Nudity on TV

[Athena]

Janet Jackson's nipple and some random butt shot on NYPD Blue have generated a total of roughly $2 MILLION in fines for the FCC. Why?

Because nudity is "wrong" and parents are too [lazy? technologically inept? neglectful?] to monitor what their children watch, so they seem to require a government agency to do it for them. It's for this same reason that I, a 25 year old WOMAN, can't purchase a CD with a parental advisory sticker on it if I don't have ID on me. In a similar vein, my little sister who lived with me was denied entry to R-rated movies we tried to go to because I wasn't prepared to prove that I had any legitimate authority. Ultimately, I get less convenience because some puritanical parent wants more.

How do YOU feel about the FCC? Do you require/like the government deciding for you what is appropriate for your family?

[Hippiepoet]

Another good question put on the board.

My answer is no. I do not want the government deciding what is "ok" in their eyes and "not ok" for me or my children to watch. As an adult I can make that choice.

Although I do admit when I am at the movie store, I check movies to see if they have "graphic violence" which I don't usually watch and nudity, which again..... I don't wanna see no titty sucking or dick sucking in my movies unless I'm watching porn. lol

My kids are almost 6 and almost 12. I've let them watch PG-13 movies and an occasional R. If all there is is a bunch of foul language, well fuck, my house would be R rated and the kids couldn't enter cause they're under 17......wouldn't that be something? muahahahahahaahaha

[petrina]

i prefer nudity IN FRONT OF the tv

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Hippiepoet

Although I do admit when I am at the movie store, I check movies to see if they have "graphic violence" which I don't usually watch and nudity, which again..... I don't wanna see no titty sucking or dick sucking in my movies unless I'm watching porn. lol

Exactly. I'm not saying "let your kids watch porn", or that children should be exposed to this, that and the other thing. I just don't understand the perspective of the person who thinks that it's so damaging that society needs a regulatory group like the FCC.

I mean, if you only let your kids watch Disney until their 18, get on witcho bad self. Not how I was raised, not how I plan to raise mine, but hey, whatever. But the fact that whichever network airs NYPD Blue got fined a whopping $1.4 million for showing a buttcheek (yes, Janet's boob is more acceptable, apparently at $550,000) grinds my gears.

I remember the days before parental advistory stickers. Now, it was absolutely impossible for me to buy anything that offended my parents (I went through fazes with Marylin Manson, ICP, Brotha Lynch AND G.G. Allin), but if I had come across that intolerable music, it would have simply been confiscated. If there was a movie inappropriate for me, my parents simply refused permission to watch it. Was I still able to sneak into the occasional R-rated movie without parental consent? Yep, and I'm stable enough to talk about it.

I just don't understand the perspective of the individual who thinks nudity/violence/etc. is so detrimental, that society as a whole must be protected from it.

[Raq me darkly]

You can get boobs on PBS and some cable channels (like FX's Nip/Tuck, which verges on soft core sometimes). Buttcheeks ran rampant on Baywatch (while everyone waited for Pamela to sneeze).

You are not "allowed" to see naked female breasts because it could be too sexually stimulating to the male population and they would have to go out and rape the next woman they came across. Believe me, I would much rather see Janet Jackson's naked tit than Jerry Stiller's. But it is ok to see fat old flabby male breasts.

Being afraid that children might see nudity is just a lot of puritanical bullshit. There are plenty of clothing optional families out there and the only offshoot might be that the child turns out to be a prude.

[Pete Bondurant]

The FCC should do everything in its' power to eliminate these so-called talent programmes, wherein various washed-up celebrities, so called, sit in judgement of various other individuals, none of whom have any talent whatever. Also, this MSNBC network, seems to be devoted to electing Barak Obama to be President. Is this not some sort of violation? It does not seem quite fair.

[mammasweets]

I don't really care if my kids see naked people. I mean a butt shot as someone is walking in shower or something equally mundane. I do have problem with the FCC choosing what is right for my kids to see. I see nothing wrong with them knowing what we look like naked.

[Hippiepoet]

Originally Posted by mammasweets

I don't really care if my kids see naked people. I mean a butt shot as someone is walking in shower or something equally mundane. I do have problem with the FCC choosing what is right for my kids to see. I see nothing wrong with them knowing what we look like naked.

