Ah, the difference in cultures...

[Skeptic]

Uh, with no offense, are you religious? I ask because the reason nudity is considered indecent in the US is silliness in the bibble - a pseudohistorical book of the xtian faith - first chapter IIRC.

No, I'm not religious. By the way, yours is a rather common argument technique among liberals and progressives: "if you disagree with me about X, you must be supersititous and uneducated". (The conservative version is "if you disagree with me about Y, you must be a traitor and a communist"). Both are nonsense.

Nudity is not universally considered indecent.

(Shrug) Slavery, incest, rape, killing babies, and head-hunting aren't universally considered indecent, either. If you only disapprove of behavior that is universally considered indecent, you will disapprove of no behavior whatever.

And certainly not so by me.

Are you telling me you would not care if someone showed your children pornography without your knowledge or consent? It's only nudity and sex, two things that are not considered universally indecent, are they?

Of course you would care, and quite rightly, too.

As in the superbowl case, too, the problem is not the nudity or sex in themselves, but how and when they where shown and to whom.

 

[3point14]

It wasn't just you, but I think it says more about you (and everyone else who claims to have noticed/laughed/been offended by it) than it does about Prince who was just playing a guitar. It certainly didn't look like any phallus I've ever seen (not that I'm suggesting I'm some kind of expert ).

Oh, I can't prove it, it probably is only a coincidence. But the shape of the neck of the guitar fitted the coincidence quite neatly. And not being a prince fan, I'm not sure if he always plays the guitar in that very, very low slung position that put the join of the shadow of the guitar and the shadow of his body at just that spot, he probably does, doesn't he? Anyone seen prince live and know?

Edited to add this: as I forgot it.

 

[Matthew Best]

I've seen Prince live several times, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't change the way he plays the guitar to make a different silhouette.

But the shape of the neck of the guitar fitted the coincidence quite neatly.

You could probably say that about all guitars - in fact most other guitars even more so, since they generally only have one, er, protruberance, and Prince's had two (which is why I said it didn't resemble any phallus I have seen).

 

[Number Six]

No, I'm not religious. By the way, yours is a rather common argument technique among liberals and progressives: "if you disagree with me about X, you must be supersititous and uneducated". (The conservative version is "if you disagree with me about Y, you must be a traitor and a communist"). Both are nonsense.

This is an excellent paragraph and so true. And what it gets to in my mind is the difference between (a) factual claims, for which there is a right and wrong ansnwer, and (b) opinions or values, for which there is no right answer. The line between the two is fuzzy and people slip over it easily without realizing it and end up arguing for their opinions as if it were a factual matter instead of a product of their values. To be clear, I don't exclude myself from that categorization.

 

[3point14]

I've seen Prince live several times, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't change the way he plays the guitar to make a different silhouette.



You could probably say that about all guitars - in fact most other guitars even more so, since they generally only have one, er, protruberance, and Prince's had two (which is why I said it didn't resemble any phallus I have seen).

You're probably right, and it's all in my diseased imagination. Shame.


I'm right about the cheerleaders though!

 

[Matthew Best]

You're probably right, and it's all in my diseased imagination. Shame.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with having a diseased imagination! (That's what my wife tells me, anyway.)

 

[fuelair]

No, I'm not religious. By the way, yours is a rather common argument technique among liberals and progressives: "if you disagree with me about X, you must be supersititous and uneducated". (The conservative version is "if you disagree with me about Y, you must be a traitor and a communist"). Both are nonsense.



(Shrug) Slavery, incest, rape, killing babies, and head-hunting aren't universally considered indecent, either. If you only disapprove of behavior that is universally considered indecent, you will disapprove of no behavior whatever.



Are you telling me you would not care if someone showed your children pornography without your knowledge or consent? It's only nudity and sex, two things that are not considered universally indecent, are they?

Of course you would care, and quite rightly, too.

As in the superbowl case, too, the problem is not the nudity or sex in themselves, but how and when they where shown and to whom.

First, I believe I spoke only of nudity (though in all fairness, I don't care about the sex part either) . Rape, killing babies, head hunting, slavery and incest of specific types - where I had any control/ability to intercede -would involve someones' unpleasant and not quick if possible death (not mine).

