Stargate and Nudity

[Womble]

Granted, yes. But only to a point. There are always going to be fashions and trends and those are always changing.

There is, however, one thing that virtually never changes. You will have trouble finding a fashion trend away from sexual attractiveness, let alone one that would actually take hold.

And yes, there are a lot of people that are steadfast in their belief that fashion magazines and celebrity diet secrets are gospel. Just like there are a lot of people that are steasfast in believing old-fashioned perceptions of nudity.

But there are people that have manage to buck the view on nudity. And so, it stands to reason that there are people that have managed to buck societal conceptions on beauty and normalacy as well.

Of course there are. Why, just yesterday somebody bucked one of the most oppressive and aggressively enforced social conceptions- that of normative hygiene. He peed by the entrance door to the house where I live, and now everyone has to smell his urine as they enter. Whoever did that is certainly a rebel- but I am somewhat squeamish to declare it a positive achievement.

[Shrak]

This is something i cannot understand at all. Why are people so so scared of seeing people without clothing on screen but have apsolutely no problem with violence.

Let me ask you all a question. In real life what would offend you more, a person walking down the street completely naked or a person walking down the street with a severed head (The Last Man)?

Its really odd as in the real world sex and nudity are common and there is nothing wrong with it but on television its a big no no but violence is completely opposite where violence (killing people) is acceptable but in the real world you would get arrested and spend a very high amount of time in gaol.

Why are people so afraid of nudity on television (specifically Stargate) but violence is far more acceptable?

My opinion is that if it is tastefully done nudity should not be a problem for any tv show (including stargate).

I believe he was trying to say it's not the fact that thier was nudity in the scene, but the fact that it was just thrown in there, hence the random or gratuitous part.

[Pandora's_Box]

It can. Doesn't mean it should.

I would argue that while your observation is largely true, you are drawing the wrong conclusion.

First off....tiny pet peeve of mine when it comes to debating...neither person is right or wrong as this is a matter of opinion so...act accordingly?

Our current situation is not lack of nudity and abundance of violence, but rather an overload of both, in most cases without sufficient artistic justification for either. The media thrives on controversy and shock effect, but it is running out of things to shock us with. The shower scene in Hitchcock's "Psycho" was groundbreakingly gruesome once; it looks mundane now compared to the carnage in your average Quentin Tarantino flick. We don't mind violence because we've been overexposed to it, our senses are numbed. What you are suggesting would do the same to nudity, whether you intend for it or not, because the prudish attitude you so despise actually IS the only restraint preventing our TV from being flooded with naked tits. You may think people will have a choice to not watch, but in reality it will become impossible to find a movie without it. It will be the case of "you can paint it any color you like, as long as it's black".

I don't think so. There still exists a considerable amount of television programming sans violence. Same goes for movies.

I doubt that it'll ever be impossible to find a movie sans nudity if it ever becomes more mainstream.
Firstly because I think the people who make quality movies realize the difference between gratuitious nudity and quality film-making.
Secondly because there will more than likely still be rating systems in effect. And, yes, I do believe those are necessary.

As for an overload of nudity. Sigh.....this is where it's going to get touchy again because while I see an overload of sex and sexualized people, I don't see an overload of nudity outside of pornography. And that's part of the problem. Nudity and sex come hand-in-hand these days and I don't think that's right.

There is, however, a difference. Depictions if violence in the media are, on average, MORE justified than depictions of nudity in their artistic value.

Movies and TV, inasmuch as they are art, revolve around the same two themes as the rest of art does- namely, love and death. This gives them no choice but to show their practical expressions, of which nudity and violence are part. However, while it is impossible to deal with the subject of death without an exposure to violence, our notion of love is not as heavily linked to sex and nudity, making the latter possible to avoid or just be hinted upon. This does not mean sex or nudity need never be shown, but it does make the choice of showing nudity a lot more gratuitious by nature than a choice of showing violence.

