a simple, natural way of living can exist again. So your point is a good one that I endorse -- it's just not very easy!

I don't mean a reversal or return to past natural ways. I like having modern communications and life saving medicines! It is too late to go back.

I mean that we should never sever or lose our connections with the natural world. Sometimes, just a simple walk in the woods or along a beach can heal so many woes. Even spending a few minutes looking up at the stars can melt away the stresses of the day.

[sunvalleylaw]

Cool post Tig. My dad, a retired judge, always made a distinction between moral systems and rules systems or laws. Laws are the bare minimum standards for conduct before punishment by law occurs. Moral codes exceed those laws in many cases. The rule of law should allow for expression of, but not mandate, moral laws. The areas of intersection are always the interesting areas.

[Tig]

I hope we can talk about this without getting into politics/religion.

Well, so far, so good. This is a rare thing in the internet forums world.
My hat is off to everyone here for being such mature, considerate adults who can avoid inflammatory reactions and comments.

...Now if the subject was Bonamassa or music we never got... :poke :thwap

[sunvalleylaw]

Sometimes, just a simple walk in the woods or along a beach can heal so many woes. Even spending a few minutes looking up at the stars can melt away the stresses of the day.

I feel very much that way. Always have. This woman grew up near where I grew up walking in the woods, and she puts it into words pretty well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxsdPK1NVvw

[Tig]

I feel very much that way. Always have. This woman grew up near where I grew up walking in the woods, and she puts it into words pretty well.

Cool song! She states it much better than I, which is why I write in forums while she writes songs!

I grew up playing along a creek behind the house, and we had some property up in the piney woods of East Texas. There's is something to be said about swimming in a lake or at a beach, walking down a long trail, exploring new places in a forest, or paddling a canoe or kayak. Camping and sitting around a fire... Laying on a dock with countless stars above.

Ahhh, but back to breasts... :thwap
It is time to legalize taa-taa's!

[Spudman]

Plenty of Europe has many of the same religions as the USA and is also an ethnic melting pot, yet they don't have the same taboos as America does regarding boobs. Hmmm.

I think it's for economic reasons that we have the dichotomy. We refrain from the free exposure of breasts in the USA, and then when they are revealed, pow, someone starts making money. It's either TV, newspapers, magazines, the exposed persons etc. that start raking in the bucks. It's our stupid capitalistic culture in the USA. Well, I'm all in favor of change, and serious drastic change. There simply aren't enough quality breasts being shown in public in the USA. If we can get everyone to start a massive exposure program we can effectively do two things: one is to take money out of the hands of the greedy corporate enterprises that exploit us, and two; it would create more desire to get closer to our fellow exposed human being thereby generating more love. This would effectively reduce violence in our culture and make violence on TV seem more unacceptable so that it would end up like breast exposure currently is, shunned and unaccepted.

So, I say that the answer to turning America completely around is for a massive exposure campaign. Talk to every female you know and lets get moving on this issue, especially if we are to save the USA. Tits for all!

[R_of_G]

Plenty of Europe has many of the same religions as the USA and is also an ethnic melting pot, yet they don't have the same taboos as America does regarding boobs. Hmmm.

I think it's for economic reasons that we have the dichotomy. We refrain from the free exposure of breasts in the USA, and then when they are revealed, pow, someone starts making money. It's either TV, newspapers, magazines, the exposed persons etc. that start raking in the bucks. It's our stupid capitalistic culture in the USA. Well, I'm all in favor of change, and serious drastic change. There simply aren't enough quality breasts being shown in public in the USA. If we can get everyone to start a massive exposure program we can effectively do two things: one is to take money out of the hands of the greedy corporate enterprises that exploit us, and two; it would create more desire to get closer to our fellow exposed human being thereby generating more love. This would effectively reduce violence in our culture and make violence on TV seem more unacceptable so that it would end up like breast exposure currently is, shunned and unaccepted.

So, I say that the answer to turning America completely around is for a massive exposure campaign. Talk to every female you know and lets get moving on this issue, especially if we are to save the USA. Tits for all!

I think you're absolutely correct, and not solely because you want to see more breasts.

