Stargate and Nudity

[Seastallion]

actualy it is a long story on how I got that quote, perhaps on another thread before Big Brother shuts us down for exercising our right to go of topic...

Ah, just PM me or something.

Oh, and Nudity is good, or something...

[jenks]

I would say it offends because people believe it to be immoral.

Buy why? Unless we can answer that then this debate is going nowhere.

[Madeleine]

Usually with nudity, people always associate it with sex.

Why? I'm certain most people spend more time naked than they do having sex.

I'm certain that when Daniel and Ernest and probably Replicarter were naked in Stargate, people weren't thinking of sex, just of chilliness or whatever.

I get that people have codes of sexual morality and I'm all for erring on the side of caution, but nudity is nethier automatically sexy nor sexual.

Would you settle for allowing nudity if in an obviously non-sexual context? (I doubt Ernest or Daniel had sex on the brain, and I don't think either of them provoked sexual thoughts.)

[ykickamoocow]

Yes, but man has been using cloths since, well, ever. Sure you could talk about our "Ape" stage of evolution, but if that was the case, we weren't human then.

So one can argue that cloths are natural. Besides, the word "Natural" can also be a Social Fact, not a scientific fact.

If humans were meant to wear clothing then why are their still tribes in Africa and South America where people were little to no clothing?

[Atlantis1]

Why? I'm certain most people spend more time naked than they do having sex.

I'm certain that when Daniel and Ernest and probably Replicarter were naked in Stargate, people weren't thinking of sex, just of chilliness or whatever.

I get that people have codes of sexual morality and I'm all for erring on the side of caution, but nudity is nethier automatically sexy nor sexual.

Would you settle for allowing nudity if in an obviously non-sexual context? (I doubt Ernest or Daniel had sex on the brain, and I don't think either of them provoked sexual thoughts.)

I don't think of sex when I see nudity but I wonder why it is needed. For Ernest, his clothes probably wore out after all those years which is probably what with happen. I never could understand why Daniel was descended nude. What was the point? If nudity or cleavage is needed for a show then the show is not working.


As to the one who sugested teenagers write the show.............umm hormones.

[Pandora's_Box]

If humans were meant to wear clothing then why are their still tribes in Africa and South America where people were little to no clothing?

That's right.

The entire reason for clothing (at least at first) was protection from the elements.

Tribes in South America and Africa have no use for restrictive additional pieces of cloth because they live in climates were clothing is unnecessary. People walk around half-naked out of convenience.

The rest of the world has developed other uses for clothing and other views on nudity.

It's interesting to note however, that there are some tribes where it is customary to be fully clothed and even tribes where nudity may be okay amongst tribe members but not amongst people outside the tribe.

[Madeleine]

I don't think of sex when I see nudity but I wonder why it is needed. For Ernest, his clothes probably wore out after all those years which is probably what with happen. I never could understand why Daniel was descended nude. What was the point? If nudity or cleavage is needed for a show then the show is not working.

He was nude because he didn't have any clothes.

I don't think there was any big fanfare in advance of that, there was no "tune in to see a naked guy, come on ladies, get swooning" ad campaign, and it did not herald a large number of naked scenes on the show. It's not like they did it to titilate or to snare a few viewers away from the porn channels.

I don't get how it can be evidence of the show 'not working'. (At least, no more than cast changes are evidence of the show not working, or new enemies are evidence of the show not working, or any number of totally subjective reasons that people have cited as evidence of the show not working during the many many years it has been running )

[Womble]

That's right.

The entire reason for clothing (at least at first) was protection from the elements.

Tribes in South America and Africa have no use for restrictive additional pieces of cloth because they live in climates were clothing is unnecessary. People walk around half-naked out of convenience.

Rubbish. I dare you to go to Equatorial Africa and spend a few hours out in the sun naked. Or walk a few miles through a jungle or thorny dense bush. You will quickly understand the value of additional pieces of cloth.

Most people living in hot climates are VERY dressed, usually in long loose robes covering the entire body. Think ancient Roman togas, Indian sari, Bedouin or Uzbek traditional clothes, etc. This is because the same way clothing protects one from cold, it also protects one from excessive heat, while also preventing excessive sun exposure. Another reason, at least equally important, is mosquito protection- a life and death issue in tropical regions, where malaria still kills millions. It is only the most primitive tribes in South America and Africa who go semi-naked- and that is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. They live in conditions where clean water is scarce, washing machines are unheard of and domestically produced materials suitable for clothes are in a relatively short supply. When one cannot regularly shower or wash their short supply of clothes, going around overdressed can cause any number of health problems- fungus, body lice, you name it.