I beg to differ. Death does not equal violence. It is possible to show that aspect of life without showcasing all the horrible things humans are capable of doing to one another. There's another example of condtioning...in case you were counting.

And I do agree that sometimes violence is a vital element in death and death scenes. And yes, sometimes it is necessary to show it.

But I also firmly believe that sex is an important aspect of love. And before everyone gets their panties in a twist, I don't want to see explicit sex on SGA or any other show for that matter. But the subtlititis of it....the beginnings of it...why should we be ashamed of that? Or if not ashamed and you just don't want to watch tha kind of thing then don't. But why should it be banned outright when some more gruesome displays of violence are not?

[Pandora's_Box]

Of course there are. Why, just yesterday somebody bucked one of the most oppressive and aggressively enforced social conceptions- that of normative hygiene. He peed by the entrance door to the house where I live, and now everyone has to smell his urine as they enter. Whoever did that is certainly a rebel- but I am somewhat squeamish to declare it a positive achievement.

Neither would I and don't presume to imagine that I was referring to such offensive behaviour. To suggest that I'm saying that all societal constructs on propriety and behaviour need to be discarded is generalizing to the extreme.

That kind of attitude, equating accepting nudity to something as depraved as the example you just utilized, is exactly what's wrong with societal perceptions on the human body and those who choose to see it, and sexuality, as par for the course. In other words, normal and healthy, and not something to mock or hide in shame from viewing.

Ugh!

[Womble]

First off....tiny pet peeve of mine when it comes to debating...neither person is right or wrong as this is a matter of opinion so...act accordingly?

Were it a matter of opinion, we would have limited ourselves to simple declarative statements. I believe we've gone beyond that by now. The fact that we are engaged in a discussion and an attempt to persuade each other indicates that we are trying to arrive at the truth. Which, for the record, is hardly a bad thing.

I don't think so. There still exists a considerable amount of television programming sans violence.

Of course. There's news... oh wait, bad example. There's soap operas... which usually feature a murder or two somewhere along the way. Ah yes, there's reality shows and things like American idol, which I would classify as cruel and unusual punishment of the audience, but which do not normally feature physical violence. Most of those makes sex into a selling point instead.

But we were talking story-based entertainment, as in movies and TV series. And in that field, even works that are not centered on sex or violence usually feature them at some point. You won't ever find a soap opera which does not feature a murder or rape subplot.

I doubt that it'll ever be impossible to find a movie sans nudity if it ever becomes more mainstream.
Firstly because I think the people who make quality movies realize the difference between gratuitious nudity and quality film-making.
Secondly because there will more than likely still be rating systems in effect. And, yes, I do believe those are necessary.

The rating systems are in place now, yet you see their use for restricting nudity as a problem.Indeed, if you seek to make nudity a "no big deal" thing, the first thing you should call for is that nudity not be a factor in the ranking system.

And of course people who make quality movies know the difference between quality filmmaking and gratuitious nudity. But they also know the difference between movie making and painting. Movie making is not just an art, but also an industry, it manufactures a product that is to be sold. And bare boobs sell. Which is why most of the nudity and sex currently in the movies can be safely cut out with little damage to the films' artistic value.

As for an overload of nudity. Sigh.....this is where it's going to get touchy again because while I see an overload of sex and sexualized people, I don't see an overload of nudity outside of pornography. And that's part of the problem. Nudity and sex come hand-in-hand these days and I don't think that's right.

How can it not be right? Are you saying it is not natural to link nudity to sex?

I beg to differ. Death does not equal violence. It is possible to show that aspect of life without showcasing all the horrible things humans are capable of doing to one another.

No it's not. Whether you like it or not, one cannot raise the issue of death without raising the issue of violent death, because this is the kind of death we have the most issues with. It is the kind of death that strikes us as the most unnatural, undesirable and frightening. We may know in our heads that dying slowly from a disease is a worse fate to endure, yet on the instinctive level we regard it as a part of natural order and are more outraged by death through violence.