If children were exposed to frequent nudity with no indications of shock, terror, hatred, etc. - which is inherant in most strains of American Xtianity - the fear of "what it would do to them" would be nonexistant.

Just curious, what is it about your background that makes you fear/hate nudity if not religious. Surely not simply that we have silly rules about it here - decent government could fix that up easily. I am primarily curious that you equate nudity with indecent - which sounds like religious or similar training.

 

[luchog]

Like anyone is going to believe that without evidence.

Well, I've tried gathering evidence, but Seattleites are so uptight about that sort of thing, even in the "queers, artists, and assorted freaks" neighborhood.

 

[luchog]

Yes. They have been allowed on multiple broadcast television channels, including ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS; as well as numerous syndicated station. Not that often, and usually preceeded with disclaimers, but it has been done.

And since I know you'll demand names of actual programs, being that you're incapable of looking them up yourself, here are a few examples:

Roots - ABC
Gauguin, The Savage - CBS
Bay City Blues - NBC
Tales of the City - PBS
NYPD Blue - ABC

Evidence?

Are you blind or unable to read? I posted it right above your bloody comment. Names of the programs and stations they aired on for Zarquon's sake. You can rent the bloody DVDs and see for yourself.

Really, Claus, that is well beyond even your usual standards of lameness. But I suppose it's hardly typical. If the demonstrated evidence refutes your assertion, then pretend it doesn't exist. Your usual modus, but you're usually not as blatant about it.

That's my point: Such sinfulness still causes a "huge protest" in the US.

Erm no, either your English skills are crap again, or your being deliberately obtuse. A "huge protest from the religious right". Not a "huge protest" in general. A big outcry from a tiny bunch of whackos that the vast majority of the US completely ignored. The networks and FCC clearly ignored them, because the film was aired in its entirety, uncensored.

But I'm sure you'll pretend that didn't happen either, so you can continue to pat yourself on the back for your oh-so-self-righteous anti-Americanism; rather than admit that you might be just possibly not be the great expert on American culture that you assert yourself to be.

 

[luchog]

Are you telling me you would not care if someone showed your children pornography without your knowledge or consent? It's only nudity and sex, two things that are not considered universally indecent, are they?

Objection to nudity and sex? No. Objection to pornography, yes. And since I doubt you'll draw the obvious conclusion, I'll spell it out for you. The problem I have with pornography is not the nudity, and not the sex; both of those are perfectly natural and there is absolutely no evidence that they harm children in any way. The reason I would object to pornography is that it gives a distorted and unnatural view of sex and sexual relationships. It's not often difficult to tell who learned their view of sex from pornography (much of mainstream America), and those who learned it from other sources, simply by listening to how they talk about it and their expectations regarding it. Again, it's not the sex I object to kids learning about, as long as it's realistic and normal. It's the distorted sexual fantasies most pornography consists of that I consider best avoided.

I would also tend to be extremely suspicious about that person's motives, but that's another issue entirely.

I didn't have any problems with my partner's kids (effectively my stepkids) knowing about sex; and never saw any reason to make them embarrassed or afraid about their interest in it. They turned out fine.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Objection to nudity and sex? No. Objection to pornography, yes. And since I doubt you'll draw the obvious conclusion, I'll spell it out for you. The problem I have with pornography is not the nudity, and not the sex; both of those are perfectly natural and there is absolutely no evidence that they harm children in any way. The reason I would object to pornography is that it gives a distorted and unnatural view of sex and sexual relationships. It's not often difficult to tell who learned their view of sex from pornography (much of mainstream America), and those who learned it from other sources, simply by listening to how they talk about it and their expectations regarding it. Again, it's not the sex I object to kids learning about, as long as it's realistic and normal. It's the distorted sexual fantasies most pornography consists of that I consider best avoided.

So essentially if porn drops the scenes of sex on an underwater tractor in a sea of boiling olive oil with ribbed snorkels, backdropped by undulating zebrafish in a primordial tidal pool of turned-on electric eels: Everything would be jake?

 

[bob_kark]

I see you have overlooked Mardis Gras. Lots of Public Displays there.

In the parades? Evidence?

