Stargate and Nudity

[MerryK]

Err no? Vulnerability isn't something they could have conveyed with a facial expression, especially not after Apophis had used the hand device on her so her face was completely blank. What better way to show her vulnerability than showing her completely naked, exposed, defenseless? I know they could have just shown her from the back, but I don't think it would have had the same impact.

I disagree...I felt most of power of the scene came from seeing Sha're's face—the center of her humanity, ripped away from her by Apophis. Seeing utter desperation and fear, or even the blankness of brainwashing, is much more terrifying than a naked body IMO.

[rlr149]

Ummmm...(snipped by me)..... fact.

sorry, forgot to add this in before i posted

no, they took thier time to show off a pretty girl for no other reason than they COULD show off the pretty girl


however, we didn't need to see shau'ri in her birthday suit to realize her terror and vulnerabilty. It could have been established just as well with seeing her dress get cut off, it fall to the floor, her horror and pops leering like a perv

[rlr149]

I disagree...I felt most of power of the scene came from seeing Sha're's face—the center of her humanity, ripped away from her by Apophis. Seeing utter desperation and fear, or even the blankness of brainwashing, is much more terrifying than a naked body IMO.

what on earth makes you think that its the human body thats supposed to be terrifying?!?!?! it illustrates 'vulnerability' on her part, and on his, just how much of a 'bast***' he is.

[Melora]

<snipped for space>

I think a lot of people were upset by the 'self-censorship' because they honestly believed Wright to have been forced into making that decision. If that's not the case then I fully support his decision.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time nowadays most showrunners don't really have the option of showing any form of nudity in most programming. Those that do face cesorship by the FCC or severe backlash from various groups. Which, of course, is within their rights to give, but unfortunately this often results in "self-censorship" by those that showed the nudity in the first place. And I don't believe anyone has the right to impose their own morality on someone else's artistic vision.

I agree that the FCC sometimes imposes too much control over television shows (amongst other things ). I don't know if I would be happy with a completely unregulated system either though. Things are slowly changing and the FCC has had to adapt to the times. Back in the earlier days of TV they had married couples sleeping in twin beds and couldn't even show a woman's belly button. With the ratings system, they can now have differing levels of nudity, violence, sex, language, etc. so people can have more choice about what and what not to watch. Granted, there is not much nudity at all on basic cable or network TV in the U.S., but even that might change in the coming years.

But in this case, Brad Wright and the other producers have been complaining about the nude scene in COTG for years. They have also been quite vocal about how they were forced to include the scene by the executives at Showtime and how they didn't think it fit in with their vision for the show.

From Hollywood Reporter 2005:

"Anderson's humor served him well during the show's first season, which even Wright and executive producer Robert Cooper, who came onboard as a writer, admit got off to a shaky start. There were rocky story lines, and there was cringe-worthy dialogue. And there was a creative argument with Showtime.

Wright still bristles at remembering how the channel wanted full-frontal nudity. "People said, 'It's Showtime sci-fi -- that's what fans want,'" he says. "We got lambasted by the critics for it. Here was this fun 'Star Wars'-like show with flashes of naked women.""

If BW was complaining about this issue all the way back in 2005, I doubt anyone is pressuring him to make these changes now. I think this is something he has wanted to do for a long time and that any changes that are made to the episode are solely the result of decisions made by Wright and the other producers. Whether or not fans will like those choices remains to be seen.

[Pandora's_Box]

I disagree...I felt most of power of the scene came from seeing Sha're's face—the center of her humanity, ripped away from her by Apophis. Seeing utter desperation and fear, or even the blankness of brainwashing, is much more terrifying than a naked body IMO.

what on earth makes you think that its the human body thats supposed to be terrifying?!?!?! it illustrates 'vulnerability' on her part, and on his, just how much of a 'bast***' he is.

I'm going with rlr149 on this. The nude body itself was never intended to be terrifying. What it stood for - vulnerability, helplessness, Apophis' evil - was what was intended to be terrifying. And this wouldn't have been the first time nudity was used to convey this message. It's a pretty popular symbolic motif in artistic mediums. I don't see anything wrong with using that symbolism.