Exactly, a boobie shot, an ass shot...why not? The body in its natural state is just that, natural. My kids have always went with Mr. Hip and I when we go to hippie fests, been around Rainbow people, folks who like nudity for the nature and freedom of it.....I've got no problem with that. My kids were brought up seeing an occasional naked person, now it's just like....oh well. Hope they don't get a sunburn. :)

[Pete Bondurant]

Originally Posted by Hippiepoet

Hope they don't get a sunburn.

Basal cell carcinoma. You should hope that they do not get that. It's very bad stuff.

[petrina]

Originally Posted by Pete Bondurant

The FCC should do everything in its' power to eliminate these so-called talent programmes, wherein various washed-up celebrities, so called, sit in judgement of various other individuals, none of whom have any talent whatever. Also, this MSNBC network, seems to be devoted to electing Barak Obama to be President. Is this not some sort of violation? It does not seem quite fair.

ok at least my post had something to do with nudity

[Pete Bondurant]

Originally Posted by petrina

ok at least my post had something to do with nudity

Jessica Alba. I want to see, Jessica Alba.

[DA Devil's Advocate]

Personally I'm all in favor of nudity on TV. Like Ron White says "You see one woman naked....you want to see em all." Seriously, I've never understood the prohibition against nudity. We see ourselves naked so that just leaves the opposite gender. The only reason to wear clothing is to regulate temperature. If we still had our fur we wouldn't need it. We probably lost it because we started wearing clothing.

I'ld like to see the FCC ban the State of the Union Address. That offends my sensibilities. A ten minute speech interupted by fifty minutes of intersperced applause by people who don't believe any of it. Brrrrrr, my skin crawls just thinking about it.

[tbone08742]

Here is a simple way to end this discussion......Get rid of your TV!!! We did about a year ago and dont regret a single day of not having a TV. If makes for a close knit family and produces constructive results overall....again this is my expierence.

[Raphaelight]

A nipple? all this fuss over a nipple?!

[Athena]

Originally Posted by tbone08742

Here is a simple way to end this discussion......Get rid of your TV!!! We did about a year ago and dont regret a single day of not having a TV. If makes for a close knit family and produces constructive results overall....again this is my expierence.

I had a friend who grew up without a TV. She's brilliant; full ride to Harvey Mudd and now she does work for government think tanks. Not saying one will lead to the other, but I'm sure it helped.

Of course, she's also rather socially awkward and disconnected. Take your pick.

Personally, I'm too attached to the morning and evening news.

That being said, the FCC regulates much more than TV. It's movies and music, as well. So, throwing out ones TV certainly does not end the discussion. ;)

[tbone08742]

I didnt mean end the discussion in a literal sense.....Athena, great points one will need to consider when removing the TV from the home, I agree it certainly doesnt change Goverment Regulations. Many specific elements of raising a child without Tv need to well thought out, especially social issues, not socializing, by the issues of society. We have several news portals we share as a family, to specifically give a better perspective of the news...Dreamin Demon to be one, I like the non tolarent approach to crime. Often the Demon headlines are of great discussion within the household, so I thank the creators of the site very much for raising awarness in my family. Anyways....to the members keep up the informative aspects of these forums, at the very least we can help eachother be more aware.

[Harley_Tech]

Having traveled extensively in Europe, I laugh at our tv. In simple terms, after the kids should be in bed...anything goes. I've watched what would be rated X here, on air tv there.

FCC, needed as an entity for licensing of broadcasters and the like, but not as sensors.

It really is so very simple....if you see something that offends you, TURN IT OFF.

I've never seen a single radio or TV that did not have an on/off switch and even if I ever do it can still be unplugged.

