Why is it okay to show murder, blood, guts, etc on TV, but not tits?

[Robert]

I have always wondered why is it okay to show murder, blood, guts, etc on TV, but not tits?

Is a pair of ****ies more dangerous for (especially young) TV viewers than and all sorts of violence shown on the TV? The news reports show lots of violence on a daily basis.

Or not to mention all the violence in movies.

It seems our society thinks that if people see too much nudity, they will be severely harmed/damaged somehow (how?), but seeing people getting shot, blown up to pieces, etc, is just fine.

I personally have no issues with my 7 year old see naked people, but I don't want her to watch violence. A naked body is beautiful and natural. Shootings, killings, murder and violence of that nature is not.

I hope we can talk about this without getting into politics/religion. If the thread derails into bashing politics and religion, it will be deleted.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Without getting into too much of it, my answer is the remains of historical restrictions based on religious beliefs. But that really doesn't answer the question. After all, murder and violence is wrong too by the same beliefs. I guess it is just a different sort of "taboo". Again, without getting into religious based politics over the issue, I guess beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not necessarily "rational" or "logical".

And I have no problems with people having beliefs that cannot be proved scientifically or logically. But in this instance, the results on TV don't seem to make sense. I hope I skirted (pun not intended) the religious/political line ok. Pretty hard to talk about this one without at least touching on religion.

 

[tunghaichuan]

Without getting into too much of it, my answer is the remains of historical restrictions based on religious beliefs. But that really doesn't answer the question. After all, murder and violence is wrong too by the same beliefs. I guess it is just a different sort of "taboo". Again, without getting into religious based politics over the issue, I guess beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not necessarily "rational" or "logical".

And I have no problems with people having beliefs that cannot be proved scientifically or logically. But in this instance, the results on TV don't seem to make sense. I hope I skirted (pun not intended) the religious/political line ok. Pretty hard to talk about this one without at least touching on religion.

Steve, you hit the nail on the head. The answer is religion. Since that topic is off limits I'll say no more.

Robert, you can't have a discussion on this topic without discussing religion.

 

[Eric]

I don't like violence on TV either, so I really don't think either are acceptable. People will do what they want, but it saddens me a little when my morals force me further from popular society.

 

[R_of_G]

I have to agree with what SVL was able to say. While both violence and sexuality are both taboos of the cultures which initiated our system of morality, it seems those in charge would like to pick and choose which ones are okay for tv and which are not.

However, what bothers me about it, and I will keep this as respectful of forum rules as possible (ie. no politics or religion) is the association of a female breast with sexuality.

If you show violence, it's always violence. It can be nuanced or mitigated (ie. self defense is not the same as murder, etc) but in the end, it's still violence whether justly used or not.

Depictions of female breasts are not as easily categorized.

Many firmly believe that any depiction of a bared female breast is necessarily sexual in nature and borders on pornography and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from ever appearing on television screens in order to "protect" the children.

Others feel the human body, male or female, is perfectly natural and if a bare breast (or two) is shown in a non-gratuitous matter is not necessarily indicative of sexuality.

Personally, I find it little wonder that so many young American women have such emotional issues with their bodies. We've allowed censorship to tell them they're bodies are only useful for sex and while they're nice to look at, they should be ashamed of them as well. The mixed messages must be incredibly confusing to a young woman.

 

[Lev]

You should move to Europe, we have too much violence AND too many tits on tv!!

 

[Robert]

RofG, nail on the head there about young women and emotional issues. So true.

I'm not sure if I should have posted this. Can we try discuss religion in a respectful manner? Without attacks? I think politics are involved too.

The point of the forum rules are to be respectful and not have hot topics, that often turn into hate fests and personal attacks. Not sure if this thread will work - let me know what you think.

 

[Eric]

My personal opinion here, but I would delete it. It just seems to be bordering on trolling. I'm sure we can leave it open without anyone getting himself (or herself) banned, but it's really pushing the limits, and that's not really what this forum is about. You got your answer on your original question, didn't you?

 

[sunvalleylaw]

RofG, nail on the head there about young women and emotional issues. So true.

I'm not sure if I should have posted this. Can we try discuss religion in a respectful manner? Without attacks? I think politics are involved too.

The point of the forum rules are to be respectful and not have hot topics, that often turn into hate fests and personal attacks. Not sure if this thread will work - let me know what you think.

I'm ok with trying it. We have to be careful, but I think most of us are. It respects our members to allow a little room for discussion.

More on the topic, there was news blurb about a female who was walking around NY topless, and got a citation. It was thrown out by the NY courts due to discrimination between male chests and female. I think it is the right result, but certainly controversial in our world today, still.