[MerryK]

what on earth makes you think that its the human body thats supposed to be terrifying?!?!?! it illustrates 'vulnerability' on her part, and on his, just how much of a 'bast***' he is.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. The vulnerability of Sha're and the evil of Apophis was supposed to make us fear and hate the Goa'uld. But nudity had very little to do with provoking that response in me—which was what I was trying to convey in my previous post. Her emotional vulnerability was much more powerful than any physical equivalent.

[hyzmarca]

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.

What I'm about to type I type with the utmost benevolence in my heart. You're being an idiot. That is not to impute your intelligence in any way, it is just that, with the above quoted argument, you are being an idiot.

You haven't really done much research into mating practiced worldwide, particularly amongst groups which traditionally wear very little clothing, I imagine. It is quite obvious that you are basing the above statement on a dearth of relevant anthropological data.

Sexy clothing isn't about promising nudity. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. It is about exaggerating, accentuating, and drawing attention sexually attractive features, essentially making the clothed body more sexually arousing than the nude body.

Cleavage isn't the promise of a naked breast. It is a perception-manipulation technique to make the breasts appear bigger than they actually are, and to draw attention to them. Compared to the cleavage, the actual teat is usually disappointing. It is an illusion designed to arouse, not a compromise between modesty and sensuality. The skirt makes the hips appear wider and draws attention to them. In addition, the miniskirt draws attention to the thighs and makes them appear longer. Again, these aren't hints or promises; they're bright blinding peacock feathers which say exactly one thing - sexy - and they say it far more loudly than a plain naked body possibly could.

Across every culture, people use ornamentation to enhance their sexually attractive features, though the nature of the ornamentation and the features enhanced both vary from culture to culture. In some cultures, women paint their breasts to draw the eyes of men. In others, men wear giant penis sheaths to make their equipment appear bigger than it actually is. There are some women who pad the backs of their pants to make their butts appear larger in the manner that a young Western teen might pad her bra. And this is before we get into the body modifications - piercings, neck rings, lip discs, silicone and corsets, oh my. Even the most clothing-optional cultures use sexual ornamentation because the plain naked human body just isn't very sexy at all, except for the most extreme ideal examples.

Perhaps the most damning and most easily observed refutation of your claim is the naturist/nudist subculture. Naturists and nudists are not hypersexual. In fact, the opposite is true; those who practice clothing-free lifestyles tend sexually demure by choice. The vast majority of naturist/nudist resorts and events are conservative family-friendly affairs that you could safely bring the children to (and, in fact, many people do bring their children). There is nothing sexual about it at all.

Rubbish. Your sense of aesthetics is a result of social conditioning. Your idea of what is a "normal" look for a human body is a result of social conditioning. Your entire idea of "looking good" has been dictated to you, whether you are conscious of it or not.

There are three ideals of beauty which are universal across all human cultures and are, indeed, programed into us on a genetic level; they are physical symmetry, clear skin, and a particular waist-hip ratio (0.7 for women and 0.9 for men). Even newborn infants find these things to be pleasing. .

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.


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.

Obviously, he did the right thing. You like smelling it and so does everyone else, otherwise someone would have just grabbed a mop and some lysol or whatever equivalent cleaning tool and agent would be appropriate.

Fashion?
When 12 year olds are dressed that way, and their parents deem it acceptable, they're not looking for sex.

The hell they aren't. Sure, some are just playing dress-up. Many, however, are starting to blossom in that special way that makes people strongly desire a horizontal tango partner.

That was the point of my taking offence though. Beastiality involves cruelity to animals - hurting an animal that cannot voice its objection..

You obviously aren't watching the right bestiality. Some of it is horribly cruel, particularly the things that some people do with eels and fish. But, for the most part, the non-human participants enjoy it. A man catching for a stallion is going through a great deal more discomfort than the stallion is, I'll tell you that.