And I do agree that sometimes violence is a vital element in death and death scenes. And yes, sometimes it is necessary to show it.

But I also firmly believe that sex is an important aspect of love.

But the link is nowhere near as strong. Leaving aside the forms of love that are by definition not of sexual nature, things like love of a mother towards her child, even love between a man and a woman need not be realized sexually to be true and powerful. Sex is associated with love far more loosely than death is with violence.

[Skydiver]

No....it's fine to see a severed head and T'ealc or Ronon being beaten to a pulp on TV but show someone a bare nipple, ala Janet Jackson, and not only do you get the worst case of over-reactive and sensaltionist cenorship we've seen in recent years, but Janet Jackson was the one scorned and tsk-tsked while Justin Timberlake, who I may point out was complicent in the action, remained the golden boy.

Yes, that is "twisted".

it's not necessarily WHAT she did but the venue she did it in.

stargate, a little show that MAYBE gets 2 million viewers on cable vs the super bowl that has HUNDREDES OF MILLIONS of viewers on broadcast television.

apples to oranges.

it's the difference between doing a striptease in the bedroom for your sig other, or doing the flag pole dance in your birthday suit on the steps of your local court house.

Janet got in trouble because of her 'wardrobe malfunction' on the biggest televised event of the year in the part of that event - the half time show - that is heavily marketed.

[Womble]

Neither would I and don't presume to imagine that I was referring to such offensive behaviour. To suggest that I'm saying that all societal constructs on propriety and behaviour need to be discarded is generalizing to the extreme.

My point was that there is no inherent value in bucking a social conception, and one should choose carefully what to rebel against.

That kind of attitude, equating accepting nudity to something as depraved as the example you just utilized, is exactly what's wrong with societal perceptions on the human body and those who choose to see it, and sexuality, as par for the course. In other words, normal and healthy, and not something to mock or hide in shame from viewing.

Ugh!

Why should the two not be equated? They are both "natural" in the sense of us having an inborn capacity for them. They are both subject to social prohibition. The only reason you consider public peeing "depraved" is because the society told you so. Why should one be seen as normal and healthy while the other as shameful and "depraved"?

[Skydiver]

I doubt that it'll ever be impossible to find a movie sans nudity if it ever becomes more mainstream.
Firstly because I think the people who make quality movies realize the difference between gratuitious nudity and quality film-making.
Secondly because there will more than likely still be rating systems in effect. And, yes, I do believe those are necessary.

in additon, you're also going to have actors that just won't do it. amanda won't do nudity, neither will claudia. I'm not sure about the guys, if they have no nudity clauses in their contracts. But there are and will always be actors out there that simply will not bare it all just to make a few bucks.

One could argue that making nudity 100% mainstream could ultimately end up discriminating against any that choose to NOT bare their bodies.

[Pandora's_Box]

Of course. There's news... oh wait, bad example. There's soap operas... which usually feature a murder or two somewhere along the way. Ah yes, there's reality shows and things like American idol, which I would classify as cruel and unusual punishment of the audience, but which do not normally feature physical violence. Most of those makes sex into a selling point instead.

But we were talking story-based entertainment, as in movies and TV series. And in that field, even works that are not centered on sex or violence usually feature them at some point. You won't ever find a soap opera which does not feature a murder or rape subplot.

And sitcoms and dramatic television that has nothing to do with violent storylines. Examples (and this is just me going down a list of TV shows I happened to find) : 30 Rock, The Office, Ugly Betty, Chasmere Mafia, Eli Stone, Gossip Girl, House, How I Met Your Mother, Lipstick Jungle....I could go on....

Of course there's bound to be some violence on every show because sometimes people engage in violent acts.

But....and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here....people also take off clothing or engage in sexual acts.

Does violence or nudity have to be the main element of show to be shown on occasion? I don't think so.