 

[R_of_G]

More on the topic, there was news blurb about a female who was walking around NY topless, and got a citation. It was thrown out by the NY courts due to discrimination between male chests and female. I think it is the right result, but certainly controversial in our world today, still.

I agree Steve.

I'm not sure why there should be a difference between the two as far as being able to enjoy toplessness. Again, the notion that a female breast is automatically a sexual object is not objective (though, ironically, it does objectify), rather those are individual perceptions (though shared by many).

It's not even just the way these things impact young women either. I cringe at the way many in society treat mothers that breastfeed their children in public and find it rather saddening that some find this a "dirty" act that needs to be hidden from view. "But what if children see?" is the question most offered up and the answer should be obvious, then children will learn that some mothers breastfeed their children. Is that such a terrible thing for a kid to know?

As to Robert's question about keeping this topic open, I'm always going to be on the side of allowing these discussions to take place. If it becomes disrespectful of forum guidelines I understand closing it, but until then, it seems we're able to discuss the salient points without insulting each other.

 

[Commodore 64]

Without getting into too much of it, my answer is the remains of historical restrictions based on religious beliefs. But that really doesn't answer the question. After all, murder and violence is wrong too by the same beliefs. I guess it is just a different sort of "taboo". Again, without getting into religious based politics over the issue, I guess beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not necessarily "rational" or "logical".

And I have no problems with people having beliefs that cannot be proved scientifically or logically. But in this instance, the results on TV don't seem to make sense. I hope I skirted (pun not intended) the religious/political line ok. Pretty hard to talk about this one without at least touching on religion.

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

[piebaldpython]

Where "sexuality" is concerned, Americans are sort of stuck in the Victorian (read; prudish) Age when compared to Europeans. The problem is not with religion per se, but the vague idea that Americans are time-warp stuck in 1850 and Europe in this regard is so much more modern.

It can't be a "religious" issue because Europe has the same religions that we do. To specify, Europe is as "Christian" as we are.......but for some reason, we are more "prudish" (for lack of a better word).

So, yeah, we can discuss this as adults......especially because this has nothing to do with religion per se.

 

[Commodore 64]

America was colonized by religious extremists...peibaldpython. The analogy to regular "Christians" falls apart there. This is still a young country, culturally speaking. There's enough of a majority of "puritanical" heritage here that we are well-behind in some metrics (IMHO), and this happens to be one of them.

 

[tunghaichuan]

As to Robert's question about keeping this topic open, I'm always going to be on the side of allowing these discussions to take place. If it becomes disrespectful of forum guidelines I understand closing it, but until then, it seems we're able to discuss the salient points without insulting each other.

But that's the trick, isn't it? Almost all of the religious and atheist BBS sites I frequent have flame wars. Religious and political discussions always degenerate into flame wars. It is due to their emotionally charged nature. It is hard not to make ad hominem attacks, they are human nature. And for that reason, I've bitten my tongue on more than one occasion as I like most of the members here. This forum is remarkable in that there are virtually no flame wars, members get along, and for the most part discussions stay on topic.


As to the issue of violence.
The main problem with violence is that it is an extremely effective tool for change. It works quickly and it works well. And in Western culture, the underlying message is that might makes right; it's ingrained into the culture. I've always wondered how a truly pacifist society would protect itself against violence. Ultimately, I figure that they can't. Pacifist societies either have to become violent to protect themselves (and thereby are no longer pacifist) or they allow themselves to get wiped out.

 

[Bookkeeper's Son]

IMO, this question is not so much about religion and/or politics as it is about the social psychology concept of compartmentalization. The kind of question presented here by Robert, a thinking person's question, is not even entertained by many people because of the Cognitive Dissonance that it creates.

 

[Eric]

I've always wondered how a truly pacifist society would protect itself against violence. Ultimately, I figure that they can't. Pacifist societies either have to become violent to protect themselves (and thereby are no longer pacifist) or they allow themselves to get wiped out.

Yup, I think that's why you don't really see pacifist cultures, like, ever.

I recently took a trip to the Balkans, which seems like it has been a stomping ground for foreign occupation throughout the years, and it reminded me of how war and violence will probably forever be a part of the world. It seemed like every fricking city had been a part of at least 3 or 4 different empires.

World peace is a great concept, but it seems so terribly far off in terms of viability because violence is the equalizer, and we're constantly competing to be better than the guy next to us.