The simple rule of thumb is: the more civilized (and therefore richer) people are, the more clothed they tend to be. And that should make you think

[rlr149]

If it does, then I would be happy, but if nobody wishes this, then so be it. It picked its audience from the beginning. As long as 8 year olds are discouraged from watching then I would not care. If I have been watching it for years and then it added things such as nudity, I would be quite angry.

thats not really answering this :- now because you like it, should sci-fi change it because of your moral indignation to a single aspect of the show?

as for the 8 year old, sci fi shouldn't market it for them, but its your responsibility as a parent to enforce that, not theirs to bring up your kids with your moral values.

I'm protestant, do you really want me to answer that question regarding Michelangelo?
I used that word incorrectly, on purpose.

why?

I know your point. I was also stating a different point that there would be debate within the network before they even think of agreeing to your commission. SGA could always move on to another channel, like Spike or USA and the like.

a debate about whether it was worth it insofar as monetary recompense, not "oh noes!!! the *insert offended group here* are offended and they mustn't be!!!"

[Daedalus-304]

Why? I'm certain most people spend more time naked than they do having sex.

They do, but many would consider it very private and often do it (showers or changing) behind locked / closed doors. If someone looks at another person naked, and they aren't closely related, spouses (or similar), or otherwise invited to do so, that person would be considered a pervert. It is generally assumed that if one is looking at another naked they are doing so for sexual reasons. For example, you hear news stories of people hiding cameras in bathrooms and changing rooms, then post it on the internet. Although the victims when naked aren't thinking of sex, those who are taping are.

I'm certain that when Daniel and Ernest and probably Replicarter were naked in Stargate, people weren't thinking of sex, just of chilliness or whatever.

Actually, I would guess a few people were thinking of sex with Replicarter and maybe a few with Daniel as well.

I get that people have codes of sexual morality and I'm all for erring on the side of caution, but nudity is nethier automatically sexy nor sexual.

Would you settle for allowing nudity if in an obviously non-sexual context? (I doubt Ernest or Daniel had sex on the brain, and I don't think either of them provoked sexual thoughts.)

It's usually acceptable in all those example, basically because they don't show certain parts.

It seems like to me that people have basically drawn a line in the sand when it comes to this. The can see that they have been allowing more and more nudity / sex on TV as time has gone on. Many TV decency groups don't want this to get past this point on showing the parts.

[rlr149]

Rubbish. I dare you to go to Equatorial Africa and spend a few hours out in the sun naked. Or walk a few miles through a jungle or thorny dense bush. You will quickly understand the value of additional pieces of cloth.

Most people living in hot climates are VERY dressed, usually in long loose robes covering the entire body. Think ancient Roman togas, Indian sari, Bedouin or Uzbek traditional clothes, etc. This is because the same way clothing protects one from cold, it also protects one from excessive heat, while also preventing excessive sun exposure. Another reason, at least equally important, is mosquito protection- a life and death issue in tropical regions, where malaria still kills millions. It is only the most primitive tribes in South America and Africa who go semi-naked- and that is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. They live in conditions where clean water is scarce, washing machines are unheard of and domestically produced materials suitable for clothes are in a relatively short supply. When one cannot regularly shower or wash their short supply of clothes, going around overdressed can cause any number of health problems- fungus, body lice, you name it.

The simple rule of thumb is: the more civilized (and therefore richer) people are, the more clothed they tend to be. And that should make you think

so your saying that clothes aren't just for hiding nudity but are in fact also for protection............... therefor it cannot be said that because people wore clothes in the past it was for definite moral reasons

whose side are you arguing for again?

[aretood2]

thats not really answering this :- now because you like it, should sci-fi change it because of your moral indignation to a single aspect of the show?

I think that I stated that I won't care, NO.

a debate about whether it was worth it insofar as monetary recompense, not "oh noes!!! the *insert offended group here* are offended and they mustn't be!!!"

Our about losing an audience thus losing sponsors for a commission that will last a limited time for a show that might jump ship to another channel...Is really worth it? This is off topic.

so your saying that clothes aren't just for hiding nudity but are in fact also for protection............... therefor it cannot be said that because people wore clothes in the past it was for definite moral reason

That would be why it is wrong not to do this, it is dangerous to one's heath. Self inflected harm is wrong as well, thus He helped us by giving an answer as to why nudity is wrong.

For example, Murder is wrong cause it reduces the population count and has other obvious draw backs.

Teenage(Less than 16 years of age) sex is wrong due to obvious health and emotional issues, It harms those doing it, thus it is wrong

Not wearing cloths can be harmful for those do to the Sun or cold or blood thirsty pests, thus it too is wrong.

whose side are you arguing for again?

