Is nudity of any kind acceptable on free-to-view channels in America?

I prefer equal opportunity nudity.

I find the blurring out of certain parts of the anatomy quite humourous. If you're going to censor things like that - its almost preferable to cutting them out entirely, rather than graffiti-ing them to blur out certain parts of the image.

Censorship is ludicrous anyway - especially when you apply it to things other than TV and film. Its not too different to throwing a bathrobe over Michaelangelos David, or how the Victorians used to cover up table legs because they were "too phallic".

Always wonder why it is that there aren't laws to prevent the alteration of someone's work. Most DVDs have draconian legal warnings about copying, reproducing or altering the material - yet that doesn't apply to television, where its routine to tamper with the content of someone's work merely to pander to a few prudish people.

I find some of the censorship on TV here bizarre too. An arse-crack blurred? Why? Saying a$$ is OK but not a$$hole? (The 'hole' is silenced!) On Dr 90210 (yeah, I know, sad) nipples are blurred even during the operation scenes when the human body is reduced to just meat at that stage. But violence - no problem.

(A$$ & a$$hole is similarly censored here. Ah, us adults with our potty-mouths. We need to be protected from ourselves, obviously.)

Sometimes there is totally no need for nudity. The film/programme makers can get their point across without the need for nudity. But, they try and sell the show by resorting to nudity. IMO, if you don't like it, find it offensive or whatever, then don't watch, it's as simple as that.

That's often the case.

Even if $ex/nudity isn't necessary in a particular bit of TV programming or a movie - its hard to justify any argument for censoring it. Content labelling works just fine, IMO - as do the parental controls built into a lot of TVs, TIVOs etc these days.

I think that because nowdays children’s entertainment resorts mostly to watching TV (long gone are the days where kids went out to play outside all the time), it is necessary to have some sort of censorship, but certainly not towards nudity, as they should be taught that bodies are beautiful in spite of size and colors. I believe that the censorship should be definitely towards sex and violence scenes. I think that even though morals are taught at home, how do you prevent your child from believing that it’s normal to do certain abnormal things when they are shown in TV as pretty normal? (ie: cheating on your husband with the gardener, hiding a dead body in a fridge, etc.). Sometimes even shows as The Simpsons give totally wrong messages to children.

I voted no for the kids...

Would it make a difference if there was a watershed, as in the UK? (Nothing deemed offensive before 9pm).

It adds nothing good or positive to our life, it's misplaced energy, time, space and money.

I don't see what's wrong with kids seeing naked bodies. Erections might lead to some not-so-fun conversations though.

Complicated issue. Depends on what time, which channel and part of what kind of program. JMHO.

I agree

Well generally there's not much call for erections in mainstream movies and TV Shows - we'd really be talking about porn...

I'm still surprised that people are so concerned (and looking at the poll result) that nudity has no place on TV because "children could see it". Are people naturally prudish or something? would seem to me that violence is more troublesome - in terms of "repitition of behaviour" than nudity. Also I wonder how many people took "nudity" to mean "sex".

I guess that could go back to Gupt's answer - depends on the content. If it is a discovery channel about biological systems, might not be a problem at all, however if the nudity involves something sexual in nature, I would be sure more would agree with a bit of censorship for children.

Since you're a mod now, does that mean we need to start bleeping out our posts?

Back to topic: If they're showing <bleep> while <bleep> is on top of <bleep> or doing <bleep> to <bleep>, that should not be allowed. Also, if the <bleep> on a <bleep> is showing with a <bleep> on her <bleep> doing <bleep> to it that should be illegal too. It's all about context.

<bleeping> <bleep>

I'm not for censoring the content of programmes in any way whatsoever - but I can certainly see the value in content labelling and content controls (you'll be hard-pressed to buy any TV hardware that doesn't feature some sort of V-Chip that screens out inappropriate programming). Point is - the control should be with the household (parents) to use existing technology and good-old fashioned parental control to regulate what your family watches - rather than blanket censorship by TV networks. There's really no need for broadcast censorship at all IMO.

i should have added that i meant censorship by way of timing programs. sorry, but a victoria's secret commercial where the model pours milk all over herself isnt exactly necessary during primetime, say American Idol. save it for later. milk always makes me want to buy bras.

LOL

I thought the UK watershed system was a good idea. If it is after 9pm the majority of kids are (or should) be in bed. Before 9pm? No.

I agree with Mags - the 9pm watershed solves a lot of problems. I'm always amazed at the language I routinely hear at 7pm

I agree with the language thing. Before I left the UK, words like sh!t, wank&r and bast##d were creeping in WELL before 9pm. I thought that was a little cheeky, considering the watershed IS there for a reason. Just seems programme makers were trying to stretch the boundaries to see if they COULD get away with it.

I like the idea of a watershed. Until you spend some time in a school and listen to what comes out of the mouths of some of these kids, one's opinion might change in regards to when this type stuff should be shown on TV. Personally, I don't care if it's shown...I just wish the networks would be concerned about the audience...specifically kids. Programs on Discovery and such, if it's educational in nature, eh maybe. When there is sexual content, IMHO it should be much later in the evening, but then you have parents who don't give a dam what their kids watch and how late they're watching.