 

[R_of_G]

But that's the trick, isn't it? Almost all of the religious and atheist BBS sites I frequent have flame wars. Religious and political discussions always degenerate into flame wars. It is due to their emotionally charged nature. It is hard not to make ad hominem attacks, they are human nature. And for that reason, I've bitten my tongue on more than one occasion as I like most of the members here. This forum is remarkable in that there are virtually no flame wars, members get along, and for the most part discussions stay on topic.

You're absolutely right. That's why I think piebaldpython's comment above is particular insightful. It's a simpler solution for many (both on the net and in the actual world) to assign blame on such a polarizing issue to religion or the lack of religion, but the reality is more nuanced than that. As PBP noted, similar religious traditions exist in places where they're not expressed in the same manner.

Intelligent people, like the members of this forum, can discuss the finer points of the issues themselves without taking the easy route of attacking the over-arching issue of which it's a manifestation. I continue to be impressed that we manage these discussions with devolving into what's seen at so many other forums.

Per violence, I tend to agree with you and Eric. While I would love to live in a non-violent world, I'm a pragmatist and realize this is not a full-time possibility. All we can really do is try our best to eliminate violence as much as possible in our own lives and communities. I do believe there are ways to greatly limit the amount of nation-on-nation violence but to get into those ideas would involve a discussion of politics/governance and while I believe we can handle that as a group, it would be too far of a tangent from Robert's initial question.

 

[piebaldpython]

America was colonized by religious extremists...peibaldpython. The analogy to regular "Christians" falls apart there. This is still a young country, culturally speaking. There's enough of a majority of "puritanical" heritage here that we are well-behind in some metrics (IMHO), and this happens to be one of them.

I don't think I necessarily agree with you here...but for the sake of argument, let's assume that you're correct. So, therefore, the "majority" have their mores foisted upon them by the "vastly numerical minority"....and we know exactly who that is, right? Of course, I will abide by Robert's plea not to degenerate into political discussion and that would be exactly where I was going. lolol

I do think my point above is partly to blame for we Americans "view" upon sexuality. I also, think, immigration plays a big part of it too.......to the extent, that each big wave immigration costs at least 2 generations worth of "progress" when compared to Europe. Credit us with 3 big waves of immigration and you're up around 100+ years of backwardness.

Briefly, as an example, a German immigrant who comes to America in 1875, comes here with the German morals in effect in 1875. However, a German who stays in Germany then has his "values" progress/shaped/changed by the national German psyche as it moves in whatever way it moves. However, the German immigrant stays "locked" in at 1875 because he no longer has the national consciousness to "progress" with. Not only does he stay "locked" in at 1875 but he raises his kids in much the same way.

Yeah, kinda brief, not entirely thought out but I winged it. My mother was a fabulous cook, and she could cook things German style from decades ago that aren't even cooked that way in Germany any longer. Cooking or mores, it all adds up that way.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I was also thinking that United States society, like any more pluralistic society, ends up having to be more careful because of the whole melting pot thing. This society is based on the rule of law of government, but has to deal with the moral rules that come from religions or other belief systems. I have to abandon the thought there as I don't really have time to think about and express what I am trying to say at the moment. I may come back to it. But sexual traditions vary greatly among cultures, and war/violence traditions cross more lines. Whether you are from western europe, or the middle east, or somewhere else, I guess there is more common ground on violence than there is on sexual issues. That is poorly put, and not really all that I am trying to say, but is all I can get to at the moment.

 

[Tig]

While many of the modern trends, beliefs, practices, and taboos are based on older ingrained religious beliefs, I feel this is more of a sociological issue.

For example, most places in the world, people have little problem with a woman breast feeding in public. Usually, it is discrete and not a check-out-my-**** event! In the United States, it has remained taboo to do this in public for the most part. Personally, this is one of the most natural things a human can do, and the gift passed on from a mother to her baby is precious. It is also medically proven that breast feeding the first months provides needed immunological defenses for the child.

A highly advanced society should embrace this important relationship, not shun it. I've seen the same scene many times when a mother is discretely breast feeding: Women give her a sharp, critical look, quickly whispering to who they are with, while clearly looking down their noses.

Talk about a society that has truly lost its way? Artificial environments have replaced natural ones. We have removed and isolated ourselves from the natural world so much, people are chronically stressed and out of balance. We even attempt to cure psychological diseases with, yes, more artificial ingredients (pharmaceuticals)!

So, no wonder it remains taboo for a display of a woman's breasts, when even discrete public breast feeding is considered "wrong" or "crude". While we consider ourselves as a society to be advancing, in reality, we are drifting away from the critical associations we had with a more natural existence.

 

[R_of_G]

While many of the modern trends, beliefs, practices, and taboos are based on older ingrained religious beliefs, I feel this is more of a sociological issue.

