Interestingly, from what I’ve seen of movies lately, there’s been a move away from gratuitous nudity (“gratuitous” meaning that it doesn’t add anything to the storyline, not just that there’s a lot of it). About ten years or so ago, it seemed that moviemakers were deliberately throwing in strong language and sex, for no reason other than to guarantee an R rating (or at least PG-13). The conception seemed to be that everyone would think the movie is some wussy kid’s movie if it were PG, and they wouldn’t reach their target audience. Nowadays, though, there seem to be a lot of PG movies targeted to teens and older that do quite well, and apparently much of the movie industry has realized this.
That said, while I do object to gratuitous nudity, if only from a stylistic point of view like evilbeth, I see no problem with it, if it’s appropriate.
Channel 20 in San Francisco also did this for a while at about the same time. They had the “Bizarre” series, too (starring John Byner, originally on HBO, I think). They also showed “Cat People” uncensored. Nastassia Kinski, Annette O’Toole, what a nice surprise!
But you see, cavsct, this is exactly the mentality that I do not understand. The human body is a beautiful creation, and exposure to it will infect the youth of our country with increased imorality?!? How does that make any sense?
What, then, does attempting to banish it from sight and condemning it as unacceptable and obscene “infect” them with? Increased morality? Or maybe increased isolation and alienation from the rest of their kind? Guilt complexes from being something “dirty”, perhaps? Oh, I don’t know…low self-esteem which leads to compensatory behaviours such as eating disorders and promiscuity? I’m just musing, here…
As Guinastasia almost said, dirty minds see dirty things. Methinks it is mentalities like the one you’ve expressed that may be doing the infecting.
In response to the STAR TREK mention, IIRC, they couldn’t show navels on TV at that point, either. That’s why the costume was cut so high in “I Dream of Jeannie.”
***EXACTLY.***Hiding it/them (sex/breasts,etc.) increases fantasizing (what other choice are we giving them?). Isn’t this the opposite of what you want, cavsct?
To take this to another level, why can’t they show penetration/erect penis/ejaculation even on pay channels? I believe even Playboy TV etc doesn’t go down to this level (maybe I intend that pun, I can’t tell right now).
I have a friend at Harvard Law School who promised to dig up the FCC regulation that is precisely worded as
14.25.45 : No erect penis, but floppy ones are OK.
14.25.46 : No penetration, but by all means use creative camera angles and bad lighting to show everything but…
the fcc doesn’t have anything to do with obscenity, really. it’s the courts. the fcc has (almost) NOTHING to do with pay cable stations, only the broadcast affiliates. the fcc has NOTHING to do with networks. NBC could air Debbie Does Dallas in prime time and not get fined, but the affiliates would get fined for airing it.
it all boils down to the Miller test, from Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15) (in 1973). it says material could be considered obscene (not indecent - indecent material can be broadcast from 10pm - 6am on any broadcast station with out fines—obscene material cannot be broadcast, or sold, or distributed) if:
“1. an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the pruriend interest; 2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, and the applicable state law specifically defines what depictions or descriptions are prohibited; and 3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
the material has to be described by ALL 3 of the points to be considered obscene. and it’s kind of hard to do, but it has been done. it can be done on a community by community basis, like penthouse is legally obscene in parts of georgia, and the spice channel (and others) are obscene in utah (i think), and child porn is obscene nationally.
and while i’m at it, indecent material is
“language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” still vague, though. that’s from george carlin’s 7 dirty words case (fcc v. pacifica foundation 438 u.s. 726) in 1978. and those words are shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. it was broadcast at 2pm, preceded by words of caution. a man heard the broadcast in his car with his son. no word on why the boy was out of school.
You are kidding me! Does the Moral Magority still have that degree of commercial/political clout in the land of the free?
Gosh, in another thread there all sorts of concerns that the contagion of gun control in Australia will lead to the breakdown of society in the USA (ok, I’m laying it on a bit thick) and all the time you’ve missed some of the really subversive stuff about Oz. LOL
While there is a creeping return of the censor here (a product of a 1950’s focused government with the balance of power held by a single independent with arch-conservative views, Senator Brian Harradine) Australians have been “subject” to prime time nudity since the early 70s, and most thought we were pretty anally retentive about taking that long.
As an example, currently showing on the ABC (national, public, free-to-air broadcaster) is a series called “Beyond the Fatal Shore” by Robert Hughes, ex patriot Aussie though far better known as the long term art critic for Time.
He is discussing this rise in conservatism whilst on the set during the shooting of a XXXX rated porno movie. This hits the air waves at 7:30pm on Sundays.
On that basis, Americans might not get to see this until next century!
Certainly aren’t claiming to be citizen in the land of free love and enlightenment, but I am surprised at this debate. Maybe I’ve missed something?
There is no such law specifically probhiting that. The reason you probably don’t see erections and ejaculations is that there are very, very few non-porn movies that have erect penises and ejaculating penises. And the reason you don’t see them on the Playboy channel is probably the same reason you don’t see them in Playboy magazine. As the editors of the magazine have explained, their primary audience is heterosexual males, and they believe that this audience does not want to see other men’s penises.
On one of the independent channels tonight (channel 4, I think), I happened to catch a little of a programme called ‘sex with strangers’ (a reality TV thing which I presume is about swingers or something) - I was just a little surprised at how far they went; there was a bedroom bit with about five or so people all generally having sex with each other. In the middle of all the action, a woman was making love to another woman with a strap-on, with everybody else joining in to some degree. The only restraint was that the camera carefully avoided closeup shots of genitals.
Oddly enough, I don’t feel particularly ‘infected’ by it at all; if anything, it fosters an impression that sex is rather humdrum.
As long as we’re (temporarily) bringing this back from the dead: I remember flipping channels once and coming onto what looked like a scopic surgical operation - onscreen was some kind of fleshy cavity. I thought it was a functioning organ, because this weird mushroom-type thing kept rhythmically popping in and out of a side wall… at least until it started squirting white fluid. (I guess it was an extremely functioning organ, after all.) Bit disconcerting. Discovery Channel, back when there was only one.
They show erections and penetration on the Playboy Channel, however, they do not show ejaculations. An odd standard, to be sure. When showing hard core porn, they edit out the cum-shots.
(Yes, I’ve done lots of studious observation of the Playboy Channel.)