R

[celtic friend]

I as a parent would like warnings so I can decide for myself. I don't want them telling me what my kids are allowed to see.
I would also like there to be a waiver or something to give approval for your child to see a movie that is rated PG-13 and say they are like 11.
If we have no rules for going to see a R rated movie, would all kids then be forced to go to their movies with their parents till they are 18? I mean really, you know how many kids will be just seeing the R rated movie over the PG or PG-13 one? I know kids sneak to go see the other movies, but this time parents will really have nothing to go on but trust of a teen, LOL.
Would children, then be able to go and see a porn movie at one of those adult movie stores? Rent them? Are there any warnings at all?
Getting rid of the current system opens up a whole can of worms, a big can at that. We really need to know how we are going to handle all of it.
I personally like I said before, like warnings to be able to decide then for myself and what level I think my kids are at. They also say if there is nudity, violence, strong sexual situations, so they give you a heads up.
Lastly, I do think there should be some guidelines for TV during the day.
I know some have said there is nothing wrong with seeing people naked, well of course not, but would you really want your kids to see people simulating sex naked when you flip a channel on regular TV? Like right after Sesame Street, Nip/Tuck comes on w/o a warning?

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by tbone08742

We have several news portals we share as a family, to specifically give a better perspective of the news...Dreamin Demon to be one, I like the non tolarent approach to crime. Often the Demon headlines are of great discussion within the household, so I thank the creators of the site very much for raising awarness in my family.

The Demon as an educational site? Am I reading that right?

This site rocks.

Next stop: public schools!

[tbone08742]

My wife and I read all different news websites,, this being one of them, we usually find the headlines here and then investigate more on the web....We are glad we found this site because half the news we read on here we never hear about. It also makes my wife I realize how much we dislike the direction our society is heading ,so in turn we adjust our family values to ensure our families safety and most importantly our happiness.....

IN OUR HOUSE WE DONT DIAL 911......

[Athena]

Originally Posted by celtic friend

Lastly, I do think there should be some guidelines for TV during the day.
I know some have said there is nothing wrong with seeing people naked, well of course not, but would you really want your kids to see people simulating sex naked when you flip a channel on regular TV? Like right after Sesame Street, Nip/Tuck comes on w/o a warning?

A rating system is fine. I've got no problem with that, and imagine that the media industry would comply voluntarily with ratings, if that's what consumers want. What I've got a problem with is the government forcing it on them and, worse yet, making it a crime for minors to gain access to these materials. If parents don't want their kids to have it, parents need to step in and make sure, not the government.

Personally, I never watched TV unsupervised. If something inappropriate came on, my parents simply changed the channel. Of course, this doesn't work when kids are left with the TV unsupervised, or have TVs in their room. The solution? Limit the amount of time your kid spends in front of the TV, and try to watch it with them when it's on. There was life before regulation, and it didn't involve sex scenes at noon. But, if you're afraid it might, look into it yourself.

On a side note, from a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense for Nip/Tuck to follow Sesame Street. If all regulation was removed tomorrow, you'd still get a TV Guide, and networks would still group like programming together (i.e. a block of kids programming, a block of sports programming, news programming, etc.). They don't do this because the government makes them, they do it because it increases ratings and such.

[celtic friend]

Ya know Athena, my lil guy likes a few Nick shows, but my older ones don't really watch TV. We don't believe in TV in the bedrooms, so unsupervised watching has really never been an issue. Sometimes they watch movies with their Dad or that awful Drake and Josh, but not much else. Middle son used to be a big Spongebob guy.
I have more of a personal issue with watching what my kids go onto on the internet.

I admit I also was a bit dramatic with the Nip/Tuck example. But I hope you get the gist of what I was saying.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by celtic friend

Ya know Athena, my lil guy likes a few Nick shows, but my older ones don't really watch TV. We don't believe in TV in the bedrooms, so unsupervised watching has really never been an issue. Sometimes they watch movies with their Dad or that awful Drake and Josh, but not much else. Middle son used to be a big Spongebob guy.
I have more of a personal issue with watching what my kids go onto on the internet.

I admit I also was a bit dramatic with the Nip/Tuck example. But I hope you get the gist of what I was saying.

I do understand, I just don't believe we need the government to solve the issue for us by regulating what goes on TV. The networks and what they choose to air is already primarily dictated by ratings, and that won't change. There are a lot of parents in this country. If they don't like what the networks are doing, the networks will feel it and adjust accordingly.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Originally Posted by Athena

I do understand, I just don't believe we need the government to solve the issue for us by regulating what goes on TV. The networks and what they choose to air is already primarily dictated by ratings, and that won't change. There are a lot of parents in this country. If they don't like what the networks are doing, the networks will feel it and adjust accordingly.

