Leave My Smut Alone!

[Amazonis]

I don't know if anyone here actually gives a shit about this (and i admit it is not the most pressing global issue at the moment) but i nead somewhere to voice my frustrations over it, and here seams as good a place as any. I am talking about the attempted murder of sex and nudity here on free-to-air Australian telivision by the christian right, which i feal may cost the economy billions as ninty percent of the male population comes down with testicular cancer! :( Just about the only people who will be happy this (other than the christian right, who have no balls) are the CEO's of the cable Porn chanel (who's subsciption are bound to skyrocket!). :D

I don't know what the laws over sex and nudity on free-to-air telivision are in America, but here in Australia full nudity (as long as it is not sexually stimulated nudity) and simulated sex can be broardcast anytime after 9:30 pm. However, this may all be about to change, as politicians have just ordered a rethink into the cassification laws. But why have they all of a sudden decided to do this, when full nudity has being presented on Australian telivision for over thirty years?

It is because of the adults only version of the reality series Big Brother (Big Brother Uncut). For those of you who don't know what Big Brother is, its crap reality tv show, where a bunch of young adults are left inside a house for three months, and everything they do is cought on camera and shown on tv (everything means nude showers, sexual discussions, and this season, even actual sex, even though it was dry). And these are the things that have preasured politicians to try and move to ban the Uncut Version from tv (in other words, the only mildy amusing part of an otherwise shit show).

Although this is the something like the fifth year of Big Brother, this season has had a lot more sexual behaviour and nudity, and is also being shown an hour earlier. However, it was not these things that originaly prompted the parlimentary enquiry into classification. In fact it was not even the conservatives who prompted the move (they have being trying to have it banned for years, with little or no media coverage). It was all ticked of by feminist groups, who were 'outraged' at a practicle joke performed by the contestants.

In this joke, a guy thought it would by nice to give some chick a shoulder massage at the dinner table. The only thing is, he was rubbing his penis on her neck without her realising until after the event. She took it as a joke, but the feminists did not. They brought the show into the media, and this gave the conservatives a chance to step into the spotlight, and complain about the other things in the show (boobs, bums, tits and sex - all that evil stuff).

They seam to be offended that males and females shower naked together (which is obviously a view brought about by religous morals). They also claim to be disgusted at nude running, sexual conversations, and two females pashing in a spa bath (they claim that showing gay relations on telivision promotes an unhealthy lifestyle). They also say that the two occasions of dry sex in the house broke the free-to-air telivision classification laws, because it was not simulated sex. (Obviously they don't know what sex is, because unless it envolves contact of genetalia, it is sexual relations, not sexual intercourse).

They also have said that Network Ten (who produce Big Brother) are exploiting the young people on the show, and turning them into pornstars. This is crap, considering these people chose to paticipate in the show at their own will. They all understand that the entire nation (and even world, thanks to the mighty internet) will ba able to view them naked. Also, the term 'pornstar' does not apply to people who are having showers!

The conservatives claim that this so called 'porn' show, demoralises family values. For a start, the show is not even made for kids and they should be asleap by the time its on anyway. And if a few kids do watch it, they'll may learn some vital infomation about sex. These christians can take their family values and sove them up their behinds! What about the value of choice? If they do not like it, they shouldn't watch it. Its as simple as that.

I don't give a shit if they ban Big Brother Uncut, and i don't watch it anyway, cos i think that reality tv for the most part is a load of shit. But if they make more conservative laws because of Big Brother, these laws will effect many other shows. :(

[Jennifer]

Well, I think the 9:30 rule is a good one. I like the Zoning alternative to censorship. But I can't help wondering if the women complaining are offended by the boobs or if they are offended by the one sidedness of it all.

Porn always looks like some strange religion to me - "Cult of THE PENIS!!!!"

Is Australian TV showing have faux gay guys messing around? Was their endless footage of some woman leaving snail tracks on some guys back? Was there anything Anais Nin - ish, or was it all Bay Watch? Maybe part of the part of the problem is one of equal time.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Here in America, there's no nudity whatsoever on the big network channels. (Anyone remember the huge Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" incident?) If you have cable, they might show a breast or two, but it's mostly confined to the Discovery Health channel. If you want sex and nudity, you'll either have to subscribe to a movie channel like HBO or Cinemax, or get pay-per view.

