This continues to be weird. The nudity can’t be seen, is not the drawcard, and doesn’t affect the competitors. You can still be essentially vulnerable and stripped of resources without needing to have your bits out too.
I’m from Australia, but it amounts to basically the same thing. Even though I know of America’s very different approach to what’s acceptable on TV, I also don’t have any real first hand experience, so it is still very hard for me to truly grasp. It does my head in to even try.
I don’t think that’s true at all. There are plenty of other places to go if your only object is to look at genitals. The point of the show is to show how the survivalists deal with being naked in the wilderness. Showing their full nakedness to the viewer is really incidental. (And really? You want to see dirty bug-bitten genitals?)
And don’t forget the miniseries Roots in the mid-Seventies had topless African women. What could be broadcast over publicly owned air waves is governed by the vague term, “contemporary community standards”. When Roots was broadcast, respected magazines like National Geographic had established that non-white nudity was somehow anthropologically less prurient than white nudity.
I refuse to accept this answer. Why do we have porn when we have real humans? Why do we have different scenarios in porn? Because we like to see nakedness in different situations. Just nudity on its own is not the thrill, it’s all about the context. And if the nudity supposedly matters to the contestants, either via modesty or vulnerability, then taking that element away by blurring is, as I said, weird. I get the reason why they’re doing it, but I also don’t see the point of going to all this trouble if they’re going to pike out at a crucial step.
I don’t get this. Blurring doesn’t “take away” the element of nudity. Everybody watching knows they’re naked.
It takes it away from the audience, and the element of the contestants afraid they’d be seen by the audience. Even though after a day they get used to it. The vulnerability they experience in the location and situation is no different than if they were wearing bikinis and loincloths. A tiny thin piece of material is not really any more protection than none. Therefore the nudity adds nothing to their experience, or our experience.
But enough about European football 
I would argue that the advertiser thing isn’t so cut and dry. There is a cost-benefit analysis at play. Having an advertiser driven model has allowed for quite substantial amount of television. Whereas, say, compared to UK shows, you’ll normally get 6 episode seasons and shows will last 2-3 series (seasons), US shows used to easily do 22 episode seasons for 5-6 years (now a lot of cable shows go 10-13 episodes, a la HBO). Advertising money has helped significantly with that.
I don’t think you’re understanding the concept of the show. The nakedness isn’t there because it’s titillating. These are expert primitive survivalist. Any loincloth or tiny bikini top would immediately be taken off and repurposed as cordage. So “that small amount of protection” is actually zero, and instead it’s a decent amount of usable cordage for free.
That’s the entire point of the show. How do you survive with nothing but a knife, a firestarter, and maybe a pot to boil water? Not “Here’s how to fashion a waterproof lean-to out of cut up blue jeans…”
I find that I’m uninterested in any clothed survival show because it kind of feels like “To overcome this, we use this technology.” And then I think that “house technology” would also overcome that. You know, like build an actual house. Why is that any less fair than cutting edge gortex camping gear or whatever?
Ain’t it the truth. Imagine my teen-age self being shocked (and titillated) watching a local PBS station in the 1970’s showing unfiltered, uncensored Monty Python episodes, even the animated scenes. Now image my disappointment that today those very same episodes, shown on the basic cable channels BBC-American and IFC, blurs any nudity.
Being naked most certainly does affect the competitors, the lack of any kind of clothing or shoes is a huge limit, especially in less hospitable environments. And if they did have a set of standard clothes, they would be removed and used for things like filtering water, binding constructions, carrying food or objects, and other purposes. The lack of tools and materials is key to the difficulty of survival on the show, it’s not incidental and it’s not there to be titilating, getting several square feet of cotton or canvas or whatever would make a HUGE difference to what they have to do to survive. Even if you cut it down to loincloths, getting some additional cord and a bowl-sized piece of cloth would be a significant change in their toolset. As part of the audience, and someone who’s talked to other members of the audience, no one has ever said that the draw of the show is seeing people naked, it’s always about the ‘survival with no tools’ aspect.
I actually find your idea that the show is all about looking at naked genitals and about competitors thinking about the audience looking at naked genitals really strange. You’re talking about the US being puritanical and weird, but you don’t seem to get the concept of non-sexual or incidental nudity at all, and seem to think that ‘showing naked bits’ is the core focus of any show that has nudity, while a lot of people in the US seem to get the concept just fine.
Very well said. Agreed 100%.
I’ve seen Naked Attraction and blurring would be a vast improvement.
I think Naked Attraction has taught me most about the UK is that everybody there has the absolute worst tattoos ever.
Television around the world does show up some interesting cultural differences. I used to work as a Transmission Controller rebroadcasting a major Indian TV channel to UK audiences. The afternoon news would show people being hung and bloodied bodies of gun attacks (which I would have to edit out) but it would be semi-scandalous to show a bit of a woman’s ankle in the middle of the day.
Many US news networks would struggle to get a license in the UK because a news channel has to show balance. Rupert Murdoch owns and controls lots of UK newspapers but he cannot run an equivalent of his Fox News channel. He did have part ownership of Sky News for a while but was not allowed to interfere with its editorial output. I assume the difference stems from the 1st amendment and I reckon that extends to general regulation - for instance UK commercial television is limited in the amount of advertising it can run per clock hour, and it has to clearly divide commercial messages from editorial messages. I don’t think such limitations apply in the US and I’m also guessing that advertisers are more free to say what they like to some extent in the US.
In terms of nudity I think it’s much more strict in the US than in Europe (or at least what viewers will tolerate leads to that) but in the UK nudity would still not be allowed until late night or possibly in peak if part of some medical or science programme. My channel aired a man’s penis as part of a live comedy skit last year at about 10.30pm - I think the main worry our compliance team had was that it might be erect.
Channel 4 - a major channel - did a show recently called Naked Attraction, a dating show based on looking at peoples bodies slowly being revealed until you saw EVERYTHING. It was quite popular and in the late peak schedule.
An old boss of mine told me a story of his first TV job in Poland where he is from. This might have been in the 70s or 80s. In the children’s hour somebody put on the wrong tape to air. They had accidentally put on some sort of late night pornography! They then proceeded to have a quick meeting about whether they could pull a programme off air halfway through or if they should let it finish before going back to the advertised schedule… after 10 mins(!) they decided that yes, they should take it off air.
The US used to have a rule like that.
To be fair, the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast channels. So cable news would not be held up to it (though radio would).
That’s interesting thanks. It looks like Reagan pushed through the revocation of the doctrine against the will of Congress with GW Bush blocking a later attempt to revive it. Do US dopers feel there is any possibility of this ever coming back? i.e. do Democrats want to revive it?
back in 83 a new station in Knoxville ran the Deer Hunter uncut. I heard they did that to generate publicity. they did not mind if people wrote the FCC. From what I heard nobody bothered to complain so the plan did not work
Yeah, the Dems want Trump to have equal time on most networks to spread his message.
I doubt it.
It applies to licensees (ie. local stations). A lot of licensees used to fulfill it by running a half hour show once a week at 5:00am on Sunday morning.
Even though a company like Sinclair can own several local stations and put a slant on their “news” programs, locals don’t amount to shit anymore as far as political influence goes.