4 ms·

After reading the article, my first thought was "why I can't imagine that happening outside the US?". When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? It seem

by Yaggo 16y ago

After reading the article, my first thought was "why I can't imagine that happening outside the US?". When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? It seems to be much more acceptable to show children violence than nudity, which I found absurd. I mean, which is more harmful for 13 years old child to see on TV, a breast or shooting?

randallsquared 16y ago
While I don't necessarily disagree, let me point out that it's considered okay to show a painting of a breast, or an acted shooting, but showing an actual breast or real shooting are both considered taboo. I think people lose track of the fact that violence on TV (and in video games, etc) is pretend violence, whereas most nudity is real nudity, rather than a simulation of same. I'm not saying that makes it sensible, but it does bring the American treatment of them closer together than they seem at first glance.
- olliesaunders 16y ago
  > but it does bring the American treatment of them closer together than they seem at first glance. To my mind it merely identifies hypocrisy.
- Yaggo 16y ago
  Now I'm a bit confused. Does (real) breasts of an actress seen on tv count as "actual breasts"?
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    Yes. :) However, showing a centerfold spread on TV doesn't. I remember seeing _Dead Poets' Society_ on TV when I was a teen, and wondering how they could get away with showing the centerfold's breasts on broadcast TV. Somehow it doesn't count if it's a painting or photo of nudity.
    - nooneelse 16y ago
      This would be so very easy to push down the obvious slippery slope. Imagine a movie with a progression... painting of a nude male and female, then a picture of the subjects of that painting, then a sequence of paintings of them going from something like a slide-show with a transition every 10 seconds to a couple paintings per second so they do a little stop-motion dance. Then repeat the slide-show with pictures of the subjects. Next introduce another layer, a shot of a TV showing the painting, then the pictures... how can you tell the difference between the TV showing picture of the nudes and a paused video of the nudes? What if two people repeatedly hold up a black sheet in front of the two nudes while they are moving and then drop the sheet for a second as the nudes hold still... how is that different from the slide-show of the pictures of those nudes. All this could be done integrated with the plot and dialogue, maybe something about what is real and how you tell the difference between a real and fake photo/video of something. So in the progressions, when would the censors put the black boxes over the "naughty" bits? Would there be a difference in that for the man and the woman?
roc 16y ago
> "When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? " Much of the country was built and populated by puritans. State's rights and a lack of urbanization allowed tight-knit communities of like-minded people to keep anyone different away. This created a sort of moral echo chamber, that carried their views into modernity without ever being tempered via intellectual or moral challenge. And the US system of representation gives those rural communities quite a bit of power over national mores. As for the rhetorical: it depends on context. It always depends on context. Nudity isn't necessarily less harmful. Hiding violence and death away from children can be just as harmful as hiding nudity.
- olliesaunders 16y ago
  Nudity, violence, and death cannot be hidden, they are inherit. Trying to hide them won't work. The more you hide it the more significant and fascinating the less frequent exposures appear. This isn't to say that extensive exposure can't lead to distorted conditioning or attitudes; it can. But you can't damage a child through non-exposure; it's just not possible in the first place.
  - roc 16y ago
    > "But you can't damage a child through non-exposure; it's just not possible in the first place." Whether honest non-exposure might be fine is beyond even an academic concern. It's overwhelmingly improbable that a child could be raised without being exposed to those things; short of willful sheltering.
    - olliesaunders 16y ago
      Short of imprisonment and brainwashing I'd say.
  - Yaggo 16y ago
    Unless you work as a cop or live in a war zone, (luckily) most people don't usually see (or experience) brutal violence in their life. We learn that stuff from tv. But most of us exposure daily to naked human body (in fact, we live in one) and its intimate parts since day zero. So, while I agree that no child should hidden from reality (or vice versa), I would think twice what's the actual reality and the fictional-reality-brought-to-you-by-enterntaintment-industry.
steveklabnik 16y ago
I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a terrible troll, but when an entire religious group gets up and sails across an ocean because everyone back home won't stop telling them that they're crazy... what else would you expect?
- olliesaunders 16y ago
  Not constructive.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    My answer is the exact same one as roc's. Maybe I should take this as a sign to not post at 2am, and use more words to explain myself better.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  That makes quite a lot of sense, but unfortunately doesn't fit with the general impression I have that things didn't used to be nearly this bad. On the other hand, I hear that a really long time ago women always had really long dresses and the only skin you ever saw was their face and hands. So maybe the rules really are being relaxed, and kids just don't get an exemption any more.
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  This is just a sort of ahistorical folk wisdom explanation. An entire religious group sailed across the ocean because everyone back home told them they were crazy and founded Pennsylvania -- is the US noted for its fanatic devotion to pacifism?
  - sp332 16y ago
    Well, not after the Calvinists burned them at the stake.
Alex3917 16y ago
"When and why did nudity become such a taboo there?" It gradually became less and less common, but it didn't actually become taboo until relatively recently. Maybe 1996-1999 if I had to put a timeframe on it. This is back when we were approaching the millenium so there was momentum behind 'modern' reforms, and at the same time public opinion was mostly determined by glossy magazines like Newsweek. So around a lot of 'glossy' policy was enacted based on this formulaic and simplistic journalism style, which was good for covering the school shooting of the week but not so good for anything else.

