Christ… do I have to chose ? I like 'em both you know ?! Not that I consider myself normal sexually speaking. 
I think that scene in the film about Harry Flint (Penthouse guy) with that slide show about violence versus Sex summed it up pretty well. Blowjobs or wars ?
Nitpick: his name is Larry Flynt, and he started Hustler, not Penthouse.
Jeez… I must be awfully tired… do forgive me. I haven’t been up to date with my erotic magazines… or movies. :smack: Still that was a great scene in the movie when I saw it seems too many years ago.
It’s not actually that the kids are assumed to be in bed by 9 but that after this time the parents are supposed to monitor/censor what the kids watch, whereas before it the telly can be presumed kid safe. In practice the watershed is not really a hard line – all Disney before and extreme sex’ n’ violence after. The programmes in the hour before 9 may be somewhat adult in content without being graphic and the ones immediately after only a bit more so. And quite a bit of family friendly viewing can still be found post watershed. To protect shockable adults or those watching with children from being surprised by unsuitable material they often broadcast a warning – eg “this programme contains scenes of a violent nature/nudity/ strong language from the *outset.” * . The Sopranos typically comes with these.
I agree. Whether or not the film accurately portrayed Flynt or not, I thought it was great film about censorship and freedom.
First off, the thread title is a declarative statement without a factual base. It assumes Euro Children require less protection than those of other nations. It would have been better titled to ask why the standards are different from country to country.
2nd, nudity is not forbidden on TV in the US, it is only requires a warning. I’ve seen breasts and buttocks on broadcast TV since at least the late 70’s. Janet Jackson’s breast would have hung proudly at half time if it had the appropriate content warning.
The problem with nudity is the context under which it is offered. Tearing off a woman’s clothes in this instance is, IMO, misogynistic in nature and the act of doing so is inappropriate behavior and should carry a content warning.
Finally, signals sent via the airwaves have always been restricted to some form of community standard. This, by default, is a compromise of what society wants. I would certainly enjoy watching Mz Jackson run naked down a beach (Bay Watch style) but I respect the desires of parents for some type community standards.
The thread title uses “protection” in a sarcastic manner. I do not actually believe any children need protection from seeing a bare breast. Those who make a fuss over nudity often say they need to protect children from it, which is what I was mocking. The crux of what I was trying to ask is that if children need to be protected from nudity because of some kind of consequences, then why aren’t European children suffering the consequences of being exposed to nudity?
I seriously doubt people would be OK with nudity during the Superbowl halftime show in the middle of the day on Sunday, warning or not. Perhaps a bit less, but I’m quite sure there would still be massive complaints.
You need an advance warning for this? How do other cultures survive?
Why’s everybody being so hard on Janet? Given her age and the apparent lack of artificial enhancement, I think that she has at least one fine-looking breast. I also kinda liked the metal thingy on it.
Christ, hasn’t the woman been villified enough for sharing it with us? Do we have to add the insult of criticisizing the breast itself? I think if we harbor any hopes of seeing any more of them, we should try to be a little more appreciative of what we have already been shown.
I suppose I should also throw in some sort of comment about how uncomfortable I was with having my children see that boob. Except, well, I wasn’t.
I’m also having a hard time working up much concern that it might in some way lead to them growing up and having sex. Speaking for myself, I would be far more disturbed if something on my TV might lead to them growing up and not having sex. What kind of lonely, unhappy life would that be for me to wish on my kids?
-VM
This phrase is much loved in our household:
“This programme contains scenes of a violent nature…”
“…nudity…”
“…strong language…”
“…from the outset.”
We get some of the German-language stellite chanels here, and I’ve noticed the trend. RTL, especially, used to be the Tittie Network back when I started getting cable in the early nineties. Nowadays it might as well be Disney (as far I can tell; they may be cursing like sailors, for all I know). It’s too bad - I miss all the 1970’s lederhosen porn.
Not true. A warning would not have made the airing of a bare breast on a broadcast network in the early evening “OK” to the FCC. It may have reduced the fine that CBS had to pay, but you can’t just slap a warning on a show and then present naked, washed-up pop stars.
I work for a major American network and I was just required to read a long memo about indecent and obscene material and then actually go online and take a test about it! The key is “prurient interest.” JJ’s tit-airing was considered to have no value outside of providing for the prurient interest of some viewers. Therefore it is a no-go whether you have a warning or not.
Yes, there has been nudity on USA broadcast TV for a while now, but it has only been allowed when there was “artistic or educational merit” in the scene in question. A good example of this were the bare breasts shown on one of the slave women in “Roots” maybe 25 or 30 years ago. Actually, that always struck me as racist because it was deemed educational since it appeared in such an “important” work. But they never would have shown a white woman’s bare breast in the same program. It seemed to me that African breasts were somehow considered less “titillating” that caucasian breasts.
I almost forgot-- as for the bare butts you sometimes see on NYPD Blue or whatnot, that is only aired after the “safe harbor” time of 10 PM. Now you still couldn’t show full frontal nudity then (not usually-- in the past you might have been able to slip some breast shots though the cracks (um… sorry ). But not “Post-Janet”) because that would be considered obscene. The butt, however, seems to be deemed merely “indecent” and is therefore allowed during the “safe harbor” (but this may have changed since Janet–there are no hard and fast (sorry again) rules about what exactly you can and can’t show)).
