Get the best of both worlds - make love AND war!
I suspect it’s part of the way America has separated into right wing/everyone else subcultures that don’t speak much to each other. Like what I see with racism; there’s clearly a lot still out there, even lots of objection to things like interracial marriage - but I don’t actual know more than one or two people who think like that (and I think one is dead). There’s people out there who passionately care about suppressing nudity in the media and other right wing concerns - but they talk to each other, not outsiders.
You and I are either watching very different edits of Game of Thrones, very different porn, or border lines are *particularly *wide on your maps :).
It was only eight years ago, the same hysterical prudery that gave rise to it continues to reign, and the term “wardrobe malfunction” is still frequently used - just heard it yesterday in reference to Ann Hathaway, in fact.
Kids born two months ago don’t remember bin Laden being killed. I’m not sure that “some people are too young to remember it” is a particularly good way to determine relevance, overall.
I don’t recall the last time. But that was more or less my point - I don’t see many nipples, and I don’t see a lot of explicit gore.
You may be right, but I am not a good judge. ISTM that the humor on broadcast sitcoms has gotten much cruder, but I put that down to my advancing age.
I don’t know that the standards on violence on network TV have changed. We watch old DVDs of an old semi-Western/spy series called The Wild, Wild West. As I understand it, it was cancelled because the networks thought it was too violent. Yes, people got shot and blown up on the show, but it was never explicit. Almost no blood, and the violence was cartoony, apparently by design.
But I don’t know if it is any different today, or not. CSI and Elementary show more dead bodies, but that is not quite the same thing as explicit depictions of murder.
As I say, I am probably not a very good judge of these things, since I think most TV is dreck, violent or not.
Regards,
Shodan
What the heck is “simulated” nudity? I think the point is that violence can be real or simulated, but nudity cannot be simulated.
I was a pretty big Xena fan, and I don’t remember hearing of anyone being offended, writing angry letters, or organizing a protest as a result of Lawless’s wardrobe malfunction. Since the national anthem was involved it seems like it would if anything have been easier to whip up some outrage over this incident than over the Super Bowl halftime incident.
No cite, but I remember hearing that James Cameron had to fight for that PG-13 rating as the MPAA originally wanted to give Titanic an R for nudity. Cameron convinced them that the scene in question wasn’t “sexually-oriented” enough to merit an R. I don’t see that their site defines “sexually-oriented”, but the nudity in Titanic isn’t part of a sex scene and the two characters aren’t touching or even sitting near each other.
Flashing flesh-colored underclothing I suppose.
I’m against sax and violins.
I thought that the distinction was a silly one, myself. But, as noted, what about a flesh-colored body-suit, with details like nipples, genitals, pubic hair, etc.
Someone else pointed out that a lot of the violence we see on tv is not simulated at all: football, hockey, boxing, etc.
Yup. Right after Letterman, I can watch the uncensored version of the classic “History Of O” on CBS. Oh, wait…I can’t!
George Carlin was right forty years ago. TV & FAA hypocrisy is staggering.
Hardcore nudity is offensive because it defies the cherished American value of all men being created equal. Hardcore violence has been okay since the invention of the gun made it possible for almost anyone to potentially kill anyone else.
The answer to the OP’s question can be found by doing an experiment. Go to any Walmart in the US, just before it opens, and park near the door. Throughout the day, look at the people as they come out, and ask yourself “Would I rather see that person naked, or hit by a car?” Record your answers for each person. At the end of the day, compare your naked:hit-by-car ratio. You should have your answer.
Instead of a Walmart, how about a college gymnasium? The proportions would be different…
Very true. However, Walmart customers are more in keeping with the stereotype the OP has of Americans. And a reasonably accurate stereotype, too, since they are far more representative of ‘Americans’ in general than ‘college gymnasium’ users. I’d happily bang most of the women at a college gymnasium. I’d even turn gay for some of the guys. Most Walmart customers, on the other hand, not so much. And, other than not being obese at the age of 49, I am fairly confident that no ‘college gymnasium’ users of the female persuasion will think ‘What a HUNK!’ when they see me looking at them. They will instead think ‘What’s that creepy old fart who looks like he belongs at Walmart doing, staring at me? I should call the cops on him.’
True. And fair enough; Walmart customers are probably closer to a true random sampling than a gymnasium’s customers would be. We might agree on people on a sidewalk on a busy street, or people in line at an airport.
Personally, while I agree that most people wouldn’t be at their most alluring naked, I’d still support their legal right to be naked if they wanted to be. (The only thing I ask is that they carry a towel to sit upon, so various bodily effluents don’t accumulate on park benches, bus seats, etc. But, hades, that applies to no few people I’ve met who wear trousers too long in need of washing!)
The sight might be a turn-off…but is that enough to warrant the violation of individual civil liberties? I think we’d all get used to it, pretty quickly.
What if some crazed fundamentalist sect got in control of our society and compelled everyone to wear masks, because “noses are obscene” or because they fear people having the “evil eye” or whatever. Imagine how offended we’d all be when they came around and arrested any of us who dared to show our faces. Well…that’s what nude rights enthusiasts suffer from all the time, every damn day…
(Why, yes, I am also the guy who argues for a “flat earth” interpretation of geography…)
I have enough problems with women and children (and manly men) screaming in terror, as they run away from me. I don’t need your help, thank you very much!
If such a thing actually were prevalent, which it isn’t, I bet it would not provoke nearly the outrage that actual nudity does.
That’s why I think there is something to the idea that the issue is that we are mainly comparing actual nudity to simulated violence. If we were comparing actual nudity to actual violence, most people would find the latter far more offensive.
Not that I’m offended by nudity personally, I’m just trying to answer the OP’s question.