I would guess the side that is against yours.

[ykickamoocow]

For example, Murder is wrong cause it reduces the population count and has other obvious draw backs.

Muder is wrong but for reducing the population but because taking a human life is wrong. Population control is smart though (as long as muder isnt used to achieve it) as currently the world has 6.6 billion people which is far too many to be sustainable.

Teenage(Less than 16 years of age) sex is wrong due to obvious health and emotional issues, It harms those doing it, thus it is wrong

I know several people who had sex before they were 16 and they are perfectly well adjusted people. Sex at any age can lead to infection but as long as people take care (eg using a condom) then it shouldnt be a problem.

Not wearing cloths can be harmful for those do to the Sun or cold or blood thirsty pests, thus it too is wrong.

By using that logic you should show no skin in sunlight at all as you might get cancer. You can limited the risks of skin cancer by wearing sunblock. As for the cold there is nothing harmful about wearing no cloths in cold conditions (unless your talking about really cold temperatures where frostbite can occur).

While i do agree that not wearing cloths in dangerous situations (like operating heavy machinary or in freezing conditions) is stupid, i would argue that for most of the time not wearing cloths would do no harm to your health at all.

Also going back on topic i think i would be ok with showing nudity in non dangerous situations. I dont think i would have a problem with Sheppard, McKay, Teyla and Ronon all wearing cloths during a firefight.

I am not asking for nudity for the sake of nudity but what i am asking for is for them to show the nudity when the script calls for it instead of using weird film techniques to hide the human body from us.

I would be ok with them showing Ernest completely naked as it called for it in the script and the film techniques used to hide his nudity were just stupid (they had random objects between us and Ernest hiding his genitals). Instead of treating the audience like children they should have just shown the nudity.

[Pandora's_Box]

Rubbish. I dare you to go to Equatorial Africa and spend a few hours out in the sun naked. Or walk a few miles through a jungle or thorny dense bush. You will quickly understand the value of additional pieces of cloth.

Most people living in hot climates are VERY dressed, usually in long loose robes covering the entire body. Think ancient Roman togas, Indian sari, Bedouin or Uzbek traditional clothes, etc. This is because the same way clothing protects one from cold, it also protects one from excessive heat, while also preventing excessive sun exposure. Another reason, at least equally important, is mosquito protection- a life and death issue in tropical regions, where malaria still kills millions. It is only the most primitive tribes in South America and Africa who go semi-naked- and that is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. They live in conditions where clean water is scarce, washing machines are unheard of and domestically produced materials suitable for clothes are in a relatively short supply. When one cannot regularly shower or wash their short supply of clothes, going around overdressed can cause any number of health problems- fungus, body lice, you name it.

I have been to Equatorial Africa. I have seen tribal people in varying states of undress depending on the activities of the day and what their particular tribal customs dictate. And yes, what the environment dictates.

And no....the ones that go about half-dressed don't simply do so because they have no other choice.

You won't see many tribal people engaging in strenuous physical activities in the middle of the day when the sun is at its highest point and the day is at its hottest temperature.

Often the least dressed are the women and children. Women because they often remain close to or in the main village where they perform less strenuous tasks and often within any sort of shade available. And children because they don't really need too much clothing to run around, play, and assist in the simple village chores.

This isn't to say that they go about fully naked. Often what is worn is a simple loincloth to cover the genitalia.

Men, when hunting or herding, do wear more clothing as a form of protection from both the elements and nature. Othertimes (and depending on the tribe) they will simply be dressed in a loincloth.

Obvioulsy not all tribes are the same. There are some that wear clothing all the time and some that only wear more covering clothing during traditional cermenoies. There are some African tribes that wear very little clothing to the point of being completely nude in some ceremonies (in the case of the men this is done to attract potential brides).

Truth be told, there are so many tribes in Africa that it is impossible to generalize a standardized practice with regards to nudity.

The simple rule of thumb is: the more civilized (and therefore richer) people are, the more clothed they tend to be. And that should make you think

Interesting definition of "civilized" you're using.

Tell me. Have you ever been to Africa? Spoken to any of these people? Judged their "civility" for yourself? Have you asked any of them about their families or their lives? Seen the way they live and how they treat each other?

Because let me tell you, I have. And I can say, without a doubt, that some of those people are more civilized without having - and without even needing - half of what us "richer" and more "civilized" people have, then most of the Western World will ever be.

They value life, they value nature, and they value each other. That's civilized in my book.

[LostCityGuardian]

The simple rule of thumb is: the more civilized (and therefore richer) people are, the more clothed they tend to be. And that should make you think

That is an interesting call, Womble. You aren't trying to say that in order to be civilised you need to be rich, are you?