[LogicMan]

I don't know what the laws over sex and nudity on free-to-air telivision are in America, but here in Australia full nudity (as long as it is not sexually stimulated nudity) and simulated sex can be broardcasted anytime after 9:30 pm. However, this may all be about to change, as politicians have just ordered a rethink into the cassification laws. But why have they all of a sudden decided to do this, when full nudity has being presented on Australian telivision for over thirty years?

(
Just scanned the first part of this and I am affraid to say that in america nudity is generally frowned upon. Given that this country has become the most over weight maybe it is not such a bad thing :D

Seriously though it is sad that a rational position, on the natural state of the human body, is about to be looked upon as dirty by yet another group of irrational individuals.

It also leads to incredible hypocracy...example: they porn industry over hear rakes in staggering amounts of money. Videos, web and hotel chains have shown that an unbelievable amount of porn pay per view goes on.

Ah what the hell, when has blatant hypocracy ever hurt anyone?...HMMM! :(

[clambake]

Already in effect here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html

[calpurnpiso]

C'est vrais mon ami. c'est vrais...bien sur...:)

[Paradox]

All obscenity regulations should be removed from tv. If a show is considered to have gone to far, then the advertisers would pull out when people threaten to boycott anyway. So things would work themselves out fine without silly regulations built on subjective opinions on whats decent and indecent.

[Striver]

All obscenity regulations should be removed from tv. If a show is considered to have gone to far, then the advertisers would pull out when people threaten to boycott anyway. So things would work themselves out fine without silly regulations built on subjective opinions on whats decent and indecent.
That may be worse, because then the advertisers are directly controlling what we get to watch. right now it's more of an indirect thing.

But for some perspective, America is very conservative. How conservative?

50% of the population are red-states, meaning very conservative states where non-christian expression is actively persecuted--to the degree allowed by law- they can't come into your house or anything.

In the bible-belt states, they only sell soft-core porn in the hotels. meaning lots of lovey dovey talk, no actual pictures of insertion and just oral on the breasts or lesbian rubbing.

People say books aren't banned, but with the new manga craze, they're putting ages on the books and some stores enforce these. These aren't pornographic books, this is the mainstream japanese imported stuff that schoolchildren read over there.

You can't say shit, fuck, whore, cock, cunt, or two other words on television. Recently, they've allowed the words bitch, damn and ass, but that's about as far as it goes.

Absolutely no nudity except on paid television channels. Nudity is defined as showing the areola of the breasts or the lower genital areas without covering.

The nightly local news in just about any city has a format of 1) serious news, 2)national news 3) weather, 4 sports, 5) bullshit about little kiddies doing a school play. (called features) The "serious news" or "national news" is typically limited to the fare distilled from the big news organizations like AP, CNN, or Fox News. So people are only made vaguely aware of what's happening for a 5 minute period, and within that period, it's pre-selected news with commentary and editing to ensure that the audience accepts its viewpoint. An example is how when Mike Tyson bit the guy's ear a few years back, they asked him why, and he said, "he was cheating, he was getting at me and I had to retaliate." I heard that full statement. I saw the same report again on another station and they had him say, "he was getting at me..." and the sound was turned off though his mouth continued to move to even remove the idea from the viewers mind that he had a rationale, (even if it was bad). That's thought control for you. Remove the ability of someone to conceive of an idea, and you don't even have to lie.

It's not oppressive in the sense that people are always watching you and doing things to you, because there's a lot of decadence her, too. But it's more like America forces a person into adapting a public and private persona, because the whole aspect, and specifically the sexual aspect of a person, is thought of as a thing to be hidden and feared.

[Aristarchus]

If you want sex and nudity, you'll either have to subscribe to a movie channel like HBO or Cinemax, or get pay-per view.
Here in Seattle there is porn on the public access channel! I think it is hilarious. Late Wednesday nights (1:00am Thu.) there is a guy named Mike Hunt (that's not his real name :lol:) who advertises weed from various people and shows lot of porn to which he comments to. He's been under legal and media fire the whole time he's been on, and has been banned a bunch, but stays on the air suprisingly well. He says that to remove him on his public time block would be censorship and is illegal. This has apearantly been a fairly decent defence. I personally think he should stay on the air because (1) it is really late and it is public access, and (2) because it good stuff! I was channel surfing late one night only to stumble upon this little reward, and learned a bunch of interesting tips. Nudity on TV: yes.
Educational porn on TV: yes.