The rating systems are in place now, yet you see their use for restricting nudity as a problem.Indeed, if you seek to make nudity a "no big deal" thing, the first thing you should call for is that nudity not be a factor in the ranking system.

Okay. Let's do that then.

And of course people who make quality movies know the difference between quality filmmaking and gratuitious nudity. But they also know the difference between movie making and painting. Movie making is not just an art, but also an industry, it manufactures a product that is to be sold. And bare boobs sell. Which is why most of the nudity and sex currently in the movies can be safely cut out with little damage to the films' artistic value.

Then cut it if it's not necessary. I'm not advocating showing skin simply for the sake of showing skin. I just don't think it's anything to hide from or something that should be explicitly banned when used in tasteful, meaningful ways.

How can it not be right? Are you saying it is not natural to link nudity to sex?

I'm saying it's not right to only link nudity to sex. Mostly because when people think sex on TV or in the movies, they think pornography. And so when a nude body is shown on TV, then labels like pornographic, sick, etc....are always bandied about. And this shouldn't be the case.

No it's not. Whether you like it or not, one cannot raise the issue of death without raising the issue of violent death, because this is the kind of death we have the most issues with. It is the kind of death that strikes us as the most unnatural, undesirable and frightening. We may know in our heads that dying slowly from a disease is a worse fate to endure, yet on the instinctive level we regard it as a part of natural order and are more outraged by death through violence.

And....I believe I have said, previously, that I do think depicting violence is sometime necessary. I am aware of this.

But the link is nowhere near as strong. Leaving aside the forms of love that are by definition not of sexual nature, things like love of a mother towards her child, even love between a man and a woman need not be realized sexually to be true and powerful. Sex is associated with love far more loosely than death is with violence.

I disagree vehemently with the impliction that depicting the most violent forms of death should be more acceptable and 'right' by societal standards than depicting the sexual aspect of love.

I happen to disagree with your statement that sex and love are more loosely associated than violence is with death. Regardless of that, I don't see why we should shy away from exploring all aspects of love.

it's not necessarily WHAT she did but the venue she did it in.

stargate, a little show that MAYBE gets 2 million viewers on cable vs the super bowl that has HUNDREDES OF MILLIONS of viewers on broadcast television.

apples to oranges.

it's the difference between doing a striptease in the bedroom for your sig other, or doing the flag pole dance in your birthday suit on the steps of your local court house.

Janet got in trouble because of her 'wardrobe malfunction' on the biggest televised event of the year in the part of that event - the half time show - that is heavily marketed.

Again...we're equating seeing a bare nipple with seeing sexually suggestive acts.

It's a nipple for crying out loud. Take a look down at your chest or someone else's at the beach or at the swimming pool or on a hot summer's day and you'll see many of those.

'Wardrobe malfunction' or not she should have just recieved a slap on the wrist for doing something unexpected and we should all just have gotten over it.

Is seeing a nipple seriously so offensive that new censorship laws had to be established? That traumatizing to the American public?

[Pandora's_Box]

in additon, you're also going to have actors that just won't do it. amanda won't do nudity, neither will claudia. I'm not sure about the guys, if they have no nudity clauses in their contracts. But there are and will always be actors out there that simply will not bare it all just to make a few bucks.

One could argue that making nudity 100% mainstream could ultimately end up discriminating against any that choose to NOT bare their bodies.

Freedom of choice. Freedom of expression.

When did I ever say that people should be made to bare all against their wills? They don't want to do nudity. Then don't. Someone doesn't want to hire them because they won't do it, they have every right in the world to then go and hire someone that will. It's a job, acting, and if an actor doesn't fit the qualifications for a job then they won't get hired.

One could also argue that there is discrimination against those actors less physically fit for rolls that require a lot of physical exertion.

One could argue that some actors are discriminated against for not being pretty enough when a producer is looking for the epitome of beautiful.

One could argue for cases of discrimination till there one's face turned blue.

