Experimental #12: Call for a sane society.
1) A pair of exposed breasts

2) The colloquial word for faeces

3) A vicious beating or a murder.

In which order would you place the above objects in relation to a child?
That is, which would you least like a child to encounter directly? The answer seems, fairly obviously, to be in reverse order; partial nudity is held to be the least harmless, whereas physical assault is the most dangerous and undesirable. Now consider the same child being exposed to these things on a television screen - the order is almost certainly inverted . It is far more likely (and seems to be considered more acceptable) for a child to vicariously experience violence via the media than for the same child to be exposed to the pernicious image of, er, female nipples. This is, to couch it in the most conservative terms, fucking insane and indicative of a sick, death-obsessed society. I do not want to have to live in a world where this is the case. Perhaps this can be conveniently be blamed on the Church - the all-pervading image of the crucifix providing a precedent for the glorification of violence and death- but whatever the cause, it remains that this is not the way a civilised society behaves. This is not a "think-of-the-children" rant proposing censorship of Tom and Jerry or any of that nonsense, however. I am fundamentally against censorship. I do agree that allowing vulnerable* people to choose whether or not they are exposed to violent or otherwise disturbing imagery is a good idea. However, I do not consider a large amount of what would be considered "sexual imagery" (by which I mean specifically nudity) to be disturbing. Furthermore, the methods employed by the BBFC and their foul spawn seem fundamentally hypocritical. Why is it that (for example) a man's bare chest can be shown, but a woman's can not? The only argument I can think of that isn't inherently sexist is that female chests are secondary sexual characteristics and therefore more "sexually charged" than their XY counterparts. Which is crap, because unless we start worrying about intersex examples on television to the exclusion of all else, it seems to follow that in the majority of cases, any bare chest is either male or female, and therefore, a man's lack of breasts is equally sexually significant as a woman's possession of the aforesaid attributes. For the record, I think both are good. If anyone can come up with a logical argument for the censorship of nudity (especially over and above violence) in the media, then I'd like to see it, please. Now.
Otherwise, I call for a sane and non-death-exalting way of structuring and advising about content, in order that future generations aren't quite so fucked in the head.

*This is not necessarily dictated by age, and could indeed be a matter of personal preference.
(Withiel assumes the position!, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:13, archived)

I agree wholeheartedly

( so long and thanks for all the fish, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:16, archived)

that's a lot of words and i read them all
although very quickly.

i have nothing to add because i cannay be arsed to read it again.
( asparagus time Is in Brazil., Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:19, archived)

this
but you forgot to mention that the primary function of breasts is maternal and one of nurturing children. many children have had glimpses of my naked breasts in public - as I feed my babies. I don't have any problem with my kids seeing the natural human body (though obviously only in a "safe" context).

'ning folks
( Jadeviper was still alive on, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:20, archived)

Now this is a post I can get in to.

( Shoosh up your lips Not state-funded, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:22, archived)

'ning
I'm just back from the pub (I left early, I'm such a lightweight) where I was showing off my new bra to Dekazer and we (Dekazer, Mighty Badger, Teviot Moose, Dekazer's flatmate) had a long conversation about nipple clamps
( Jadeviper was still alive on, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:24, archived)

Nipple clamps, or
jump leads?
( Shoosh up your lips Not state-funded, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:34, archived)

nipple clamps
and crocodile clips
( Jadeviper was still alive on, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:35, archived)

The primary function of mammary glands is
indeed maternal, but their presentation as large globes is a sexual display, according to Desmond Morris. And I agree with your second point entirely, but would like to add that it seems to me that television or film counts as a pretty safe context, as characters can not yet leap out of the screen and grab infants from their seats. However, I'm interested in your use of the word "natural" - would you intentionally "protect" your children from the sight of someone with piercings, for example?]#

And also, 'ning to you too.
(Withiel assumes the position!, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:24, archived)

by natural
I mean "naked in a non-sexual sense" - I don't think it's appropriate to expose my kids to sexual nudity at their ages, nor for another ten years at least. I don't have a problem with piercings and the like
( Jadeviper was still alive on, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:26, archived)

Ah
That makes a lot more sense.
(Withiel assumes the position!, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:28, archived)

for example
we walk around the house naked, the kids often share baths/showers with us. the exception is Mr V covers up first thing in the morning.
( Jadeviper was still alive on, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:30, archived)

arf!
morning glory?
( asparagus time Is in Brazil., Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:31, archived)

indeed
and not appropriate for inquisitive soon-to-be-three year olds
( Jadeviper was still alive on, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:34, archived)

I feel
that a saner society is perhaps on its way.
/is gratified in a non-pervert way.
(Withiel assumes the position!, Tue 12 Jul 2005, 0:32, archived)