Both you and Eric hit on something that is the key, because breast exposure on network television is such a rare thing, when it happens it's more often than not a salacious moment designed for someone to capitalize. They capitalize on stirring up the controversy and exploiting people's beliefs in order to keep the cycle going. More boobs, less network execs. That's the answer.

[Eric]

With all of the focus on the female chest, I have to ask proponents of this one question: do you want to see all of the human anatomy? Full frontal for both genders in every show? All ages? If not, why not?

[R_of_G]

With all of the focus on the female chest, I have to ask proponents of this one question: do you want to see all of the human anatomy? Full frontal for both genders in every show? All ages? If not, why not?

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I expect human characters to have parts of human anatomy.
That said, it all goes back to whether or not it's shown to be sensational or shown realistically, so no, obviously not in every show.
I think topelss would happen more often because it seems more realistic.

[Eric]

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I expect human characters to have parts of human anatomy.
That said, it all goes back to whether or not it's shown to be sensational or shown realistically, so no, obviously not in every show.
I think topelss would happen more often because it seems more realistic.
Fair enough. It's just a point I thought I'd throw out there; I feel like the "boobies!" excitement often gets mixed in with the "realism" argument, and not everyone is comfortable with everything, but sometimes we lose that idea in our zeal to prove a point.

[Spudman]

You know, if everyone got their anatomical appendages from some source that was secret then I could understand the stealth approach. However, EVERYONE is born with all the juicy bits in place stock from the factory. I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone already knows what stuff looks like. Who are we kidding after all?

[Tig]

You know, if everyone got their anatomical appendages from some source that was secret then I could understand the stealth approach. However, EVERYONE is born with all the juicy bits in place stock from the factory. I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone already knows what stuff looks like. Who are we kidding after all?

The more something is forbidden, the greater the appeal it has?

[Spudman]

The more something is forbidden, the greater the appeal it has?

But if it was forbidden would it be stock factory equipment? Humans really are strange. Maybe strawberry growers should hide their fruit so that it's more appealing and more people will want to buy it. They'll make a fortune. Hey, I think I'm on to something. Thanks Tig. From now on I'll wear a burqa so that I can charge more for gigs since I'll have more appeal.

Anyway, I've never understood the whole thing either. Killing is pretty much something I don't want to see. Tits, however, anytime bro. Uh, not yours specifically, but a really nice set. Um, I'm not saying that yours aren't nice, it's just that...oh forget it. I think you know what I meant.

[deeaa]

I never got that either...but I never thought it had to do with religion, just habits and such. 'Moral majority' movements or whatever.

BUT here's my view:

I think I'd rather show my 6-year-old Saving Private Ryan than Tom & Jerry or Wiley Coyote cartoons.

What I really think is bad for the kids is those Hanna/Barbera etc. cartoons which are basically only hitting each other or devising horrid traps and such.
Why would anyone want kids to watch that kind of sick stuff? That's more gruesome than Texas Chainsaw Massacre, from a moral point of view at least.

Another thing is 'teen' rated series that are full of all kinds of 'suitable' action which usually entails all kinds of karate style fighting and shooting - with no blood.
Why would people want to teach teens day after day stuff like 'see, they just kick them in the head and shoot them and it's OK no blood even'.

That's INSANE to me. I think it would be much healthier for a teen to see that if some full-grown man really punches another in the face with full force, there will be blood and broken teeth and LOADS of pain, likely irrepairaible damage, not just a little blood-drip on the side of the mouth, and shooking of head maybe, followed by some more ***-kicking.

No wonder, having seen cartoons since infancy, that are basically sadistic beating, followed by TV series hammering into their heads that it's OK to punch people and there are no real ill effects to it, that teens go out and want to bust some heads.

THAT is what is wrong with TV and the society. I don't let my children watch that kind of stuff at all, but we do watch movies that are rated way higher, like Star Wars obviously, but also some more grown-up content.
My boys are fascinated by and not scared etc. at all about watching a documentary on surgeries and such bloody things, or skeletons etc. and they don't blink an eye at nudity because they're used to seeing each other naked every day when we go for a wash together as a family, and similarly, round here it's quite customary that kids under, I dunno, 8 or so, can run around naked in the summer and nobody cares. Same as nobody cares if, say at a company get-together at least men just swim in the nude, I mean, every woman there has seen a dong or two in their lives so what's the big deal really. Women tend to be more coy though and usually hide in some blanket or so till they get to the water.