First of all, I'll bet you want evidence you dirty old man! Secondly, from first hand experience, I can attest to the cries of "Show us your [Rule 8]s!," the subsequent showing of [Rule 8]s, and the eventual shower of Mardi Gras beads at the parades, at least when I lived there.

Of course, the Zulu parade used to throw real coconuts, until a few too many kids were beaned in the head. Also, some of the more homosexual parades really piled on the use of butt chaps and bare chested Indians. But, that's another story for another day.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you blind or unable to read? I posted it right above your bloody comment. Names of the programs and stations they aired on for Zarquon's sake. You can rent the bloody DVDs and see for yourself.

Newsflash for you: What is on a DVD and what is being broadcast are two very different things.

Erm no, either your English skills are crap again, or your being deliberately obtuse. A "huge protest from the religious right". Not a "huge protest" in general. A big outcry from a tiny bunch of whackos that the vast majority of the US completely ignored. The networks and FCC clearly ignored them, because the film was aired in its entirety, uncensored.

The "religious right" in the US is a "tiny bunch"?

But I'm sure you'll pretend that didn't happen either, so you can continue to pat yourself on the back for your oh-so-self-righteous anti-Americanism; rather than admit that you might be just possibly not be the great expert on American culture that you assert yourself to be.

You seem more eager to pretend that I didn't acknowledge it. Where did I say it never happened?

Tell me something, was it also this "tiny bunch" of the "religious right" who imposed such harsh sanctions after Nipplegate?

First of all, I'll bet you want evidence you dirty old man!

I'm not old...

Secondly, from first hand experience,

Well...

I can attest to the cries of "Show us your [Rule 8]s!," the subsequent showing of [Rule 8]s, and the eventual shower of Mardi Gras beads at the parades, at least when I lived there.

Of course, the Zulu parade used to throw real coconuts, until a few too many kids were beaned in the head. Also, some of the more homosexual parades really piled on the use of butt chaps and bare chested Indians. But, that's another story for another day.

Of course.

 

[Number Six]

Newsflash for you: What is on a DVD and what is being broadcast are two very different things.

Tell me, Claus, other than building a time machine and taking you back in time to witness the shows as they happened, what could he possibly show you that would make you say "Okay" rather than "Evidence?" For that matter, even if that happened you'd say "And where is your evidence that this is truly a time machine? And what happened in the other time lines?"

If you take a look at things I think you'll see that the standard of evidence that you hold for others is often totally different than the one that you hold for yourself. It's not that you don't support your positions with evidence...you usually do...but it's just that when someone disagrees with you there often is literally no amount of evidence that you will accept.

Your general point with this thread was to say that the US was too prudish. Considering your demeanor and your approach and your tactics, do you think that you've accomplished anything at all regarding that point? I feel sure you haven't and I suspect you're bright enough to know you haven't, which means that this thread for you is just an indulgence rather than an exercise in skepticism.

 

[CFLarsen]

Tell me, Claus, other than building a time machine and taking you back in time to witness the shows as they happened, what could he possibly show you that would make you say "Okay" rather than "Evidence?" For that matter, even if that happened you'd say "And where is your evidence that this is truly a time machine? And what happened in the other time lines?"

If you take a look at things I think you'll see that the standard of evidence that you hold for others is often totally different than the one that you hold for yourself. It's not that you don't support your positions with evidence...you usually do...but it's just that when someone disagrees with you there often is literally no amount of evidence that you will accept.

Your general point with this thread was to say that the US was too prudish. Considering your demeanor and your approach and your tactics, do you think that you've accomplished anything at all regarding that point? I feel sure you haven't and I suspect you're bright enough to know you haven't, which means that this thread for you is just an indulgence rather than an exercise in skepticism.

On the contrary, this is very much an exercise in skepticism.

Why is "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" any different than "I saw an alien spaceship once"?

It isn't. Both are testimonials, and without evidence, we have to treat them the same way. We certainly cannot treat "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" the same way we can treat Nipplegate and the tightening of restrictions that followed.

That's for the evidence. I agree with 3point14: I think it is hypocritical that there is such a focus on sex everywhere in American media, not just the ads, but also in the shows, when there is such an outrage when a half-covered nipple is shown for, what? a second or two. Give me a friggin' break.

