9 ms·

> this social taboo is, to some degree, absurd This social taboo is pretty much exclusively limited to the US. The rest of the world is a lot less freaked out

> this social taboo is, to some degree, absurd This social taboo is pretty much exclusively limited to the US. The rest of the world is a lot less freaked out about genitalia in general.

curiously 11y ago
And breast feeding, nudity. But then I guess other countries have their own weird little taboo's. More and more I see America having a lot of Puritan values, which is spreading. Even countries who wouldn't have freaked about penis or saying fuck on tv, suddenly find themselves adding pixelation and muted audio to their native language
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  We are getting far more socially liberal in general. I've noticed a shift even in the last decade. Those of us in America who would identify as socially liberal know where the puritanical values are, and those places are becoming less and less able to generate a national uproar over family values as time goes on and liberal youth get older. Compare American television from even the late 90s to now. It's absolutely night and day. We have a long way to go on chilling out about sex (it's a weird line to draw given our fetish for violence), but the trend is definitely in that direction. The problem with America is that we are really eight or nine different nations stitched together, and it shows not only in our divisions on family values in different parts of the country but also our growing inability to agree.
  - mratzloff 11y ago
    Just in the last few years the word "shit" started to be acceptable on television. A single usage on TV in the 1990s or 2000s would have been a local news segment. Now, no one cares. It's changing, but slowly.
    - curiously 11y ago
      would love to know more about how tv changed during past few decades. There is definitely a change but hard to put in to words.
- DanBC 11y ago
  For a while there was really confusing Facebook blocks of any images of mothers breast feeding their children but no blocks of beheading videos. It was weird.
  - __z 11y ago
    Facebook also doesn't allow violent content so I assume you meant selective enforcement?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      From Dec 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499 > Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again. > The social network had introduced a temporary ban in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. [...] > Its terms and conditions now state that it will remove photos or videos that "glorify violence" in addition to other banned material, including a woman's "fully exposed breast". So,(in 2013) they allow beheading videos so long as you're not glorifying violence. http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/facebook-actually-sorry-for-banning-breastfeeding-pic/ http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/facebook-actually-sorry-for-bann... And in 2013 breastfeeding mothers were banned from Facebook. The breast feeding policy changed in 2014 http://huffpost.com/us/entry/5473467 http://huffpost.com/us/entry/5473467
anigbrowl 11y ago
I don't understand why the US is so puritan. They even blur out footage of babies' bottoms on broadcast TV here. I was watching a documentary about some artist on PBS one evening with an interview scene that took place on a beach. I didn't notice there was a baby in the background until my eye was drawn to the floating blur oval concealing his or her precious little butt cheeks. In fact now that I think about it, when that Picasso painting was in the news a week or two back for setting a record price at auction, some channels blurred out part of it in case their viewers got offended by cubist depictions of the female breasts: http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/fox-news-blurred-out-the-breasts-on-a-115million-picasso-painting-for-some-reason-5196578/ http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/fox-news-blurred-out-the-breas... You can show all sorts of atrocious acts of violence on network TV, but display a penis for 3 seconds and it's a $325,000 fine: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-32A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-32A1.pd... No word yet on how this horror will affect the fine children of Roanoake, VA - no doubt the monies collected for the fine will be channeled to treating their post-traumatic stress disorders.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  I don't understand why the US is so puritan If it helps at all, remember that the US was founded in large part by the Puritans.
- shalmanese 11y ago
  My favorite is when they showed a gender reassignment surgery on TV and, at the precise point the editors determined she had transitioned from a man to a woman, they blurred out her nipples.
  - busterarm 11y ago
    That's just gold!
  - Neslit 11y ago
    That is hilarious. Source, or were you kidding? (I legitimately can't tell.)
mryan 11y ago
The absurdity is highlighted extremely well by Charlie Brooker, a UK news commentator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYXbWuJ7jnU#t=2m34s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYXbWuJ7jnU#t=2m34s Fox News displayed the entire video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive by ISIS, yet censored the buttocks of a man featured in a segment on nude beaches.
j_m_b 11y ago
I hear they censor genitals in Japan too. ;)
- pluma 11y ago
  I find the Japanese porn censorship particularly strange. As far as I can tell, it's generally extremely rape-y for cultural reasons -- from a Western POV I'd describe it as very misogynistic. Yet the genitalia are censored, implying the genitalia are somehow more obscene than the acts that involve them.