Check this out for more info on the difference between obscene and indecent.
On that site the FCC says…
…when talking about the test for obscenity. What’s interesting is that they have changed their idea of what “contemporary community standards” are. It used to be based on the community where the program is broadcast. So maybe in NYC or LA tits would be OK after 10 PM.
Not anymore— not since Janet. NOW you have to consider the nation as a whole–every thing from the Big Apple to Farmtown, Indiana-- when you are judging what are “community standards.”
Crazy stuff, man. No wonder the rest of the World thinks we’re puritanical nut-jobs.
Seriously. You know, if I wanted sex with that much plastic, I’d buy a blow up doll.
The latest, best evidence suggests that they use it WRONG.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
And that’s not even for America specifically. For us, it’s probably far worse.
1/3? That blows my mind. How is that even possible? How is “sex ed” even defined for purposes of the article? Does that mean that 2/3 of kids don’t even learn about basic human reproductive biology?
On second reading, I’m not sure that’s entirely correct…the article says “One-third of teenagers said they did not learn about contraception in school,” which isn’t at all the same thing. Still awful, but not at all the same thing.
Currently 18 states and the District of Columbia require schools to provide sex education and 32 do not.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/
But OK, I will jump into the minefeild. No less an authority than NOW says it patrially really isn’t in the end about puritanical Amercians vs. Liberated and enlightedn Europeans but a different in cultural and expectations for teen sex:
"In the United States, where the predominant social message is that teenage sex is not acceptable, official efforts emphasize preventing youth from engaging in sexual activity. The study found that “being accepting of teenage sexual relationships and having clear expectations about responsible behavior are linked to low levels of teenage pregnancy and STDs.” While the other study countries are more accepting of teenage sexual relationships, they also have “strong and clear social expectations that sexual relationships should be committed and monogamous, and that teenage partners should use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and to prevent STDs.”
http://www.now.org/issues/health/teenpregnancy.html
But that’s still very different than saying that there is no sex ed in 2/3 of states; it just means that 2/3 of states don’t have a law requiring it.
I will never understand parents who want to leave sex ed as parents’ sole responsibility. My mom sure didn’t want me having sex when I was in high school, but at least she recognized that well, she wasn’t the world’s greatest biology teacher, so she wanted someone who understood all the details to impart them to me so I would have good information. Actually, she came and sat in on our 5th-grade “we’re not going to call it sex ed” class, because a) she wanted to see herself how they were presenting the material, and b) she wanted to get a better grip on the biological side of things herself.
Plus, if anyone is going to be teaching my (entirely hypothetical) kid about STDs and contraception, I want the person to be up on all the latest R&D.
Your experiences differ, sometimes rather dramatically, from mine, though I never was actively taught creationism! I think if I were a few years younger, I might have been at risk of having been so taught, though. My parents would have been furious.
I graduated in 1994.
I avoided science in high school, but when I took what science my former college required (biology and geology were my choices) we were cautioned BY THE PROFESSORS that evolution would be discussed. We didn’t have to believe it, but we had to learn it for the exams. This was within the last four or five years in Georgia. And in a sexuality class somebody once brought up the “homosexual agenda.” Not the professor, but this was a very very conservative area.
We were told about it, and had maybe one day per year of actual work with it in math class through eighth grade. The best I can do with it is rough estimates of temperature differences between F and C – I know that 35 C is damn hot, for example.
Ah, THIS is where my experiences really differ. Fourth grade – in central Texas – us girls were told about periods. The next year, again, we were told about our periods. I think there might have been a mention of “you could get pregnant” but I’m not entirely sure.
Nope, no real BC instructions at all, and I don’t remember any graphic pictures. About all I remember is “if you gotta, use a condom or something.” Also an unspoken assumption that sex is b-a-d.
We had a refresher health class in tenth grade, but again we weren’t told much of anything that we didn’t already know. For God’s sake, I’d had a period for three years by that point. Being told “if you must Do It (and you shouldn’t!) use birth control” isn’t helpful if nobody explains HOW to use it and what the pros/cons of different methods are.
I think we have. There are a lot of powerful people pushing for misinformation-filled abstinence-only sex ed, which amounts to none at all.
Probably so. I don’t remember getting too much in the way of actual information from my parents – I think I’m old enough I really did pick up a lot off the internet, and we’re talking solid info. I know my parents would have been okay with me having sex, assuming I’d had the chance, as long as I was taking appropriate precautions. It seems to me that if you don’t know the real risks of sex you might take chances you don’t even know are chances. The more I knew about sex, the less likely I was to do it as a teenager (even if I’d had a chance) because I didn’t want to take the risks at that time. And that’s why I really, really dislike the idea of abstinence-only classes, even discarding the religious agenda behind them.
I just want to highlight this sentence here, because it seems to be so often dismissed by the religious right, and because I really like the phrasing. Something eye-catching about it.
-VM