That's not true. If a parent enjoys watching a ten o clock show, and the kids stay up and watch it too, theyre not going to stop watching said show because they show tits and ass in an episode or two. They just don't want the tits and ass to be on cable tv.

Ratings before shows should cure everything, in my opinion. Each episode should have one: Strong violence, strong language, brief nudity, whatever.....that should pretty much take care of it, and the rest is up to the parent....

[Athena]

Originally Posted by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman

That's not true. If a parent enjoys watching a ten o clock show, and the kids stay up and watch it too, theyre not going to stop watching said show because they show tits and ass in an episode or two. They just don't want the tits and ass to be on cable tv.

If a parent enjoys said show, but has a problem with nudity, they're unlikely to let kids stay up to watch it, I figure. But, is the ten o'clock show not on cable? You lost me, there.

Generally speaking, networks base what they air on their audience. There will always be a market for non-nudity TV, so there will always be a network that responds. That's the point I was trying to make.

[dop]

Originally Posted by Athena

Generally speaking, networks base what they air on their audience. There will always be a market for non-nudity TV, so there will always be a network that responds. That's the point I was trying to make.

Good point, If cable has shown us something is just because companys have the rigth to put as much "prophanities" to call em something, doesnt mean they will, most cable produced tv shows dont even have swear words, much less nudity or exesive blood in them, and often the ones that do get it cut during afternoon showings in many more family friendly channels.

[Nell]

Ah nudity! I don't see what the huge fuss is about. You know what naked people are? People without clothes on, whoop-de-do. I also don't want my kids seeing hardcore porn, which is why there viewing is monitored. But just nakedness? I walk around naked all the damn time. Nothing to be ashamed of. The human body is beautiful.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Originally Posted by Athena

If a parent enjoys said show, but has a problem with nudity, they're unlikely to let kids stay up to watch it, I figure. But, is the ten o'clock show not on cable? You lost me, there.

Generally speaking, networks base what they air on their audience. There will always be a market for non-nudity TV, so there will always be a network that responds. That's the point I was trying to make.

Jesus, if a parent enjoys a show, fine, but what if they dont KNOW there's nudity? Are you implying theres nudity on every episode? The point IM trying to make is there is a market for adult oriented tv (action, mild violence) that kids DO watch, but dont have to involve tits and ass. Its not a big deal, but there are nothing wrong with ratings to warn viewers. The market does not break it down into NUDITY and NON NUDITY programming. If its there, written into the show, great. Thats why RATINGS are beneficial to everyone.

I think Im with ya here for the most part. I dont have a problem with it at all, and by cable, I mean other than the major networks....the higher channels...but really, its of no consequence, because the major networks do too....however, with cable tv, they get away with more. But anyway, I have no prob at all, but I do agree that tv programs whould be rated, or at least summarized. (violence, language, nudity)

[Pete Bondurant]

There is too much pornography. It just is not healthy. I don't know exactly what to do about that, but it just isn't a good thing. That is all.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman

Jesus, if a parent enjoys a show, fine, but what if they dont KNOW there's nudity? Are you implying theres nudity on every episode? The point IM trying to make is there is a market for adult oriented tv (action, mild violence) that kids DO watch, but dont have to involve tits and ass. Its not a big deal, but there are nothing wrong with ratings to warn viewers. The market does not break it down into NUDITY and NON NUDITY programming. If its there, written into the show, great. Thats why RATINGS are beneficial to everyone.

I think Im with ya here for the most part. I dont have a problem with it at all, and by cable, I mean other than the major networks....the higher channels...but really, its of no consequence, because the major networks do too....however, with cable tv, they get away with more. But anyway, I have no prob at all, but I do agree that tv programs whould be rated, or at least summarized. (violence, language, nudity)

Okay, okay...My confusion must be a regional thing. Around here, all TV is "cable TV". It breaks down into basic cable (local programming and standard networks) and premium cable (HBO, Starz, etc.). I didn't understand. Thanks for differentiating for me.

I agree that ratings are beneficial, but I don't think it should be enforced by a government entity. Networks were voluntarily adopting ratings before they were mandated. It's just more government fundraising.