[poodlesrule]

I think I'd rather show my 6-year-old Saving Private Ryan than Tom & Jerry or Wiley Coyote cartoons.

What I really think is bad for the kids is those Hanna/Barbera etc. cartoons which are basically only hitting each other or devising horrid traps and such.
Why would anyone want kids to watch that kind of sick stuff? That's more gruesome than Texas Chainsaw Massacre, from a moral point of view at least.


Aren't cartoons fantasy-world stuff, though? Do the kids get the "fantastic" aspect of it?

[R_of_G]

Aren't cartoons fantasy-world stuff, though? Do the kids get the "fantastic" aspect of it?

My parents explained to me as I explain to my child that cartoons are not real.

I think cartoon violence is fairly innocuous compared with other depictions of violence that withhold real consequences.

[sunvalleylaw]

My sons came back from a visit at their cousin's wanting permission to get "Halo" or "Warcraft" type games, because my brother apparently lets his kids play them. I just do not want to go there with 11 and 13 year old boys. My boys tell me our rules are way more restrictive than their friends. I guess that might be true.

[deeaa]

That is the question...and I'd say, yeah, my son does get the distinction of it not being real. I'm not really as anal about it as I make it out to be. But still, I see nothing good in watching that kind of stuff day in day out. We watch a LOT of Moomin, which I think is a really good and healthy role model for kids.

Computer games too...yeah, I am wary of that stuff too. It's catchy. We mostly play those Lego series games, we probably have all of 'em...just today we played Lego Star Wars III for a while. I think it's good safe fun. But still, I do notice if we play it long, he gets quite physical and starts acting out all those light sabre moves and hitting things etc...so there must be limits there.

Yeah...I think by far the worst are the 'teen ok' crime shows etc. where there's a lot of kicking and punching with no ill effects...I do believe a lot of such only teaches bad stuff.

At schools, I've seen kids get into fights and feuds, sometimes to bad effects. By far the most powerful thing to stop all that has been to have someone lecture them by showing pictures of kids having been victims of violence that was just meant to be hazing or drunken bashing. I don't think any kid who's seen what actually happens when you stomp someone on the head proper with the heel does will ever want to do that themselves,,,,it's pretty damned graphic...also there's one guy who was a victim of random violence doing school tours; a medical student would be doctor he was kicked *once* in the head and he suffered damage so that any idiot can see he's not capable of ever being a doctor, hardly a functioning member of society...but it's really sobering for the kids when his kind of a guy comes to present himself and explain one kick was all it took.

I think, with kids, it's not so much what you watch, it's more about making sure they understand it and talk about it.

My son actually can watch pretty much anything without flinching...except something like soap operas. He watches a scene where someone is real mad, like, 'I'll leave you' or such, and he gets totally emotionally involved, almost in tears reporting to me that that person is really sad and this other person is gonna leave him/her all alone...it's amazing, that kind of stuff really makes him cry out, but he's not scared of any mummies or skeletons or blood or such at all.

[R_of_G]

My sons came back from a visit at their cousin's wanting permission to get "Halo" or "Warcraft" type games, because my brother apparently lets his kids play them. I just do not want to go there with 11 and 13 year old boys. My boys tell me our rules are way more restrictive than their friends. I guess that might be true.

I'm with you there.
I wonder how kids are supposed to learn that violence has real consequences when they're inundated with video games that are more violent than anything they'll see on broadcast tv.
Though I think many of the ideas legislators and other authority figures propose to address this are overreaching, I do think it's an area that has to be addressed.


I think by far the worst are the 'teen ok' crime shows etc. where there's a lot of kicking and punching with no ill effects...I do believe a lot of such only teaches bad stuff.

Agreed. If you're going to show kids violence, show them ALL about violence, the effects, the consequences, all of it. If you portray negative things in a negative light people might learn that they're negative instead of just thinking violence is cool.

