Stargate and Nudity

[jenks]

TV isn't really public though is it?

[Pandora's_Box]

Sure, everyone has the right of individual choice when it comes to nudity. However we are talking about a public area: TV. For example, it is perfectly fine for someone to be naked within one's own house, however it is illegal to be naked out in public.


Sure freedom of expression is important, but not showing in public what is believed by many to be obscene.

Murder is illegal. Yet it's fine to watch that on TV?

[Skydiver]

if people really died.

[Pandora's_Box]

if people really died.

People do die. Everyday in fact. We've seen people blown up. Streets littered with bodies. Gunshot victims. Accident victims. They freaking showed Sadaam Hussein being hanged.

But see a bare breast or nipple or vagina or butt and the world freaks out!!!

[KindlyKeller]

Definitely agree with PB here. It's not just fictional violence; we see REAL violence with great regularity on TV, and that's deemed infinitely more acceptable than simple nudity, no matter the context. That's probably not a good thing.

[Pandora's_Box]

Sure freedom of expression is important, but not showing in public what is believed by many to be obscene.

I believe swearing to be obscene. I know many people believe it to be obscene when a woman is called a b***** or when a man is called a son of a b****. Yet, that is one of the most regularly used swear words on TV.

Many believe severed heads to be obscene. But, oh look, TPTB at Stargate had no problems showing one of those on their 'family friendly show'.

Many believe bodies riddles with bullet holes, electrocuted corpses, stabbing, fighting, blood, guts, and gore to be obscene but it's fine to show that on daily television programming.

I guess it's fine to make the many change the channels for those obscenities but not the obscenity you claim nudity to be.

Definitely agree with PB here. It's not just fictional violence; we see REAL violence with great regularity on TV, and that's deemed infinitely more acceptable than simple nudity, no matter the context. That's probably not a good thing.

I love you KK.

[Skydiver]

Definitely agree with PB here. It's not just fictional violence; we see REAL violence with great regularity on TV, and that's deemed infinitely more acceptable than simple nudity, no matter the context. That's probably not a good thing.

on the NEWS, yes.

but we're not talking about the news, we're talking about the show of stargate. and on that show, the death isn't real

[Pandora's_Box]

on the NEWS, yes.

but we're not talking about the news, we're talking about the show of stargate. and on that show, the death isn't real

Neither would the sex be if they showed it.

[Daedalus-304]

TV isn't really public though is it?

The basic channels are, because they use public frequencies anyone can pick up. As a result of being public they are monitored by the government.

People do die. Everyday in fact. We've seen people blown up. Streets littered with bodies. Gunshot victims. Accident victims. They freaking showed Sadaam Hussein being hanged.

But see a bare breast or nipple or vagina or butt and the world freaks out!!!

That's what the FCC is there for. The FCC works on a complaint system, if someone thinks what is on is obscene, then they can file a compliant. So if you think violence is obscene, file a complaint. But it seems like people are not offended by mild forms of violence because they don't get many complaints.

However by the number of complaints, it appears that a very large number off people are offended by nudity.

[Womble]

I tend to agree with that particular argument. The tasteful toplessness or even full nudity probably gives off less of an erotic "sexually explicit" feel than it does to dress a female up in skimpy clothing that shows lots of cleavage.

I think the intent of that kind of clothing IS sexual arousal. That however isn't to say that a tasteful topless scene or full nudity scene isn't going to get many men sexually aroused. I just think that in the right context a nude scene will get less men sexually aroused than having Vala/Teyla go around is skimpy clothing that has their boobs popping out in your face, and is skin tight.

Let's be realistic here though. I'm not trying to attack anyones opinion or beliefs. All I'm saying that if nudity is justifiable then let it be. I also think that in alot of TV situations its not. I do think its thrown in their just to capture a male audience. I do however do not equate that with pornography. No do I equate nudity with violence.

With that being said I do think that violence on TV is more socially acceptable because its harder to tell good vs. evil stories without it. And violence has been socially accepted through most of human history. Its a natural part of our lives.

That isn't to say that nudity isn't. We're all nude at least once during the day. Getting changed/having a shower...hell some people even sleep nude. We all know what nude people look like. So why is it such a big deal? Obviously some people are going to be sexually aroused by any nudity. But that doesn't mean that because little Timmy saw Sha're's breasts that you're going to catch him having sexual intercourse at school the next day. Lets be serious here folks. Both nudity and violence are a part of human life. So why should one be more socially acceptable than the other?

You have answered your own question in this post without even noticing it.




Warning: adult reasoning ahead, mental maturity required.



Skimpy clothes showing cleavage are only arousing because they are a promise of nudity to come. They only work because nudity is a taboo in our society, because it is not normalized. Make nudity routine, and no one will be aroused by it.

Whoever it was that first covered their nudity, they invented more than just clothes to protect themselves from cold. They gave the human body its beauty, turned it into something to be treasured. They created a mystery, a ritual of seduction, a source of insatiable, lustful curiosity that became the main engine of what we today call culture. Normalizing nudity, reducing it to something trivial and routine would mean a loss of this mystery, a hyperinflation of human sexuality to the level of it not having any value, not even aesthetic value, beyond the mindless animalistic pursuit of momentary pleasure. It would be a tremendous setback for humanity.