I have also seen people argue that it isn't the majority who are prudes. That may be. In some ways, I hope it isn't. But, in some ways, I hope not. Because if your country's media is controlled by a small bigotted minority, then you got one hell of a bigger problem than a half-covered nipple.

 

[Zep]

I didn't say that. But they [the Catholic church in Brasil] sure aren't effective in banning boobs!

There's more boobs on display in the USA than in Brasil, if you care to look around, so you would probably be mistaken. Check out Mardi Gras in New Orleans some time! What do girls have to do to get the beads??

What you MAY be mistaking is the TV presentation of sexual display and nudity, etc. Remember that in the USA, it's all commercially orientated, so they have to cater to the lowest common denominator. And indeed it IS low...the level of the narrow-minded cretins (who are common in every country, btw). It's just that elsewhere, they are NOT catered to.

 

[fuelair]

On the contrary, this is very much an exercise in skepticism.

Why is "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" any different than "I saw an alien spaceship once"?

It isn't. Both are testimonials, and without evidence, we have to treat them the same way. We certainly cannot treat "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" the same way we can treat Nipplegate and the tightening of restrictions that followed.

That's for the evidence. I agree with 3point14: I think it is hypocritical that there is such a focus on sex everywhere in American media, not just the ads, but also in the shows, when there is such an outrage when a half-covered nipple is shown for, what? a second or two. Give me a friggin' break.

I have also seen people argue that it isn't the majority who are prudes. That may be. In some ways, I hope it isn't. But, in some ways, I hope not. Because if your country's media is controlled by a small bigotted minority, then you got one hell of a bigger problem than a half-covered nipple.

Just to get this in, and although I am not going to "provide the evidence 'cause it would be more than I care to get into tech wise, I can verify that short list of shows and add to it - so, I will verify that the major nets have shown some (including frontal - and, in a special case (Phil Donahue, underwater birth in late 80s early 90s) full open spread) but mostly NOT. ie, it can happen (well, could from mid-70s through mid 90s) but sure doesn't now since the nip"slip". Obviously you are not required to believe me - on the other hand this is a subject in which I have much interest and on which I have spent a lot of time and fundage. (and film/video.)

 

[CFLarsen]

There's more boobs on display in the USA than in Brasil, if you care to look around, so you would probably be mistaken. Check out Mardi Gras in New Orleans some time! What do girls have to do to get the beads??

What you MAY be mistaking is the TV presentation of sexual display and nudity, etc. Remember that in the USA, it's all commercially orientated, so they have to cater to the lowest common denominator. And indeed it IS low...the level of the narrow-minded cretins (who are common in every country, btw). It's just that elsewhere, they are NOT catered to.

It's not because of the level of commercialization. Brazil is also commercialized.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

There's more boobs on display in the USA than in Brasil, if you care to look around, so you would probably be mistaken. Check out Mardi Gras in New Orleans some time! What do girls have to do to get the beads??

The tradition at the college I went to was that during senior week (the week seniors have the campus to themselves prior to graduation), there is a gigantic bonfire built -- funded by the school -- and seniors strip naked and take a naked run around the bonfire.

The senior class at the larger school nearby us would go streaking downtown.

And I'm not talking about a small amount of people in either case.

Ironically, the college I went to was a small Catholic school. Go figure.

 

[roger]

Why is "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" any different than "I saw an alien spaceship once"?

One is an extraordinary claim, one is not. Certainly until someone has provided concrete proof a claim is not proved, ordinary or extraordinary, but jesus, stop riding people. We live in the US. We tell you we occasionally (certainly it's not a daily occurance) see boobs on network TV.

Be a gentleman. Say, "I did not know that", or "that was not my experience when I was here". Converse. Don't hound. Please. Why is this very ordinary point, backed up my multiple witnesses, so important to you? I'll tell you, you give the impression of not being able to take it when someone posts something contrary to something you previously stated.

You've been provided names of shows, sources of where to get those shows, no reasonable person is going to go any further to prove such a mundane point. Please stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is somehow lax in providing evidence. This is a bulletin board, not a peer reviewed journal or a court hearing.