Most of time we condemn network heads when they decide to get their fingers into a script. It's funny how when it suits some of you, you decide to support these pinheads over Mr. Wright. If we put aside for a moment all the other endless arguing about the morality of this scene, the above issue alone is, in my opinion, reason enough to respect Mr. Wright's decision to take the scene out rather than trying to undermine Mr. Wright by making a "cause celebre" out of it. (ykickamoocow take note.)

Usually, network heads are wrong. Sometimes, however, they're right. And sometimes the guy who created it in the first place is wrong, particularly when making new edits decades later. I would like to remind people of the travesty of Greedo shooting first in Star Wars and the policemen who are armed with walkie-talkies in E.T.

Children of the Gods ain't Bladerunner and it ain't Superman II. It wasn't butchered beyond recognition and it doesn't center on subtle philosophical points that can be drastically changed with a little bit of editing.
It is what it is and re-editing it won't change that. Doing so will, at best, whitewash it. Like when Spielberg digitally removed all those guns from ET and when Lucas made Greedo shoot first, we'll all know that it isn't real. We'll know that it is a futile attempt to make us buy into a lie, and a bad lie at that. What is done is done. You can't change history no matter how hard you try and, like it or not, Children of the Gods, as it is now, is a part of Stargate's history.

[rlr149]

You obviously aren't watching the right bestiality. Some of it is horribly cruel, particularly the things that some people do with eels and fish. But, for the most part, the non-human participants enjoy it. A man catching for a stallion is going through a great deal more discomfort than the stallion is, I'll tell you that.

best euphemism ever!!!

Children of the Gods ain't Bladerunner and it ain't Superman II. It wasn't butchered beyond recognition and it doesn't center on subtle philosophical points that can be drastically changed with a little bit of editing.
It is what it is and re-editing it won't change that. Doing so will, at best, whitewash it. Like when Spielberg digitally removed all those guns from ET and when Lucas made Greedo shoot first, we'll all know that it isn't real. We'll know that it is a futile attempt to make us buy into a lie, and a bad lie at that. What is done is done. You can't change history no matter how hard you try and, like it or not, Children of the Gods, as it is now, is a part of Stargate's history.

I applaud you sir, well said

[Womble]

What I'm about to type I type with the utmost benevolence in my heart. You're being an idiot. That is not to impute your intelligence in any way, it is just that, with the above quoted argument, you are being an idiot.

If the height of your benevolence is calling someone an idiot, I wonder what you do when you are in a mood for malice.

You haven't really done much research into mating practiced worldwide, particularly amongst groups which traditionally wear very little clothing, I imagine.

Not for lack of trying, I assure you. I am most willing to do research into the mating practices of any culture that can provide me with a sufficiently attractive female volunteer.

It is quite obvious that you are basing the above statement on a dearth of relevant anthropological data.

Sexy clothing isn't about promising nudity. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. It is about exaggerating, accentuating, and drawing attention sexually attractive features, essentially making the clothed body more sexually arousing than the nude body.

Cleavage isn't the promise of a naked breast. It is a perception-manipulation technique to make the breasts appear bigger than they actually are, and to draw attention to them. Compared to the cleavage, the actual teat is usually disappointing. It is an illusion designed to arouse, not a compromise between modesty and sensuality. The skirt makes the hips appear wider and draws attention to them. In addition, the miniskirt draws attention to the thighs and makes them appear longer. Again, these aren't hints or promises; they're bright blinding peacock feathers which say exactly one thing - sexy - and they say it far more loudly than a plain naked body possibly could.

Across every culture, people use ornamentation to enhance their sexually attractive features, though the nature of the ornamentation and the features enhanced both vary from culture to culture. In some cultures, women paint their breasts to draw the eyes of men. In others, men wear giant penis sheaths to make their equipment appear bigger than it actually is. There are some women who pad the backs of their pants to make their butts appear larger in the manner that a young Western teen might pad her bra. And this is before we get into the body modifications - piercings, neck rings, lip discs, silicone and corsets, oh my. Even the most clothing-optional cultures use sexual ornamentation because the plain naked human body just isn't very sexy at all, except for the most extreme ideal examples.

