How Far Is Too Far?
01/28/08 | General, Idiot Mode, The Industry, TV Shows | 5 Comments
(This post is a prime example of why “Rambling” is in my Journal’s title… so be prepared for a little rant!)
I just read this article. It talks about the FCC fining ABC $1.43 MILLION for airing a “woman’s naked backside.” Oh, did I mention that this was from an episode of NYPD Blue… from 2003?
The episode in question depicts “a nude woman [who] is surprised by a young boy as she prepares to shower.”
FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate had this to say about the fine:
“Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly.”
The “indecent” video is below:
(If ABC can get sued for this, I’m guessing you shouldn’t watch it at work… just saying!)
I don’t know about you, but there is nothing sexual in nature about this clip. It’s an embarrassing situation that happens all the time, and they were just using it for comedic effect. Besides, NYPD Blue had been on the air for ten years prior to this episode airing, and the show was known for its racy scenes… scenes that depicted naked people (women AND men) either having sex or in some sort of erotic scenario. This was tame compared to other scenes they’ve aired.
Am I the only one who thinks this is completely ridiculous? What’s with the “save the children” routine? Why do we even care if our kids see a little skin now and again? The kid didn’t walk in on two people having sex (which, I can assure you, happens all the time, too). Go to France and you see naked billboards and soap commercials. It’s not harmful for children to see these things, but the media and ultra-conservative parents make is seem that way.
Has the American culture become overly sexualized?
(I felt like Carrie Bradshaw from Sex and the City as I wrote that line just now.)
How have we somehow become more prudish? I just watched the original 1963 adaptation of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and couldn’t help thinking that the same movie would never be made the same way today. Not only are there scenes depicting the usually angelic creatures that are little boys as pure demons, but they run around naked for half of the movie as well (and you see everything).
(I hope this picture doesn’t offend anyone… I was just posting it to prove a point! Me having to add this disclaimer is sort of a point maker on its own, if you think about it...)
Back then, the boys being naked would have been out of innocence and a need to free themselves in a world where adults couldn’t rule over their existance. The saying “Boys will be boys” didn’t come from nowhere, you know. Today, this would be seen as gay or indecent… but you tell me of a little boy who likes having his clothes on. I know I didn’t when I was younger, and I have seen more little boys pull down their pants in front of a crowd than I can count (and little girls pulling up their skirts, for that matter). It’s what kids do.
The 1963 rating of this movie was:
Now, it wouldn’t get anything less than PG-13, or even R, for extreme violence and nudity. The boys kill animals, they kill two of the boys (one in a way that still gives me shivers as an adult), they chant and dance in a ritualistic fashion (as shown in the first image above), they are volitile, they are dangerous, and they have a taste for blood. What parent would take their child to see such a movie today?
In the first season of the ABC Family hit Kyle XY, Kyle gets an erection at the public swimming pool and doesn’t understand what it is, or how to get rid of it. He later talks to Josh, the younger child in the family (who I’d put at 15-years-old during that season), who explains masturbation to Kyle and even proffers a porno magazine for Kyle to use. Why wasn’t the FCC all over that? Was it because they only talk about sex and didn’t show it, or is it because you never actually saw any skin?
I really don’t know, but I think some people are taking this a little too far. Seeing a couple seconds of a naked woman is not going to scar America’s children for life. They know what nudity is, they have seen people naked before. As long as you’re not exposing them to actual sex, I think they’ll be just fine.
Until next…
Kyle W. Kerr
You can leave a comment using the form located below the comments list, or I now offer registration so you don't have to fill out the comment form every time you visit!
If you're already a registered member, please login below.
(Note: Non-registered members can use the regular comment form at the bottom of the page.)
-
Comment by SparklieSunShine :: Jan 30, 2008
The FCC really annoys me. I don’t think images of sex or the nakedness of the human body should ever be an issue. America is so strange in that aspect. We have a hyper sexualized media and then they try to shove these strange repressed values down our throats.
I would much rather the FCC keep violence to a minimum. It’s strange when young children can see someone blown to pieces on television, but they can’t see a naked butt.
Somehow, I doubt it will change anytime soon.
-
Comment by Dawn :: Jan 30, 2008
Clearly the FCC have never seen Showcase on Friday nights...and in Canada, it airs about 6 p.m. (way before the kids are tucked like angels into bed...)
I’m on side with SparklieSunShine - we see far more blood and guts than naked butts (except on Friday’s Without Borders...). We have become too sensitized.
And Kyle is right - boys (and girls) will be boys.
-
Comment by Nikki :: Feb 2, 2008
I wasn’t exactly offended by the NYPD Blue clip, however I could see people having a problem with it being aired during primetime. It was gratuitious nudity, not sexual mind you but unnecessary nonetheless. The camera didn’t need to pan down to her ass for those few seconds, we would’ve gotten the point without it.
That said, I must agree in general that America is far too much hung up on sex and nudity while toddlers know how to pretend to shoot someone before they can form a sentence.
-
Comment by Megan :: Feb 4, 2008
I wasn’t bothered by her backside, but like Nikki said, there was no point. It was completely to see if it could be done without consequence, not to understand the emotions of the scene.
Also, why is just being courteous to the folks out there who DO have a problem with it, such a bad thing? Why is it that only we liberals have a “right” to anything? Why do we demonize people who want to live as people with values that include not seeing nudity except in their own bedrooms? Why don’t they have the right to watch TV safely? Most of them don’t have Movie channels, so we have great shows like The L Word and The Tudors to satisfy us.
But I digress.
In America, we ARE hung up on sex. For whatever reason, over-repression of the 50’s followed by out and out sexuality of the 60’s without there being a 1000+ year history of “whatever”, it created an obsessive culture. We over do EVERYTHING here.
Including my comment.
Subscribe to the Journal
I always think it’s ridiculous when people go on and on about how seeing nudity is going to ruin their children. Okay, skin is a natural thing, and when parents make nudity and sex a dirty thing, they are doing more harm than good. If kids can’t view those things as a natural part of life, it affects their views as adults in negative ways, and they will surely encounter much worse in life than a naked behind. How about we lighten up a little?