:D:D:D

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

If you want sex and nudity, you'll either have to subscribe to a movie channel like HBO or Cinemax, or get pay-per view.
Here in Seattle there is porn on the public access channel! I think it is hilarious. Late Wednesday nights (1:00am Thu.) there is a guy named Mike Hunt (that's not his real name :lol:) who advertises weed from various people and shows lot of porn to which he comments to. He's been under legal and media fire the whole time he's been on, and has been banned a bunch, but stays on the air suprisingly well. He says that to remove him on his public time block would be censorship and is illegal. This has apearantly been a fairly decent defence. I personally think he should stay on the air because (1) it is really late and it is public access, and (2) because it good stuff! I was channel surfing late one night only to stumble upon this little reward, and learned a bunch of interesting tips. Nudity on TV: yes.
Educational porn on TV: yes.

:D:D:D
Damn, we need something like that in every state! :lol:

[Amazonis]

Well, I think the 9:30 rule is a good one. I like the Zoning alternative to censorship. But I can't help wondering if the women complaining are offended by the boobs or if they are offended by the one sidedness of it all.

Porn always looks like some strange religion to me - "Cult of THE PENIS!!!!"

Is Australian TV showing have faux gay guys messing around? Was their endless footage of some woman leaving snail tracks on some guys back? Was there anything Anais Nin - ish, or was it all Bay Watch? Maybe part of the part of the problem is one of equal time.
I cannot say exactly how much of uncut is devoted to males and how much to females, (because i have only seen it a few times), however what i did see was well balanced. Half or more of the show is sex talk and not nudity, and most of the nudity is presented in a way which is natural and does not apear to have been created simply for stimulation. Anyway, most of the watchers of the show are female teenagers, so male nudity is also included.

[Amazonis]

Here in America, there's no nudity whatsoever on the big network channels. (Anyone remember the huge Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" incident?) If you have cable, they might show a breast or two, but it's mostly confined to the Discovery Health channel. If you want sex and nudity, you'll either have to subscribe to a movie channel like HBO or Cinemax, or get pay-per view.
The rules sound rather tight over there (we have breasts on the G rated news here!) And when that wardrobe malfunction at those awards was replayed here a few days later, the tits were left bare as ever, with no public outcry. I just hope we don't continue getting more and more conservative over here, or we might end up just as bad :(

[Amazonis]

All obscenity regulations should be removed from tv. If a show is considered to have gone to far, then the advertisers would pull out when people threaten to boycott anyway. So things would work themselves out fine without silly regulations built on subjective opinions on whats decent and indecent.
Yes, that is an interesting point. And clearly this show has not gone to far in the opinion of its viewers, because it still has countless advertising partners, some of which are even cashing in on the contraversy. Some house cleaner has addvertisments that comment on how 'filthy' the show is, and then go on to say that their product will be able to clean it all up :lol:

[MrsMoe]

As a mother, I think 9:30 is a bit early for nudity. I wouldn't want my kids seeing that. I as a parent would prefer a minimum time of 10 so kids would't accidentally see anything when channel surfing.

[Paradox]

All obscenity regulations should be removed from tv. If a show is considered to have gone to far, then the advertisers would pull out when people threaten to boycott anyway. So things would work themselves out fine without silly regulations built on subjective opinions on whats decent and indecent.
That may be worse, because then the advertisers are directly controlling what we get to watch. right now it's more of an indirect thing.
Dumping obscenity laws wont change anything in the way of how tv stations and tv shows get funded. Advertisers would still have the same amount of power, whether or not those laws exist.

[Striver]

As a mother, I think 9:30 is a bit early for nudity. I wouldn't want my kids seeing that. I as a parent would prefer a minimum time of 10 so kids would't accidentally see anything when channel surfing.
This is a common position. One thing I wonder is, "What will happen if they DO see it?" Every pareent talks about how they don't want their kids exposed to nudity or sex. Putting sex aside for a moment, if you think about it, kids are born uninhibited. They run outside naked after you give them a bath, and you have to go round them back up. They wouldn't know anything was "bad" about their bodies if we didn't teach them that. And you don't see rampant deviancy in cultures where everyone walks around naked, but rather that they just get used to it and ignore each other for the most part.

