What's wrong with nudity on television?
November 17th 2009 03:07
On the Sci-Fi channel recently there was one of those c-grade sci-fi movies (what else do they show these mostly days?) that had the warning at the start that the movie included nudity and graphic violence. I was wondering how far the station would go per the nudity and how graphic the violence would get.
Well, they were right about the graphic violence. I saw plenty of blood, and a man get caught in a trap and skewered in his neck with a spear. Not pretty. In terms of the nudity, the closest we came was when the evil female emerged from a hole, nude, and from what could be seen was all pretty much a blur.
So what gives? In a country that has a billion $ industry that bases itself on nudity and hardcore sex, as well as a filling the internet with 15% or more of nudity and sex, there is a huge problem with nudity on free to air television. Let’s forget about the porn and the sex because that’s understandable, but let’s go with nudity. Janet Jackson popped a nipple at the halftime show at the 38th Super bowl, and it cost CBS a cool $550,000. Just for a nipple that had on a nipple shield that was seen for less than ten seconds. Slightly harsh. Slightly.
We come into this world unclothed, we go out without clothes (in a spiritual sense). However, when it comes to violence, it seems that people are more comfortable watching people get chopped up, shot, mutilated and die in other gruesome ways than to see a woman (much less a male) nude. I would rather watch a nude female than watch someone die a horrible death.
The one thing we all have in common underneath our clothes and it isn’t tolerated on free to air television in the country that promotes freedom and tolerance. If you look at other first world, industrialized countries such as Australia or England, as well as most of the other countries on the continent of Europe they have no problem with nudity on television or in life in general for that matter. Don’t believe me go to an Australian or European beach during summer. None of these countries seem to have an exaggerated population of oversexed, perverted men who are always on the prowl for women to rape, but the US has a line of thinking that if people don’t see it, and if it’s hidden away, it keeps the mind cleaner.
The major problem with that theory is the mind is extremely curious, and if something can’t be seen, then we want all the more to see it. It’s only natural to want to see what’s beneath. Think of a wrapped gift sitting under the tree. You have a natural curiosity to want to take off the wrapping and peek inside (peeking and playing are two different things mind you).
The issue here is that people in charge believe that nudity and sex are synonymous. Which as we all know, nudity doesn’t have to be sexual. To prove my point, watch National Geographic long enough and you’ll see naked indigenous people from somewhere in the world and to top it off some of them might actually be underage! Shock! Gasp! An underage African girl doing a tribal dance! Whereas sexting is illegal in the great USA, people can still watch young natives hunt and dance naked. Do you see the hypocrisy in that? Where’s the difference of a nude African female and a nude woman walking out of a hole in a movie?
People like to talk about how offensive nudity is and usually it comes from the religious conservatives. Where are all the atheists to defend nudity on television? I would think that atheists and the new moral order would be natural bedfellows, wouldn’t you? Come on, atheists get your act together to defend others rights to be free, not only from religion but from clothes on television as well.
Well, they were right about the graphic violence. I saw plenty of blood, and a man get caught in a trap and skewered in his neck with a spear. Not pretty. In terms of the nudity, the closest we came was when the evil female emerged from a hole, nude, and from what could be seen was all pretty much a blur.
So what gives? In a country that has a billion $ industry that bases itself on nudity and hardcore sex, as well as a filling the internet with 15% or more of nudity and sex, there is a huge problem with nudity on free to air television. Let’s forget about the porn and the sex because that’s understandable, but let’s go with nudity. Janet Jackson popped a nipple at the halftime show at the 38th Super bowl, and it cost CBS a cool $550,000. Just for a nipple that had on a nipple shield that was seen for less than ten seconds. Slightly harsh. Slightly.
We come into this world unclothed, we go out without clothes (in a spiritual sense). However, when it comes to violence, it seems that people are more comfortable watching people get chopped up, shot, mutilated and die in other gruesome ways than to see a woman (much less a male) nude. I would rather watch a nude female than watch someone die a horrible death.
The one thing we all have in common underneath our clothes and it isn’t tolerated on free to air television in the country that promotes freedom and tolerance. If you look at other first world, industrialized countries such as Australia or England, as well as most of the other countries on the continent of Europe they have no problem with nudity on television or in life in general for that matter. Don’t believe me go to an Australian or European beach during summer. None of these countries seem to have an exaggerated population of oversexed, perverted men who are always on the prowl for women to rape, but the US has a line of thinking that if people don’t see it, and if it’s hidden away, it keeps the mind cleaner.
The major problem with that theory is the mind is extremely curious, and if something can’t be seen, then we want all the more to see it. It’s only natural to want to see what’s beneath. Think of a wrapped gift sitting under the tree. You have a natural curiosity to want to take off the wrapping and peek inside (peeking and playing are two different things mind you).
The issue here is that people in charge believe that nudity and sex are synonymous. Which as we all know, nudity doesn’t have to be sexual. To prove my point, watch National Geographic long enough and you’ll see naked indigenous people from somewhere in the world and to top it off some of them might actually be underage! Shock! Gasp! An underage African girl doing a tribal dance! Whereas sexting is illegal in the great USA, people can still watch young natives hunt and dance naked. Do you see the hypocrisy in that? Where’s the difference of a nude African female and a nude woman walking out of a hole in a movie?
People like to talk about how offensive nudity is and usually it comes from the religious conservatives. Where are all the atheists to defend nudity on television? I would think that atheists and the new moral order would be natural bedfellows, wouldn’t you? Come on, atheists get your act together to defend others rights to be free, not only from religion but from clothes on television as well.
| 64 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