[Major Clanger]

I just found this article that basically sums up a lot of Americans' attitudes toward nudity and TV:

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publica.../2008/0408.asp

Interesting article. We touched briefly on times before - 8pm is definitely pre-watershed in the UK and this wouldn't make it onto the major channels. Not sure about satellite/cable channels.

However - America's Next Top Model (or any of the various spin offs) isn't what I call family viewing. In fact... That is one show I'd really like to put a stop to! But that is a whole other can of worms.

Who mentioned skimpy clothing indicatiing that it leads to nudity? hmmmmm... I don't want to push it here... but nudity and skimpy clothes aren't related. Sex and skimpies, however, can be a whole different matter.

These attitudes are very reminiscent of the Victorian age, actually. The dresses were in two parts. A huge balloon covering the ankles - but the boobs nearly hanging out...

[jenks]

Interesting article. We touched briefly on times before - 8pm is definitely pre-watershed in the UK and this wouldn't make it onto the major channels. Not sure about satellite/cable channels.

However - America's Next Top Model (or any of the various spin offs) isn't what I call family viewing. In fact... That is one show I'd really like to put a stop to! But that is a whole other can of worms.

Who mentioned skimpy clothing indicatiing that it leads to nudity? hmmmmm... I don't want to push it here... but nudity and skimpy clothes aren't related. Sex and skimpies, however, can be a whole different matter.

These attitudes are very reminiscent of the Victorian age, actually. The dresses were in two parts. A huge balloon covering the ankles - but the boobs nearly hanging out...

Actually, as long as it's not sexual, full frontal nudity is allowed on daytime TV in the UK.

[Pitry]

Because that society don't believe that simply looking at these violence images in itself is evil. The people committing these acts are evil. There has been a long tradition here in America that believes that simpling looking at nakedness is wrong.

Er... *raises hand full of boring psychology articles I was forced to read while doing my BA*
According to research, seeing violence on television can lead to imitation and an increase in levels of violence, as to a general feeling of insecurity in the world.
However, only hard pornographic material is problematic. Most articles found no connection between soft porn/ erotic stuff and violence/ sex crimes/ whatever.

So while I agree with you about the current state of the American public opinion, I would say that it looks like this case can be applied the "and if everyone told you to jump, would you?" mentality. Just because a lot of people think that doesn't make it better.

You have answered your own question in this post without even noticing it.




Warning: adult reasoning ahead, mental maturity required.



Skimpy clothes showing cleavage are only arousing because they are a promise of nudity to come. They only work because nudity is a taboo in our society, because it is not normalized. Make nudity routine, and no one will be aroused by it.

Whoever it was that first covered their nudity, they invented more than just clothes to protect themselves from cold. They gave the human body its beauty, turned it into something to be treasured. They created a mystery, a ritual of seduction, a source of insatiable, lustful curiosity that became the main engine of what we today call culture. Normalizing nudity, reducing it to something trivial and routine would mean a loss of this mystery, a hyperinflation of human sexuality to the level of it not having any value, not even aesthetic value, beyond the mindless animalistic pursuit of momentary pleasure. It would be a tremendous setback for humanity.

So adult and mature, you're almost justifying the rapists saying "she had it coming, wearing these provocative clothes". - and before you protest, what you're saying here, in, erm, slightly less sophisticated and mature language () is "the human body is seductive therefore it should be covered unless the intention is seduction". That is, women who do not cover their body are aiming at seducing, because their body has no value other than the animalistic pursuit of momentary pleasure, and so, they can't really complain when poor men see them and can't control their animalistic urges...

I know that's not what you meant to say, BTW. Well, hope so, at any rate. But this is exactly that kind of reasoning, and is quite a dangerous one.

[Major Clanger]

but then, judging by this thread: all nudity is sexual...

ETA: I didn't see the show, but I wonder how far nude photo modelling is non-sexual?

[Womble]

So adult and mature, you're almost justifying the rapists saying "she had it coming, wearing these provocative clothes". - and before you protest, what you're saying here, in, erm, slightly less sophisticated and mature language () is "the human body is seductive therefore it should be covered unless the intention is seduction". That is, women who do not cover their body are aiming at seducing, because their body has no value other than the animalistic pursuit of momentary pleasure, and so, they can't really complain when poor men see them and can't control their animalistic urges...

I know that's not what you meant to say, BTW. Well, hope so, at any rate. But this is exactly that kind of reasoning, and is quite a dangerous one.

I am not sure what sort of logic you were applying that made you arrive to that bizarre interpretation

No, human body in and of itself is not necessarily seductive, and it is by partially covering it that we enhance its seductive qualities- and it is a good thing we do. Like I said, it is the taboo on nudity that created the concept of seduction as we know it.

Yes, women wearing skimpy clothes aim to show off their assets and attract sexual interest. It would be rather ridiculous of you to say that a girl who puts on a miniskirt doesn't want her legs stared at. It is absurd, however, to equate the desire to be noticed by potential sex partners to automatic consent for sex with any random stranger. It is absurd tenfold to claim that because a woman is dressed provocatively, men "can't control their urges". One is completely unrelated to the other.