So that said, if I had a kid, I wouldn't let them see sex/nudity, but not so much because I'd think it was harmful. It'd be more for protection against society. If the neighbors found out, or it the kid talked at school, they could be taken away by child services. Nowadays they'll even take your kids away if they hear that you spank them, or more extremely, even if you let them go to school with their hair uncombed, if you happen to live in the wrong area.

This board is about religion, but to what degree is it really just about society?

[Amazonis]

Todays news article, Supreme Court Split on Display of Two Tits (http://ravingatheist.com/) has a lot in common with this topic.

[Paradox]

This board is about religion, but to what degree is it really just about society?
Both reliigion and society are heavily intertwined. Religion has played a big roll in perpetuating what social norms are.

[MrsMoe]

This is a common position. One thing I wonder is, "What will happen if they DO see it?" Every pareent talks about how they don't want their kids exposed to nudity or sex. Putting sex aside for a moment, if you think about it, kids are born uninhibited. They run outside naked after you give them a bath, and you have to go round them back up. They wouldn't know anything was "bad" about their bodies if we didn't teach them that. And you don't see rampant deviancy in cultures where everyone walks around naked, but rather that they just get used to it and ignore each other for the most part.

So that said, if I had a kid, I wouldn't let them see sex/nudity, but not so much because I'd think it was harmful. It'd be more for protection against society. If the neighbors found out, or it the kid talked at school, they could be taken away by child services. Nowadays they'll even take your kids away if they hear that you spank them, or more extremely, even if you let them go to school with their hair uncombed, if you happen to live in the wrong area.

This board is about religion, but to what degree is it really just about society?
I have no issue with nudity. I have taken my daughter to art galleries and let her see painting of nudes. She knows where babies come from and she knows that it's not shameful. I do however have an issue with her seeing an adult man & woman fully naked in a sexual context or two adults on TV pretending to "get it on." There are certain things that a child should not be exposed to IMO.

[Viole]

I'm pretty sure I saw porn as early as six years. My parents just told me I wouldn't like it very much, and I watched for a few minutes before leaving. Forgot about it until I was twelve. No harm done at all, unless you want to claim it made me a lesbian. I doubt that.

It makes me laugh, though, when you've got these people complaining about, "What would I tell my child if he saw Janet Jackson's breast on live TV?" Try, 'That's what a woman's breast looks like.' Scarred for life!

American obscenity laws are obscene. I'll tell you though, Amazonis, they're the only reason I can stand reality TV! I sure get a laugh hearing them talk; "You *beeep* *beep*hole! I'm gonna *beep* your *beeep* *beep*." Or, for even more amusement, casual conversation; "Did you see that *beep* show? John is *beep* hot! Hey, where's my *beep* lunch! You stupid *beep*!"

[Tenspace]

I seem to remember plenty of chocolate breasts from my youth, courtesy of National Geographic. ;)

Paranoid, misguided humans have been raising paranoid, misguided youth courtesy of Jesus for at least three generations now.

If you think that a five-second titty-flash is reason to start a fucking campaign against the evils of nudity, you seriously need to get laid.

Tenspace

[Jennifer]

I have no issue with nudity. I have taken my daughter to art galleries and let her see painting of nudes. She knows where babies come from and she knows that it's not shameful. I do however have an issue with her seeing an adult man & woman fully naked in a sexual context or two adults on TV pretending to "get it on." There are certain things that a child should not be exposed to IMO.
MrsMoe - I'm completely with you on this. Its not the nudity - it's the context...and its not that you don't think they will ever know, its that they aren't ready for it - or the way its presented is demeaning or one sided.

[Striver]

There are certain things that a child should not be exposed to IMO.
So, now that we know your position, what will happen? What is the WHY behind it?

[MrsMoe]

There are certain things that a child should not be exposed to IMO.
So, now that we know your position, what will happen? What is the WHY behind it?
Now sure I follow you... or your "why" question...

