Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think so. Once something reaches a certain saturation point it looses it's ablility to attract attention or shock. Everything being done now media wise is for controversy (everything) and there will be backlash and a swing in the opposit direction. I think nudity may be considered less offensive in some instances certainly, but not pornography. I doubt that will ever be totally mainstream.
The sad part is our culture often can't differentiate. We're moral hypocrites who are supposedly puritan and obsessed with overregulation and "family values", yet sex-themed advertising is used almost incessantly in our media. You can't show the natural (nudity) on television, but you can constantly show the unnatural (brutal violence). Which one leaves our kids warped in the end?
I think nudity may be considered less offensive in some instances certainly, but not pornography. I doubt that will ever be totally mainstream.
Note a difference between porn and nudity.
I see it the other way around. Pornography is all over the mainstream media, but not much porn that contains nudity
I'd rather my son not see either. But I think the sexually charged media kids are exposed to on basic cable do more harm collectively because it's everywhere. "Pornography" as most of us understand it still carries a bad reputation and therefore lacks the label of being "normal". Not so for most of the stuff on TV.
I don't think so (minus your self proclaimed connoisseur-ness of porn )
American media is very right wing compared to the rest of the world.
Guns, violence, blood, gore, it's all A-OK, but show a rear end or god forbid a little cleavage and the GOP evangelical goons go on a full blown rampage.
TV media censorship is another perfect example of how the right wing establishment keeps pushing their anti-freedom agenda on the nation.
In any case, Americans have a real love affair with violence, no doubt about it; but to this day their attitudes toward the body and sex run a bizarre gamut from adolescent-minded prurience to a absurdly extreme prudery.
I'm seventy-four, and yes a lot has changed in my lifetime, but it does seem despite many changes that these attitudes about violence and sex have remained quite constant.
I see it the other way around. Pornography is all over the mainstream media, but not much porn that contains nudity
I'd rather my son not see either. But I think the sexually charged media kids are exposed to on basic cable do more harm collectively because it's everywhere. "Pornography" as most of us understand it still carries a bad reputation and therefore lacks the label of being "normal". Not so for most of the stuff on TV.
I think the graphic depiction of violence and gore in American entertainment is a far bigger obscenity than explicit sexuality, and I think it does just as much, if not more, harm to American society. The casual and pervasive imagery of kill! kill! kill! kill! has given American society a very dangerously twisted mentality.
Also, the FCC seems to be selective about it's nudity enforcement. Remember Schindler's List? It was allowed to be broadcast unedited complete with nudity and violence. PBS documentaries involving topless or nude tribes were also shown unedited. Americans would be shocked to see some of the things shown on TV or movies in Europe, especially in France. Some French movies are showing couples actually having intercourse instead of faking it under the covers. This isn't the porn film most think of where legs are positioned for maximum view of the action. This is more realistic in it's filming since the two actors would actually be having sex like a married or dating couple. It isn't uncommon for a nude model to be shown for a soap or shampoo commercial. Just the postcards would have some fainting with exposed penis, vagina, and breast.
Funny you should bring up Schindler's List. My dad, who was an attorney, represented people involved with that film. For obvious reasons, I am not going to say who but I do recall that the film was only televised in mostly major TV markets out of the southeast USA. It was not shown at all in the southeast because a Republican Congressman had said that TV stations showing it were televising obscenity because Steven Spielburg would not allow any editing of the movie for TV. And yes, TV in other nations is about 50 years ahead of it is here.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,833,234 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
The sad part is our culture often can't differentiate. We're moral hypocrites who are supposedly puritan and obsessed with overregulation and "family values", yet sex-themed advertising is used almost incessantly in our media. You can't show the natural (nudity) on television, but you can constantly show the unnatural (brutal violence). Which one leaves our kids warped in the end?
Yep. Moral hypocrites. Does anyone think 111.3 million viewers turned the TV off during that commercial? Actually, they probably didn't. It's pretty sexy. It's showing a woman putting on undergarments and saying "Gimme some flowers and you'll get something in return." Because that's how women WORK, dang it. Buy them some flowers and instant success.
I think the graphic depiction of violence and gore in American entertainment is a far bigger obscenity than explicit sexuality, and I think it does just as much, if not more, harm to American society. The casual and pervasive imagery of kill! kill! kill! kill! has given American society a very dangerously twisted mentality.
We are more blood-nuts than we are sex-nuts.
I would never deny the very real and serious influence violence in the media can have on children. But I also don't believe in more or less excusing one harmful influence by pointing at another. At least with older children, they come to know the violence is all fake (with very few exceptions), but they know the sex in pornography is real. And there are somewhat fewer (or at least less obvious) deterrents of sexual irresponsibility among kids and teenagers than of violence.
Also, I just plain disagree with that last sentence. Violent crime continues to decline as STD rates continue to climb.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