For example, most places in the world, people have little problem with a woman breast feeding in public. Usually, it is discrete and not a check-out-my-**** event! In the United States, it has remained taboo to do this in public for the most part. Personally, this is one of the most natural things a human can do, and the gift passed on from a mother to her baby is precious. It is also medically proven that breast feeding the first months provides needed immunological defenses for the child.

A highly advanced society should embrace this important relationship, not shun it. I've seen the same scene many times when a mother is discretely breast feeding: Women give her a sharp, critical look, quickly whispering to who they are with, while clearly looking down their noses.

Talk about a society that has truly lost its way? Artificial environments have replaced natural ones. We have removed and isolated ourselves from the natural world so much, people are chronically stressed and out of balance. We even attempt to cure psychological diseases with, yes, more artificial ingredients (pharmaceuticals)!

So, no wonder it remains taboo for a display of a woman's breasts, when even discrete public breast feeding is considered "wrong" or "crude". While we consider ourselves as a society to be advancing, in reality, we are drifting away from the critical associations we had with a more natural existence.

Very well said.

When my wife was nursing our daughter she used to carry in the diaper bag a copy of the Florida statute permitting women to breastfeed in public in the event she was ever confronted by someone for doing so. She was as discreet as one could be in public and we got the occasional eye-roll or disparaging look but nobody crossed the line to tell her to stop. Unfortunately, many women are confronted on the issue and made to feel as if they've done something wrong by nourishing their child.

 

[Tig]

When my wife was nursing our daughter she used to carry in the diaper bag a copy of the Florida statute permitting women to breastfeed in public in the event she was ever confronted by someone for doing so. She was as discreet as one could be in public and we got the occasional eye-roll or disparaging look but nobody crossed the line to tell her to stop. Unfortunately, many women are confronted on the issue and made to feel as if they've done something wrong by nourishing their child.

About 7 years ago after a woman was told to stop while at a local mall, women gathered to protest the mall security's actions with a "nurse-in".
Article here

They came with strollers and diaper bags, lifting up their shirts ever so slightly to champion mothers' rights to breast-feed their babies -- in public. Call it the nurse-in. A peaceful protest without the screaming banners but with hungry infants 3 to 18 months old.
About 50 nursing mothers gathered Thursday for a demonstration at the Galleria near, aptly, the Baby Gap, where four days earlier Julie Doyle-Madrid said a female security guard asked her to cover herself in the middle of feeding her 4-month-old baby, Will.

 

[R_of_G]

About 7 years ago after a woman was told to stop while at a local mall, women gathered to protest the mall security's actions with a "nurse-in".
Article here

That's fantastic.

 

[Robert]

Super well said, Tig. I could not agree more.

I think our society is royally screwed up when it comes to this topic.

When my Canadian family came with me to Sweden 10 years ago, we went to an outdoor swimming pool, and most small kids ran around naked around the showers. Nobody thinks there's anything strange about that, in Sweden. The "North American background" of my Canadian family was noticeable, however. They were immediately wondering why they were naked, and should they be, etc. That would never happen here in Canada, the same way as it does in Sweden. Are Swedes morally corrupt as a result? Hardly.

While many of the modern trends, beliefs, practices, and taboos are based on older ingrained religious beliefs, I feel this is more of a sociological issue.

For example, most places in the world, people have little problem with a woman breast feeding in public. Usually, it is discrete and not a check-out-my-**** event! In the United States, it has remained taboo to do this in public for the most part. Personally, this is one of the most natural things a human can do, and the gift passed on from a mother to her baby is precious. It is also medically proven that breast feeding the first months provides needed immunological defenses for the child.

A highly advanced society should embrace this important relationship, not shun it. I've seen the same scene many times when a mother is discretely breast feeding: Women give her a sharp, critical look, quickly whispering to who they are with, while clearly looking down their noses.

Talk about a society that has truly lost its way? Artificial environments have replaced natural ones. We have removed and isolated ourselves from the natural world so much, people are chronically stressed and out of balance. We even attempt to cure psychological diseases with, yes, more artificial ingredients (pharmaceuticals)!

So, no wonder it remains taboo for a display of a woman's breasts, when even discrete public breast feeding is considered "wrong" or "crude". While we consider ourselves as a society to be advancing, in reality, we are drifting away from the critical associations we had with a more natural existence.

 

[Eric]

Huh. I don't think I've seen women being shunned for breastfeeding before, but not being a parent, maybe I just haven't been paying attention. Ironically (for this discussion, anyway), most of the times I have noticed women breastfeeding have been in church, and nobody seemed to care.