[Robert]

In case you haven't seen the Moomins (Mumin), here you go. I grew up watching Mumin too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSsiOhd-WQ&feature=related

[tunghaichuan]

I'm with you there.
I wonder how kids are supposed to learn that violence has real consequences when they're inundated with video games that are more violent than anything they'll see on broadcast tv.
Though I think many of the ideas legislators and other authority figures propose to address this are overreaching, I do think it's an area that has to be addressed.



Agreed. If you're going to show kids violence, show them ALL about violence, the effects, the consequences, all of it. If you portray negative things in a negative light people might learn that they're negative instead of just thinking violence is cool.

That is the problem with the vast majority of TV shows/movies. Violence shown is sanitized, made to look cool, and like a viable solution to problems. They never show the consequences to violence, and in the real world there are consequences, often far reaching and very serious.

There was a movie that came out a while back called A History of Violence with Viggo Mortensen. It was one of the few Hollywood movies that showed the consequences of violence, both immediate and long-lasting. The only criticism is that the violent scenes were very stylized which kind of under cut the message, IMHO.

In the real world there are serious and often long lasting effects in the aftermath of violence. I've studied martial arts for a number of years and the one thing that has stuck with me is that no one "wins" in a violent confrontation. The goal should be survival. And being right is no guarantee of immunity. The family may press charges, his buddies may decide to get revenge, and in certain circumstances the law may decide to prosecute.

OTOH, I love martial arts movies, but I recognize them for what they truly are: pure fantasy. Those who think that the hero could get jumped by 20 guys in a Tokyo alley and walk away without a scratch is deluding themselves.

[deeaa]

In case you haven't seen the Moomins (Mumin), here you go. I grew up watching Mumin too.


Yeah, you know...when my first son was a baby still, we had all 100+ episodes on VHS and we watched them all thru maybe 3 times.
A few years later we now have all of them on the digibox, plus a moomin movie, and there's a counter for how many times they're viewed. The boys have watched every episode at least four times, some favorite ones over ten times. The movie Moonin and the Meteorite has been watched about 30 times.

Now, my kids don't watch that much TV I think, but when I start calculating how much time they've spent watching the moomin, it's unbelievable. At 20 minutes per episode and 100 minutes the movie...they must have spent a few hundred hours watching it! No wonder even I'm starting to know the episodes by heart...and oh yeah, we also have them on an USB stick to watch on TV at the cottage as well....it's amazing how it still manages to capture their interest day after day.

Although, by now at six Leo would want to watch all those Hero Factory, Bakugan etc. battle robot sci-fi cartoon shows a lot too...and the original Star Wars movies as well as the Clone Wars cartoon series. He's seen Empire Strikes back already like 5 times, although he can't really keep up with the dialogue at all, his English isn't so good yet. Star Wars has actually quite good opportunities for explaining people's morals etc. and he's been interested for instance why are the stormtroopers bad, and it opens up good conversations into whether they really are, or are they just conscripts doing what they are told to do by the evil high command...after all, he well understands they're basically started from the remnants of the Clone Army which was basically good...(even I get pretty proficient in SW history watching the stuff with him, LOL...I think it's best to not let him watch them alone, so I can explain the reasons behind the actions etc.)

[R_of_G]

OTOH, I love martial arts movies, but I recognize them for what they truly are: pure fantasy. Those who think that the hero could get jumped by 20 guys in a Tokyo alley and walk away without a scratch is deluding themselves.

Are you telling me Jet Li can't really fly or walk on water? That changes everything.

[Ahsankmc]

Yes you are absolutely correct about our behaviors. We have made our world artificial and now as a reaction the world is changing us completely.

[Katastrophe]

We don't let our kids watch nudity at all... The reason is primarily context. I think it's impossible for film and TV in this country to not show nakedness in a nonsexual context. The kids aren't mature enough to understand what's going on, and that can have negative consequences.

That said, there ARE plenty of programs on Netflix and Hulu plus that depict boobage. We do a little self editing and just don't watch those programs when the kids are around. If there was a program on "regular" TV that showed nudity, we just wouldn't watch it.