Let's just say- little kids act out what they see, and saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. If my daughter sees a music video, she dances that way. If she sees a model/runway show, she struts like a model. Kids repeat things, it is part of the learning process. Well, I dont twant her repeating things she may see on TV that would be overtly sexual, such as grinding on a member of the opposite sex while bot haprties are naked. Hence having sexual programming after a certain hour. It is a safeguard for children.

My true question here is, those who against TV nudity being banned during daytime or early evening hours, do YOU have kids? I am willing to bet no, you DON'T have children. While I have zero issue with TV nudity, let's keep it after Johnny and Suzie's bedtime. Little eyes shouldn't be exposed to certain things and in all honestly, you can wait a few hours for your smut, it's not going to kill you. :D

[ocmpoma]

I have kids, and I don't mind if they see nudity, or even some (admittedly mild) sexual situations. It does depend on the situation, though - there is a difference between what I think of as pornographic scenes and what I think of as sex scenes, a large part of which is what is depicted and the context.

[MrsMoe]

I have kids, and I don't mind if they see nudity, or even some (admittedly mild) sexual situations. It does depend on the situation, though - there is a difference between what I think of as pornographic scenes and what I think of as sex scenes, a large part of which is what is depicted and the context.
The initial post in this thread spoke about full nudity, dry humping, and reinacting sex. While I have zero issue with this on television, I do have issue with this subject matter being on before an adult hour - such as 10pm.

[ocmpoma]

I pretty much agree with you, MrsMoe - I do try to keep my kids away from explicit sexual activity, but see no reason why it shouldn't be on TV, especially later in the day.

[MrsMoe]

I pretty much agree with you, MrsMoe - I do try to keep my kids away from explicit sexual activity, but see no reason why it shouldn't be on TV, especially later in the day.
I agree. I just wouldn't want to see it on prior to 10pm.

[Striver]

Let's just say- little kids act out what they see, and saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. If my daughter sees a music video, she dances that way. If she sees a model/runway show, she struts like a model. Kids repeat things, it is part of the learning process. Well, I dont twant her repeating things she may see on TV that would be overtly sexual, such as grinding on a member of the opposite sex while bot haprties are naked. Hence having sexual programming after a certain hour. It is a safeguard for children.

My true question here is...
Actually, I just wanted to see if you had a reason behind what you were saying or if you were coming at it from a wholly dogmatic perspective. Ask your average Christian the same question you get some stammering and essentially an iteration of the concept that sex is intrinsically bad.

[MrsMoe]

Let's just say- little kids act out what they see, and saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. If my daughter sees a music video, she dances that way. If she sees a model/runway show, she struts like a model. Kids repeat things, it is part of the learning process. Well, I dont twant her repeating things she may see on TV that would be overtly sexual, such as grinding on a member of the opposite sex while bot haprties are naked. Hence having sexual programming after a certain hour. It is a safeguard for children.

My true question here is...
Actually, I just wanted to see if you had a reason behind what you were saying or if you were coming at it from a wholly dogmatic perspective. Ask your average Christian the same question you get some stammering and essentially an iteration of the concept that sex is intrinsically bad.
Well, they use their kids as an excuse for thier prudish ways. I lvoe a good prono sometimes, in fact I - a married woman and mother - own my very own Prono DVD! *shock* he he he :P

[James]

Well, Christians are repressed people who seek to avoid sex (surely a process, including orgasm, made my God (they tend to ignore their own propaganda at times)), and I wouldn't give a fuck if they don't like sex, but I do when they try to tell others that sex is wrong.

I have sex, and I'm not married, and I'm only 17. Oh no, I'm a sinner.
No, I'm a human. Why can't Christians understand that we don't give a shit what they think about sex. If they object to it so much, then they should stop watching porn, and stop shagging mistresses. They don't have to have sex, they don't have to look at sexual images, so why do they try to stop the normal, red-blooded secular world from enjoying it?

I know why,

They are dick-heads with deformed genitalia, and deformed reason.

[Paradox]

They don't have to have sex, they don't have to look at sexual images, so why do they try to stop the normal, red-blooded secular world from enjoying it?
Because most of them feel obligated to push there beliefs onto others to "save" them. There's no room for tolerance in christianity when everybody else who doesnt share there beliefs and morals is going to burn in hell for eternity if they dont convert.