Well, nowadays you can’t find Playboy at a drugstore or a 7-11. Now, being associated with the content inside Playboy is almost a nonevent these days; but unlike the editions in many other countries, the cover of the US edition of Playboy does not show nipples – or else is sold in opaque shrinkwrap.
Are you joking?
Uhm…it’s the pioneering adult magazine in America, why shouldn’t places that sell it exercise a little bit of discretion?
But what’s wrong with a human body? I truly don’t understand. I can see porn being bad for kiddies [as it often degrades women], but a human body is beautiful, isn’t it?
Kids in many European countries don’t need to see it on TV. Nude sunbathing is common in many areas of Germany and France. Hell, you could look out our window in Frankfurt on a sunny day and see people sunbathing on their lunch hour at the Bundesbank park.
I remember seeing men and women wandering around nude in a city park in Hamburg, as well. The French coast has numerous nude beaches. Entire families frequent these places and seem to suffer no ill effect. When something is commonplace, it ceases to be of note. The only people gawking are Americans and others who have stricter exposure laws.
This is America – we don’t approve of naked titties here.
Guns are good OTOH… 
In Brazil we have some of the same silly mentality regarding sex. Still at least we Brazilian hide those titties behind extremely skimpy bikinis.
Beauty leads to lust leads to sin. And the burning lake of Hell!!! Or so I’ve heard.
Not if it might give some unsuspecting male a hard-on. In that case, while European perverts may consider it beautiful, right-thinking Americans recognize it for the pure, unadulterated evil that it truly is. Any sight that could lead someone to think about something as dirty and evil as sex is clearly the work of the devil, and the fact that you think it beautiful just shows how deeply you are already in Satan’s grip.
Can you imagine the hell that would result if American kids were allowed to believe that engaging in sex was a natural, normal, or acceptable human act?
[/sarcasm]
-VM
I got the whole caboodle (methods and efficiencies of birth protection) in sex-ed, but I might be conflating my college and high school years.
Yeah, the US does seem to have a rather unhealthy, guilt-laden view of sex. Which is sad, considering that God invented* the whole thing. Sometimes I do wish we could talk frankly about these sort of things, but I suppose that’s what the SMDB is for. 
*I’m saying that from a Christian standpoint, not intending to hijack the debate.
I graduated from HS in 1980. It was a large, suburban school. I was taught in detail about sex and BC–all available options. This was just pre-AIDS–that hit when I was in college. The HS health teacher had us write down questions anonymously. He read them aloud and answered them. Believe me, there were some questions that revealed the depths of teen ignorance re: sex. I doubt that’s changed, really.
In middle school, sex was talked about, but not emphasized.
Fast forward 20 years. My kids now go to the same HS and middle school. In the middle school, we got a letter home. Sex (the biology) of it is “discussed”, and condoms are mentioned. We had to sign a permission slip stating that it was ok with us that Jr learn about condoms.
I wrote on the slip that I hoped that condoms were more than just “mentioned.”
In the HS, our daughter had to sit thru a 2 day lecture on Abstinence. I called the school and asked if BC etc was also covered. To my relief, I was told yes. I’m a nurse and have no problem talking to my kids about sex/BC. But since I don’t work public health, I am not up on the latest in disease and prevention of STD’s etc.
These are both public schools.
In my day, while abstinence was talked about–it was not stressed the way it is now. But its seems to be partnered with ignorance, as well. Not a good combination.
I graduated from HS in 1979, and my experience was similar to yours. Most of it focused on the biolgical aspects, and BC and VD prevention. Almost nothing was mentioned about abstinence, beyond the fact that abstinence will consistently prevent pregnancy and VD. Duh. A 2 day lecture on abstinence? What pray tell do they say? In my school, the empasis wasn’t whether or not to have sex, but the possible consequences of doing so.
I can’t speak to the OP, but since most other respondents aren’t, either, I am following their example.
I think Magiver made an important point.
I didn’t see the episode at the time, but when I saw it later, I concluded that I wouldn’t have been thrilled to have my son watching it. Not because it was a bare breast. We’ve got enough painted and sculptural nudes around the house that a naked tit is borderline boring. What I would have objected to is the act of fordibly tearing her clothing in that way.
Surely some proportion of scandalized parents felt the same way? I know some of the more puritanical activists that reared their heads after the Superbowl think breasts are inherently dirty and sexual, but Ill bet that attitude wasn’t behind the objections of everyone.