We also choose not to watch violent, gore n' guts shows around the kids, either. Again, they are not mature enough to understand. Some of the cartoons we watch have mild violence, and the kids understand that it's not real, and that we don't act in a violent manner in real life. They also watch cartoons around us, and we explain what's happening. When confronted by violence, the kids are instructed to tell an adult.

Most of our daytime programming is age appropriate cartoons or educational shows.


BTW, Jet Li can walk on water and fly. And all those "myths" about Chuck Norris are true. :)

[Eric]

And all those "myths" about Chuck Norris are true. :)
Nice choice on putting myths in quotes -- we all know, after all, that they're really facts.

[Robert]

What I meant with this whole post is that the logic isn't here. Violence vs the female breast in a normal way, that is.

I don't support the exploitation of female bodies, you know the sexism part of it. I think that is very, very bad for young girls growing up. On TV, these babes usually have unrealistic bodies - huge boobs and no waist, etc. The "hero" gets the "hottest" of the girls. The normal looking women are depicted as boring and unattractive, etc. That's one part of the female body situation I feel is wrong and unnecessary. It's not realistic. There aren't enough babes of that caliber in the world for every man (most of us are ugly anyway)!

The other part, that I had in mind when I started this thread, is about the normal female breast. Showing naked bodies or partly naked, in a normal way is considered bad - that is what is so wrong with our society. What made me think of this whole thing was that post about a girl biking in a miniskirt gets told by the police to stop flashing. Goodness Gracious! A women breast feeding is encouraged to go hide somewhere to do that. All while, the porn industry is enormous! Just look at http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography_statistics.html


Every second - $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography
Every second - 28,258 Internet users are viewing pornography
Every second - 372 Internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines
Every 39 minutes: a new pornographic video is being created in the United States

So obviously people like nudity and porn! Who are we trying to kid?

There's just so much double standards, I just shake my head.

[Eric]

What I meant with this whole post is that the logic isn't here. Violence vs the female breast in a normal way, that is.

I don't support the exploitation of female bodies, you know the sexism part of it. I think that is very, very bad for young girls growing up. On TV, these babes usually have unrealistic bodies - huge boobs and no waist, etc. The "hero" gets the "hottest" of the girls. The normal looking women are depicted as boring and unattractive, etc. That's one part of the female body situation I feel is wrong and unnecessary. It's not realistic. There aren't enough babes of that caliber in the world for every man (most of us are ugly anyway)!

The other part, that I had in mind when I started this thread, is about the normal female breast. Showing naked bodies or partly naked, in a normal way is considered bad - that is what is so wrong with our society. What made me think of this whole thing was that post about a girl biking in a miniskirt gets told by the police to stop flashing. Goodness Gracious! A women breast feeding is encouraged to go hide somewhere to do that. All while, the porn industry is enormous!
I don't disagree with you on some of your points, but I think the point I was trying to make earlier is that because of some of the things you mention (huge porn industry, exploitation), it's not the sort of thing that can just be suddenly changed in a culture so saturated with the exploitation of sex. If it was, it would only lead to an exponential increase in exploitation.

As for the porn thing, that should prove that people like exploited nudity and explicit sexual content. I don't think that's what you're talking about in your point, so the porn stats are somewhat moot.

Lastly, everyone has some moral standard. Moving the societal one to match yours does not mean that it's "right".

Edit: I realize that may have come off as kind of strong, so without taking back what's already been written, I'll just say that I don't mean to start a firestorm, and I don't disrespect your ideas. It's just a different perspective on the same thing. We cool?

[Robert]

I just think the way it works is screwed up, as I've mentioned above. I'm not asking for the world to change to my needs. I'm just expressing something I think is wrong with it (there are other things wrong with it too! :) ).

Our moral standards are influenced by our society. Nudity is taboo in society - leads to more porn - isn't there always greater want for what you are not supposed to have?

http://kateharding.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ruby_posterpreview.jpg?w=199&h=300

[Eric]

isn't there always greater want for what you are not supposed to have?
Yeah, probably.

Now that I think about it, that's kind of how GAS works too, isn't it?