Everything you have just said leads to the same conclusion as the one I drew- namely, that by wrapping our body into revealing clothes we seek to enhance the potential mating partner's desire to see us without those clothes. Even if by false advertisement.

Perhaps the most damning and most easily observed refutation of your claim is the naturist/nudist subculture. Naturists and nudists are not hypersexual. In fact, the opposite is true; those who practice clothing-free lifestyles tend sexually demure by choice. The vast majority of naturist/nudist resorts and events are conservative family-friendly affairs that you could safely bring the children to (and, in fact, many people do bring their children). There is nothing sexual about it at all.

I happened upon a nudist beach once, and I can testify to the accuracy of your above observation. There indeed was nothing remotely sexual about any of those bodies, and for the life of me I couldn't imagine any clothes or body paint that could salvage any of their sex appeal.

On a more serious note, you are yet again confirming my point that nudity is only sexually attractive because of the existing taboo on public nudity. What I have argued in this thread all along is that this taboo plays an important social role and is by no means something to fight or protest against.

There are three ideals of beauty which are universal across all human cultures and are, indeed, programed into us on a genetic level; they are physical symmetry, clear skin, and a particular waist-hip ratio (0.7 for women and 0.9 for men). Even newborn infants find these things to be pleasing. .

Rubbish. While clear skin and physical symmetry are indeed basic observable indicators of health and absence of genetic abnormalities, ideals of female beauty regarding the breast size and waist-hip ratio had fluctuated over the ages, and even today they vary from race to race and from culture to culture. While the Western culture's cult of youth advertizes a slender body, in some North African cultures young women are force-fed into obesity to boost their chances of getting married. The same with the skin tone- while European women sunbathe themselves to a crisp, their Egyptian and Indian sisters spend fortunes on skin-whitening creams.

Obviously, he did the right thing. You like smelling it and so does everyone else, otherwise someone would have just grabbed a mop and some lysol or whatever equivalent cleaning tool and agent would be appropriate.

Obviously, someone did. But you are dodging the answer to the question I posed with this example. Suppose the social taboo on such things was gone, and such behavior became a routine thing at your doorstep. Would you consider that a positive achievement?

[ykickamoocow]

I am currently watching the Football and its Quarter time. They just showed some footage of a female streaker in the 1982 Grand Final. She was completely naked, we got a full view of her from behind then sure half turned around and we saw the side of her breast and her nipple. I must point out that they showed this at 3:20pm and i doubt anyone will ring up channel 10 and complain even though since its still afternoon i would imagine alot of young children will be wathcing.

[timtheomniscient]

apophis just wanted to check that ho' out. yall

[kymeric]

You obviously aren't watching the right bestiality. Some of it is horribly cruel, particularly the things that some people do with eels and fish. But, for the most part, the non-human participants enjoy it. A man catching for a stallion is going through a great deal more discomfort than the stallion is, I'll tell you that.

Quoted for sheer hilarity!

[Col. Newman]

Here is what I posted in another thread

Nudity adds nothing to plots. Its only purpose it to increase the numbers of male viewers and sometimes female viewers. I have no problem with nudity and swearing etc. after all I am a male teenager. But keep it to cable channels like HBO and Showtime, and FX.

I propose this A channels; like Scifi, USA and TNT be kept from going beyond TV-14. B Channels like HBO, SHOWTIME, FX (is now going in that direction) be allowed to do whatever but must be subscribed to whether for free or for a fee.

[jenks]

"I also propose this why don't you Europeans keep to opining about your TV standards and we will keep to opining on ours."

Is there any reasoning behind this proposition?

[Stargate121x]

I agree man, ppl freaking out over nudity in shows is stupid. Wat's so wrong with seeing a person naked, it's not like they're gonna jump out thru the tv and attack u so who cares.