by Yaggo 16y ago

randallsquared 16y ago

While I don't necessarily disagree, let me point out that it's considered okay to show a painting of a breast, or an acted shooting, but showing an actual breast or real shooting are both considered taboo. I think people lose track of the fact that violence on TV (and in video games, etc) is pretend violence, whereas most nudity is real nudity, rather than a simulation of same. I'm not saying that makes it sensible, but it does bring the American treatment of them closer together than they seem at first glance.

olliesaunders 16y ago
> but it does bring the American treatment of them closer together than they seem at first glance. To my mind it merely identifies hypocrisy.
Yaggo 16y ago
Now I'm a bit confused. Does (real) breasts of an actress seen on tv count as "actual breasts"?
- randallsquared 16y ago
  Yes. :) However, showing a centerfold spread on TV doesn't. I remember seeing _Dead Poets' Society_ on TV when I was a teen, and wondering how they could get away with showing the centerfold's breasts on broadcast TV. Somehow it doesn't count if it's a painting or photo of nudity.
  - nooneelse 16y ago
    This would be so very easy to push down the obvious slippery slope. Imagine a movie with a progression... painting of a nude male and female, then a picture of the subjects of that painting, then a sequence of paintings of them going from something like a slide-show with a transition every 10 seconds to a couple paintings per second so they do a little stop-motion dance. Then repeat the slide-show with pictures of the subjects. Next introduce another layer, a shot of a TV showing the painting, then the pictures... how can you tell the difference between the TV showing picture of the nudes and a paused video of the nudes? What if two people repeatedly hold up a black sheet in front of the two nudes while they are moving and then drop the sheet for a second as the nudes hold still... how is that different from the slide-show of the pictures of those nudes. All this could be done integrated with the plot and dialogue, maybe something about what is real and how you tell the difference between a real and fake photo/video of something. So in the progressions, when would the censors put the black boxes over the "naughty" bits? Would there be a difference in that for the man and the woman?

roc 16y ago

> "When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? " Much of the country was built and populated by puritans. State's rights and a lack of urbanization allowed tight-knit communities of like-minded people to keep anyone different away. This created a sort of moral echo chamber, that carried their views into modernity without ever being tempered via intellectual or moral challenge. And the US system of representation gives those rural communities quite a bit of power over national mores. As for the rhetorical: it depends on context. It always depends on context. Nudity isn't necessarily less harmful. Hiding violence and death away from children can be just as harmful as hiding nudity.

olliesaunders 16y ago
Nudity, violence, and death cannot be hidden, they are inherit. Trying to hide them won't work. The more you hide it the more significant and fascinating the less frequent exposures appear. This isn't to say that extensive exposure can't lead to distorted conditioning or attitudes; it can. But you can't damage a child through non-exposure; it's just not possible in the first place.
- roc 16y ago
  > "But you can't damage a child through non-exposure; it's just not possible in the first place." Whether honest non-exposure might be fine is beyond even an academic concern. It's overwhelmingly improbable that a child could be raised without being exposed to those things; short of willful sheltering.
  - olliesaunders 16y ago
    Short of imprisonment and brainwashing I'd say.
- Yaggo 16y ago
  Unless you work as a cop or live in a war zone, (luckily) most people don't usually see (or experience) brutal violence in their life. We learn that stuff from tv. But most of us exposure daily to naked human body (in fact, we live in one) and its intimate parts since day zero. So, while I agree that no child should hidden from reality (or vice versa), I would think twice what's the actual reality and the fictional-reality-brought-to-you-by-enterntaintment-industry.

steveklabnik 16y ago

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a terrible troll, but when an entire religious group gets up and sails across an ocean because everyone back home won't stop telling them that they're crazy... what else would you expect?

olliesaunders 16y ago
Not constructive.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  My answer is the exact same one as roc's. Maybe I should take this as a sign to not post at 2am, and use more words to explain myself better.
tbrownaw 16y ago
That makes quite a lot of sense, but unfortunately doesn't fit with the general impression I have that things didn't used to be nearly this bad. On the other hand, I hear that a really long time ago women always had really long dresses and the only skin you ever saw was their face and hands. So maybe the rules really are being relaxed, and kids just don't get an exemption any more.
jdminhbg 16y ago
This is just a sort of ahistorical folk wisdom explanation. An entire religious group sailed across the ocean because everyone back home told them they were crazy and founded Pennsylvania -- is the US noted for its fanatic devotion to pacifism?
- sp332 16y ago
  Well, not after the Calvinists burned them at the stake.

Alex3917 16y ago

"When and why did nudity become such a taboo there?" It gradually became less and less common, but it didn't actually become taboo until relatively recently. Maybe 1996-1999 if I had to put a timeframe on it. This is back when we were approaching the millenium so there was momentum behind 'modern' reforms, and at the same time public opinion was mostly determined by glossy magazines like Newsweek. So around a lot of 'glossy' policy was enacted based on this formulaic and simplistic journalism style, which was good for covering the school shooting of the week but not so good for anything else.