It ultimately comes down to choice.

[Pandora's_Box]

My point was that there is no inherent value in bucking a social conception, and one should choose carefully what to rebel against.

Why should the two not be equated? They are both "natural" in the sense of us having an inborn capacity for them. They are both subject to social prohibition. The only reason you consider public peeing "depraved" is because the society told you so. Why should one be seen as normal and healthy while the other as shameful and "depraved"?

Because I so choose to not see it as depraved or shameful while I choose to look down upon urinating in public. Blame it on conditioning if you want because, yes, it probably is due to that.

Of course one should choose carefully the social conceptions one chooses to buck. But your argument that there is no inherent value in bucking social conceptions is, at least to me, mind-boggling.

This is the, "if everyone jumps the cliff, then so should I" mentality and I refuse to jump on that bandwagon.

Independant, individual thought is vitally important to us as people if we are to retain any sense of freedom.

Freedom of choice, freedom of expression. The freedom to portray what one wishes in an artistic medium. The freedom to refuse to acknowledge or agree with what is portrayed. The freedom to see it or not to see it. The freedom to change the channel or keep tuned in.

You don't agree with nudity on television. I respect that. I don't necessarily believe you do be prudish or repressed. I don't know you. I do know you just don't want to don't like to whatever. I can respect that.

But in turn...is it possible to respect those that wish to portray more sexual themes in tasteful ways. Or just those who wish to show nudity because it so happens that a storyline calls for someone to be naked in a non-sexual way. Could you respect that and respect those that wish to watch it?

[KindlyKeller]

in additon, you're also going to have actors that just won't do it. amanda won't do nudity, neither will claudia. I'm not sure about the guys, if they have no nudity clauses in their contracts. But there are and will always be actors out there that simply will not bare it all just to make a few bucks.

One could argue that making nudity 100% mainstream could ultimately end up discriminating against any that choose to NOT bare their bodies.

This statement begins at the premise that all displays of nudity are vapid attempts to appeal to sexed-up men, though. I would have hoped that we'd all agreed that there are reasons for nudity to exist besides questionable schemes to "make a few bucks."

[SoulReaver]

Why should the two not be equated? They are both "natural" in the sense of us having an inborn capacity for them. They are both subject to social prohibition. The only reason you consider public peeing "depraved" is because the society told you so.

but there's also a question of hygiene involved with one of the two. you won't appreciate someone p*ssing on your property, but it's doubtful a woman walking around your property nude would p*ss you off (granted depends what she'd look like)
one reflects dirty habits & the other a dirty mind (at most)

[Pitry]

Sure they do dress for other girls- when they are lesbians

Seriously though- yes, there is a lot of women who will say that they put on sexy underwear, miniskirts and such because they like it. The more self-aware ones will go a little further and admit that they like such clothes because wearing them makes them feel better about themselves. But then the question arises- why DO they feel better about themselves when flashing their legs and baring their bosoms? Is it not a function of the same social conditioning, the deeply internalized notion that it is right for women to show off their assets and wear that which attracts men and vice versa?

Fashion?
When 12 year olds are dressed that way, and their parents deem it acceptable, they're not looking for sex. They're dressing up in what's considered "cool" - sometimes in the fashion their own mums are dressed up - because that way is acceptable in society. So, yes, the women who choose to dress that way would do so because it makes them feel better about themselves as apart of a society that dresses mainly the same, not because of the quite insulting catcalls and looks from passerbys - which tend to annoy to no end, the rational being "I can dress the way I like and it shouldn't turn me immediately to a sexual object".
So the answer is no, a lot fo women do not dress that way in order to attract men.

[SoulReaver]

Nudity and sex come hand-in-hand these days and I don't think that's right.

absolutely, in fact whenever we straight guys gaze upon the luxuriance of a nude, comely young woman's shape, sex is the last thing that come to our minds. so I just don't understand the link some people make between nudity & sex :/