The issue I have with ****s and guts on TV is that it seems so exploitative. At this point, it's simply a cash grab for the TV producers. How increasing it would serve to stop objectification and exploitation, I am not sure. I suppose the counterargument would be that the loss of novelty would lead to a more mature handling of those topics, but I'm not sure.

Though people frequently try to deny it, there always has to be a line for morality. People will always challenge everyone else's line, but to act as though each person doesn't have a moral standard is ludicrous. It's the whole why-are-we-so-uptight thing, but my point is that if you move the moral standard, it's still there -- just in a different location. I'm getting off-track here...

One thing you alluded to, Tig, that I've thought about before, is the idea of losing our way, and what is or is not natural. I get your point, but my counterpoint would be that we are so far down the line of a synthetic dependance (just look at how much we use computers) that the idea of getting back to nature isn't just a quick change. Many many things need to be undone before a simple, natural way of living can exist again. So your point is a good one that I endorse -- it's just not very easy!

Crossing my fingers that this post is even mildly readable...

 

[R_of_G]

Huh. I don't think I've seen women being shunned for breastfeeding before, but not being a parent, maybe I just haven't been paying attention. Ironically (for this discussion, anyway), most of the times I have noticed women breastfeeding have been in church, and nobody seemed to care.

I never noticed it as an issue either until we had a kid and my wife chose to breastfeed.

The issue I have with ****s and guts on TV is that it seems so exploitative. At this point, it's simply a cash grab for the TV producers. How increasing it would serve to stop objectification and exploitation, I am not sure. I suppose the counterargument would be that the loss of novelty would lead to a more mature handling of those topics, but I'm not sure.

Right, which is why I prefaced my request for more ****s on television with "in a non-exploitative manner."
I agree with you, most instances of female nudity on television are salacious, exploitative and really only serves to deepen the notion that ****s are always sexual.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Super well said, Tig. I could not agree more.

I think our society is royally screwed up when it comes to this topic.

When my Canadian family came with me to Sweden 10 years ago, we went to an outdoor swimming pool, and most small kids ran around naked around the showers. Nobody thinks there's anything strange about that, in Sweden. The "North American background" of my Canadian family was noticeable, however. They were immediately wondering why they were naked, and should they be, etc. That would never happen here in Canada, the same way as it does in Sweden. Are Swedes morally corrupt as a result? Hardly.

I agree. Your example shows how out of balance it gets. Also, then fear of attracting weirdos that might look at naked kids at the pool is a fear, so fear motivation plays a role. And that perpetuates normal nudity being viewed as taboo, which seems to lead to furthering prurient interest in the taboo, etc. As Eric says though, none of it is easy to unwind.

 

[Tig]

The issue I have with ****s and guts on TV is that it seems so exploitative. At this point, it's simply a cash grab for the TV producers.

Excellent point. What sells, gets used.

Though people frequently try to deny it, there always has to be a line for morality.

Morality is such a fuzzy grey area, but there should be limits, be it self imposed (preferable) or mandated.
A quick digression that is related:

Here are four types of societal security systems:
* moral systems - any internal rewards and punishments
* reputational systems - any informal external rewards and punishments
* rule-based systems - any formal system of rewards and punishments (mostly punishments) - laws
* technological systems - everything like walls, door locks, cameras

One thing you alluded to, Tig, that I've thought about before, is the idea of losing our way, and what is or is not natural. I get your point, but my counterpoint would be that we are so far down the line of a synthetic dependance (just look at how much we use computers) that the idea of getting back to nature isn't just a quick change. Many many things need to be undone before a simple, natural way of living can exist again. So your point is a good one that I endorse -- it's just not very easy!

I don't mean a reversal or return to past natural ways. I like having modern communications and life saving medicines! It is too late to go back.

I mean that we should never sever or lose our connections with the natural world. Sometimes, just a simple walk in the woods or along a beach can heal so many woes. Even spending a few minutes looking up at the stars can melt away the stresses of the day.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Cool post Tig. My dad, a retired judge, always made a distinction between moral systems and rules systems or laws. Laws are the bare minimum standards for conduct before punishment by law occurs. Moral codes exceed those laws in many cases. The rule of law should allow for expression of, but not mandate, moral laws. The areas of intersection are always the interesting areas.

 

[Tig]

I hope we can talk about this without getting into politics/religion.

Well, so far, so good. This is a rare thing in the internet forums world.
My hat is off to everyone here for being such mature, considerate adults who can avoid inflammatory reactions and comments.

...Now if the subject was Bonamassa or music we never got... oke :thwap