It seems to be common knowledge that Americans are more offended at the sight of a nipple than at, say, the sight of somebody getting shot to pieces in the name of entertainment. The Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction debacle would seem to back that up, and , to throw out another example, more recently I remember reading about a teacher getting fired after children saw (gasp) naked statues at a museum and parents complained.
Do those same parents stop their children watching films with people getting shot? Would there have been outcry if Janet Jackson fired blanks into the crowd from a machine gun rather than exposing a (covered) nipple?
Questions for Americans: are you more comfortable watching violence or nudity (not necessarily with sexual connotations)? If you have children, would you be more likely to stop them watching a film that showed gunmen on the rampage or one that showed, you know, boobies?
I think Americans are more offended by actual nudity then simulated violence. Footage of actual violence is usually pretty rare, and when shown usually edited to limit graphicness and/or prefaced with a warning for “sensitive viewers”
Simulated violence raises a publicly expressible excitement, Sexual exhibitions give rise to a private excitement. Having said that the porn industry in America is huge some say bigger than Hollywood, so obviously someone buys it and enjoys it in private. Conversely enjoying extremely violent films on your own would be very creepy indeed!
I don’t think American’s are offended by tasteful nudity. I’m thinking of a recent version of Mutiny on the Bounty as an example. There were dozens of scenes with attractive bare chested women running about the island. It fit the movie and the scene dynamics. It was totally natural. I’d rather watch nudity, in that sense, than see a scene featuring graphic violence with blood and gore, etc.
But a warning does not equal censoring. No one says “sensitive viewers be warned: some nudity in this next clip.” Streakers are blurred or cut during the time delay, but broken bones and bloody faces are shown repeatedly from multiple angles and replay. The violence and injury on the news is not censored, it’s a promotional tool. This country is damn backward, and violence is entertainment while nudity is sin.
I disagree. Footage of (actual) graphic violence is rare in the US, and often blurred or censored. And shows with nudity often are prefaced with warnings as well.
Plus its not like there isn’t any nudity in US media. Game of Thrones is borderline porn. And the boobs are (mostly) real, while the violence is all simulated.
The FCC has taken a black-and-white stance that makes absolutely no sense to me. Any and all violence is A-OK. Any and all nudity as forbidden.
My daughter caught me flipping channels the other day, and I landed on Starship Troopers for a bit. She’s 6. I said, “Watch this, this guy’s about to get ripped in half.” And then some more people got slashed open. Then she started asking too many questions about bugs. On the other hand, most of the violence in Boardwalk Empire is much grittier, and I pause it whenever she comes in the room.
I don’t mind if she walks in on Game of Thrones, with its ample topless scenes, because it’s mostly non-sexual nudity. Even full frontal, dudes and chicks, I wouldn’t kick her out of the room for, as long as it wasn’t sexual. Some dude grinding his pelvis into a woman, even if all naughty bits are technically covered by a satin sheet, is not appropriate.
So, IMO, the FCC should be OK with cartoony violence and non-sexual nudity. It should not be OK with realistic graphic violence and overtly sexual imagery. Or it can just get out of the censorship business altogether and let parents control TV. The current status quo is silly.
I think violence and nudity tend to get the same level of outrage. Maybe more for violence at the extreme end. Either way it’s kind of stupid. There is plenty of good violence and good nudity while social mores tend to promote the bad kind.
Is it that a population desensitization to violence and militaristic motifs are easier to persuade to join the army and go to war for the government. While a sexy population is no good at all for that!
Oh great. More flap about the Janet Jackson thing. Oh, those Americans are just soooooo backwards and ignorant.
I think the whole deal about that incident was that it happened during the Superbowl, which many people consider family viewing. People have parties with the kids to watch it.
Also, the shows at these events were gradually pushing the envelope about suggestive dancing. Did you see the performance? S & M regalia amidst bumping and grinding like a raunchy burlesque revue. Now, me, I don’t care. I’ve seen plenty. But I can see how a parent might feel watching such a show with little Brittany and Dakota sitting next to them.
When Janet’s boob was uncovered, many were convinced that it was no accident, including myself. It really seemed like the networks were making a tasteless grab at publicity. So fine, what’s at the next Superbowl halftime? Full fledged fucking, and we’re just puritanical yokels if we don’t like it?
There’s plenty of nudity in American movies. There’s nudity on cable television. Americans can get all the nudity they want.
To all the foreign folk and American bashers who love to bring up Janet Jackson’s naked tit to make themselves proud of their sophistication, just try to remember the event in context of what really happened. A few people, probably parents, complained. There wasn’t any fatwas issued or rioting in the streets. Americans know what boobs look like. But the Superbowl is supposed to be rated PG.
Now go watch the Playboy Channel until you feel better.
My opinion is that it is due to parents’ views on how likely it is that their child will be influenced by the nudity or violence. I think most parents believe it unlikely that their child will resort to violence as depicted in the media and the violence doesn’t lead to immediate urges. However, they feel their child (a teen especially) is more likely to have sex and will feel an urge to do so after seeing nudity/sex.
Well, my opinion is that American society has fundamentally unhealthy attitudes towards both sex and violence. In America, sex is “dirty”. Violence is fine.
Why would you prohibit explicit sex in mainstream movies, but condone Jason hacking people to pieces–in 3D?
And the notion that “young people” will imitate sexual behavior but not homicidal behavior need more support before I can buy it (Columbine?).
If it really happened that way, then that’s one spineless principal. Please note that the teacher and the administration differ on the reasons for the termination. She claims persecution, they claim that she’s grandstanding. The article says one parent complained. I’m not sure that one complaint from an anonymous person is a good of an indicator of American’s attitudes towards sex and violence. If she had shown the kids Pulp Fiction or Friday the 13th in class, I suspect she would have garnered at least one complaint also.