> this social taboo is, to some degree, absurd This social taboo is pretty much exclusively limited to the US. The rest of the world is a lot less freaked out about genitalia in general.

curiously 11y ago

And breast feeding, nudity. But then I guess other countries have their own weird little taboo's. More and more I see America having a lot of Puritan values, which is spreading. Even countries who wouldn't have freaked about penis or saying fuck on tv, suddenly find themselves adding pixelation and muted audio to their native language

jsmthrowaway 11y ago
We are getting far more socially liberal in general. I've noticed a shift even in the last decade. Those of us in America who would identify as socially liberal know where the puritanical values are, and those places are becoming less and less able to generate a national uproar over family values as time goes on and liberal youth get older. Compare American television from even the late 90s to now. It's absolutely night and day. We have a long way to go on chilling out about sex (it's a weird line to draw given our fetish for violence), but the trend is definitely in that direction. The problem with America is that we are really eight or nine different nations stitched together, and it shows not only in our divisions on family values in different parts of the country but also our growing inability to agree.
- mratzloff 11y ago
  Just in the last few years the word "shit" started to be acceptable on television. A single usage on TV in the 1990s or 2000s would have been a local news segment. Now, no one cares. It's changing, but slowly.
  - curiously 11y ago
    would love to know more about how tv changed during past few decades. There is definitely a change but hard to put in to words.
DanBC 11y ago
For a while there was really confusing Facebook blocks of any images of mothers breast feeding their children but no blocks of beheading videos. It was weird.
- __z 11y ago
  Facebook also doesn't allow violent content so I assume you meant selective enforcement?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    From Dec 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499 > Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again. > The social network had introduced a temporary ban in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. [...] > Its terms and conditions now state that it will remove photos or videos that "glorify violence" in addition to other banned material, including a woman's "fully exposed breast". So,(in 2013) they allow beheading videos so long as you're not glorifying violence. http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/facebook-actually-sorry-for-banning-breastfeeding-pic/ http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/facebook-actually-sorry-for-bann... And in 2013 breastfeeding mothers were banned from Facebook. The breast feeding policy changed in 2014 http://huffpost.com/us/entry/5473467 http://huffpost.com/us/entry/5473467

anigbrowl 11y ago

I don't understand why the US is so puritan. They even blur out footage of babies' bottoms on broadcast TV here. I was watching a documentary about some artist on PBS one evening with an interview scene that took place on a beach. I didn't notice there was a baby in the background until my eye was drawn to the floating blur oval concealing his or her precious little butt cheeks. In fact now that I think about it, when that Picasso painting was in the news a week or two back for setting a record price at auction, some channels blurred out part of it in case their viewers got offended by cubist depictions of the female breasts: http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/fox-news-blurred-out-the-breasts-on-a-115million-picasso-painting-for-some-reason-5196578/ http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/fox-news-blurred-out-the-breas... You can show all sorts of atrocious acts of violence on network TV, but display a penis for 3 seconds and it's a $325,000 fine: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-32A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-32A1.pd... No word yet on how this horror will affect the fine children of Roanoake, VA - no doubt the monies collected for the fine will be channeled to treating their post-traumatic stress disorders.

sliverstorm 11y ago
I don't understand why the US is so puritan If it helps at all, remember that the US was founded in large part by the Puritans.
shalmanese 11y ago
My favorite is when they showed a gender reassignment surgery on TV and, at the precise point the editors determined she had transitioned from a man to a woman, they blurred out her nipples.
- busterarm 11y ago
  That's just gold!
- Neslit 11y ago
  That is hilarious. Source, or were you kidding? (I legitimately can't tell.)

mryan 11y ago

The absurdity is highlighted extremely well by Charlie Brooker, a UK news commentator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYXbWuJ7jnU#t=2m34s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYXbWuJ7jnU#t=2m34s Fox News displayed the entire video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive by ISIS, yet censored the buttocks of a man featured in a segment on nude beaches.

j_m_b 11y ago

I hear they censor genitals in Japan too. ;)

pluma 11y ago
I find the Japanese porn censorship particularly strange. As far as I can tell, it's generally extremely rape-y for cultural reasons -- from a Western POV I'd describe it as very misogynistic. Yet the genitalia are censored, implying the genitalia are somehow more obscene than the acts that involve them.