I also think that when one becomes a parent, your opinion of TV content changes as well, but this is from my perspective as a parent. I voted that I don't care to see someone's bits...just not my level of interest. My husband and I limit what our daughter watches as well and how long she watches TV. Y'all just might not believe what I've seen and heard in the schools where I've worked over the last 12-13 years. Then again, you'll have the argument that a watershed is a type of censorship. My thought on this is...at what age is it ok for kids to learn about sex? Would you want your 6 or 7 year old to know what sex is all about? Want them to watch erotica on TV or learn how to have a potty mouth? Just MHO.

when I read this thread. I have to think of my little neice " little shonnie".
I would reply with NO NUDITY! its not acceptable. even of she was 99 years old.
thats my little baby. I would rather shielded from that kind of thing.

American premium cable channels are filthy enough as it is, and so are movies.

If someone wants to see T&A, there is plenty of porn available on DVD or on the internet, or even in print for the more literary-minded.

I don't like nudity, excessive violence, swearing, rude language, etc. to such an extent on television. I'm not religious and I don't have children, I just plain don't like it and I think it's unnecessary. I thought even the Vicar of Dibley Christmas special was too rude. Clearly it is not necessary to swear or get your kit off in order to make good television, as evidenced by very high-quality American television programs that leave 'quality' British television in the dust.





Yeah, I've noticed that too. I really don't like it...I guess I'm at the age where swear words make me flinch instead of making me giggle.

Doesn't this occur in many countries around the world? I don't see anything wrong with it personally, as long as it is done at a proper hour. If we are trying to hide this from children, I understand but it seems they are bombarded by not only nudity but sex in the video games they play.

Personally speaking, I think violence in videogames is far more prevalent than sex. There are very very few videogames (that I know of) that feature explicit sex. There was a furore a couple of years ago about Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas - but that was about an unofficial Mod for the PC Version. 99% of the people who played the game wouldn't have come into contact with it anyway. On the other hand - violence is prevalent in many videogames - not only that, but the level of violence is much more extreme and graphic. A few years ago - parents were up in arms about pixelated decapitations or the fact that you could blast people to death with a shotgun in Doom. These days you can pretty much do a Hannibal Lecter on someone - suffocate them with plastic bags, drill out their guts, cut up the body, set fire to it; and then take a whizz over the charred remains.

I'm not for censoring any of this stuff - plenty of people play these things or watch violent / sexually explicit TV shows without any ill effects. As far as children are concerned - there's no shortage of content labelling on videogames and movies to inform parents about the content (as a gamer myself - I've seen kids try to buy something with a Mature rating and been turned away). Similarly with the controls built into most TV these days (not to mention the internet) - the parent has all the tools they could possibly need to regulate what their kids watch or consume.

I'm also not convinced that a watershed is a magic solution either - with the amount of media choice available to most people you can pretty much throw away your TV guide, as with "on demand" services (which I suspect will eventually replace broadcast television schedules) you can pretty much get what you want when you want. TV isn't the same as it was 20 years ago - people don't watch it the same way either. As I see it - content labelling is sufficient and technological 'child locks' allow you to control what comes into your home.

Me being a mother of two young children... I voted no....it doesn't...although they keep pushing the limits more and more.... I'm sorry..but if ya want to show frontal nudity..or any for that matter..keep it on the adult channels...I'm not being a prude..just that's the way I see it. Kids grow up wayyyy to fast now a days as it is...without the added extra influence of crap on the television.

There really isn't answers in the poll to fit my point of view so I'm just going to comment.
I got used to seeing nudity because as a kid I watched a lot of nature shows on PBS. My parents never had a problem with it and neither did I. You would see both male and female nudity in a fairly natural way. What I don't agree with is the over-sexualization of a lot of television. Even if you can't show direct nudity, sometimes people wear things that leave next to nothing to the imagination.

If it's a documentary about native people, or an examination of art that requires life study, or history/architecture, fine, but I don't like the commercials that show half-naked women flashing their underwear around in suggestive poses.

Is TV a right? I understand the people who don't want to see nudity on their TV, but you do have a choice when to and what you watch, surely. If you know that at a certain time on a certain channel you may be exposed to an exposed nipple, choose something else. You may have adult video stores in your area, and you stay away from them if it's not your thing. You may have R rated films in your local video store and stay away for the same reasons. Why should TV be any different?

TV isn't different - these days you can pretty much pick the channels you want to watch and within those channels what programming you want to be exposed to. There's no reason for anyone to see anything that they don't want to.

Yet people do see it differently - this is stuff flowing into their home. However, everyone here has access to the internet. Nudity and worse flows into their home that way too. Yet they chose to filter it out or not to go looking for it. Unless you view TV as constant, moving wallpaper that cannot be turned off, I honestly don't see the difference.

But the technology does exist to filter out obscene material on the internet, as well as on TV. You can exercise a fairly large degree of control over what comes into your home. Granted its easier with TV than with the internet - but even so, it is possible.

I agree. Who are these people who don't monitor their kids' or their own TV viewing habits? Why not?

Exactly - there's no reason to demand that certain things be banned simply to pander to those people who don't want to watch it. In 5 years - its unlikely we'll even be using regular TV schedules anymore, that people will pick and choose what channels/content they choose to subscribe to. To some extent this happens already. I've had basic cable and its sanitised to hell - the one exception being Fox's 24. Torture, shooting and death - all at 9 O'Clock.

Personally I'd like to see an end to the commercial break. Again this is something that's already possible - I don't have it but I believe TiVo can screen out commercials. Then again - if you watch TV shows via an online retailer like Amazon or iTunes, you get the whole thing uninterrupted.

Definitely yes for nudity, but if it's like full frontal then only after a certain hour, like 9pm. If you don't want your children watching it, don't let them have tvs in their bedroom, but let them watch tv at the living room where the parents can supervise what they watch. Simple solution.