The lecture wsa given over the 2 days. By 2 days, I mean that it was a 2 hour presentation, each day, for a total of 4 hours in 2 days.
Well, they used those old chestnuts, metaphor and simile–and not a little dramatic tension. The teens were put in the gym–all health classes attended–it’s a big school. A dramatic presentation was erm, presented. They called people out of the audience(all guys–it was strictly hetero) to supply bit parts.
The presenter was a woman. She stressed via drama and lecture that “giving her self away”, repeatedly(she had at least 6 bit players on “stage” with her at all times), well, it lessened her ability to truly give “love” and have a real relationship “when the time is right”. In the end, since she had given snippets of herself away (represented by bits cut off her shirt, IMS), she had nothing left but rags. <sigh>
My daughter was intrigued the first day (before the denoument). She came home and said, "Mom-it’s like they’re saying that you should really be in a committed relationship and not just go around and have sex. Well, no duh. I pointed out to her that knowing about sex and BC and STD’s does not mean that one must live life as a “ho”. Luckily, she saw the point.
After the second day, I was relieved to see that she was rolling her eyes at the woman’s “loss”–as I would have done as a teen, and would expect that of any teen. The poor, skanky woman was passed up by Mr. Right in the End. It truly was something straight out of the Victorian era. Sexist as hell–although they did do a separate scenario for the guys–with him not getting the Pretty Girl, in the End.
I say, if this is what passes for sex ed in Abstinence programs, bring on the free lovin’!
Sorry to hijack. As to the European kids and sex on TV–well, I guess I am European in outlook. I would rather see nekkid bodies, than all the violence that is there (maybe it’s sex sublimated?).
I’m surprised they didn’t play up the fact that BC and STD prevention techniques aren’t infallible. Particularly with horny, impulsive teens who might get sloppy. This sort of presentation is particularly ineffective with boys. While getting a “reputation” might be a problem from a girl finding Mr. Right, in the past, and still today, guys don’t worry about getting such a “reputation”.
Thing is, it’s also one of the least potentially offensive adult magazines in America. But the point is that in the USA the market attitudes about publicly-visible nudity are closer to South America than to Western Europe.
Sorry to say, but your imagination is lacking. Sadly enough we have regressed. I’m in high school now, I would know. We have never been taught how to use contraception, although we know that it exists and that it is very very unreliable! We actually had two guest speakers (husband and wife) come in and tell us not to have sex until we’re married. While not explicitly said, it seemed pretty implicit that they also meant "Sex is bad unless you’re married and anything else sexual (masturbation, porn, etc.) is also bad without exception.
rfgdxm, I envy you.
I guess then I pity you. 
In my day sex ed was quite detailed on a scientific level, and IIRC started in 6th grade. No arguments at all about the virtue of abstinence. Only that this would eliminate the possibility of pregnancy, and VD. My guess is that this was a good strategy, as while kids could easily just ignore moral arguments, science is undeniable. And today they could really play up the VD aspect. In my day, VD was curable. Not so with AIDS being around now.
The “nudity” on American TV is of a very limited nature, and it’s actually very, very rare outside of premium channels. The reason premium channels have nudity is that you have to PAY to get them so you can hardly say you got them by surprise – and if you don’t want them, just cancel the service.
There is almost no pure nudity outside the premium services. Frex, the E! Channel and U.S.A. network have often skirted right up to the edge of nudity, but the woman generally wears a thong or her breasts are digitally smeared. I’ve seen “old-timey” pictures (i.e., black and white) images of topless women and thier butts on a very few things … the “History of Sex” that aired on Discovery and the History Channel a few years ago … but not a lot else. Nipples and genitals and completely bare buttocks are almost nonexistent on U.S. TV.
That said, I think butt in a string thong and a naked butt are not very different in appearance most of the time. Here’s an example from the E! Channel but be forewarned that it’s a close-up of a woman’s butt in a thong, so it may not be work safe. Here’s an example from a prime-time TV series which is, if anything, even less work safe than the E! Channel article, though thongs are stil shown.
Even thong shots are very rare on network TV, though they’re only slightly rare on cable TV generally.
In short, I must be watching a different American TV than some of you.
Which makes me wonder. Don’t you think a woman wearing thongs, or a bikini - or a man wearing a speedo is much more sexualy provocative than a nude person?
What’s ‘sexual’ on a breast?
How do women breast-feed their babies? Behind a curtain? You have to bring your own travel-curtain with you, when taking your newborn on a trip?