The MAN holding your kids DOWN is actually doing a big favor

[TheArsenal]

Something that bugs me is that allot of people get REAL upset when the subject is censoring nudity in children's cartoons. The usual quot is "Oh sure VIOLENCE, is OK but NUDITY is evil!'

The thing is, for one: Decent action in children cartoons is a recent invention. Remember the stupid, no Guns rule? Remember Criminals with ROCKET LAUNCHERS? Sure it still exists today but on a lesser scale.
Here is a response: "OK sure. No More violence. AT ALL."

But the question is: Do you actual WANT to see nudity in children cartoons?
"Daddy, whats THAT? Ooh and what are they doing?"

Look I Do want MORE violence in children cartoons these days. They SHOULD be allowed to say: Kill, Die etc. And they should be allowed to show wounds, and death, to allow effective storytelling but violence CAN scare kids.

I experienced this firsthand when at the age of 7 I saw Zim rip out Keefs eyes. As a kid my mind started INVENTING the details. In my mind I saw, not a shadow but the whole gory deal. Its not until recently that I re watched the show and saw a much less gruesome version.


I do believe that Children cartoons need more effort but, I feel like the Nudity censor hate is just pointless.

[Eldan]

Why exactly? My parents explained what sex was to me when I was in Kindergarten (pretty vague on teh actual details, and with some euphemisms, but still), and I've never had any problems.

[Comet]

From what I've seen, the fuss is not so much about the man trying to take away penises from kids' cartoons, but from the watchdogs going berserk whenever there is a sex scene in any work of fiction (video games come to mind, as a recent example), because there's always a chance that a kid will see that scene. Even though they shouldn't be able to, legally, with restrictions and all.

As for kids' cartoons, I do agree, to an extent. There's no particular reason to have graphic sex in there, but I don't see the harm in nudity. It's just a human body.

[Kris Strife]

Its less wanting to let them watch the stuff, and more about the double standard.

[Serpentine]

But the question is: Do you actual WANT to see nudity in children cartoons?
"Daddy, whats THAT? Ooh and what are they doing?"First of all, nudity != sex. Secondly, if it were as cartoony as the violence, I wouldn't mind a kid seeing some nipples or whatever. It would seem pretty odd, but only because it's always been so very condemned. And imagine the potential for testicles in Loony Tunes...

[Kuma Kode]

Add in homosexual sex, and it just goes insane. I forget where the poll was (a gaming-related website, or maybe cracked, I'll see if I can track it down) where users voted on what was most offensive in video games. It was unofficial and far from a peer-reviewed study, sure, but the fact that "two men kissing" ranked above "a graphically severed human head" tells a lot about the culture surrounding media.

[Katana_Geldar]

Has anyone seen the anime little mermaid? We always used to shout "boobies" when Marina's godiva hair slipped.

[TheArsenal]

From what I've seen, the fuss is not so much about the man trying to take away penises from kids' cartoons, but from the watchdogs going berserk whenever there is a sex scene in any work of fiction (video games come to mind, as a recent example), because there's always a chance that a kid will see that scene. Even though they shouldn't be able to, legally, with restrictions and all.

As for kids' cartoons, I do agree, to an extent. There's no particular reason to have graphic sex in there, but I don't see the harm in nudity. It's just a human body.

Eh well, maybe i can agree on that. I guess it just feels weird.

[Xefas]

But the question is: Do you actual WANT to see nudity in children cartoons?
"Daddy, whats THAT? Ooh and what are they doing?"

Why is this a problem? "Son. That's a penis. That's a vagina. Everyone has one or the other. They're a fundamental part of our existence. {Scrubbed}

At least I can hope that's what I'll talk to my kids about.

[Eldan]

Nuclear? Cars? What century are you from?

In my singularity, we are energy beings living on the astranet. :smalltongue:

As for the first part, that was about how my father explained it to me.

[Kris Strife]

Nuclear? Cars? What century are you from?

In my singularity, we are energy beings living on the astranet. :smalltongue:

As for the first part, that was about how my father explained it to me.

If the Astranet is anything like the Internet, that sounds horrible.

[Eldan]

Ah, but remember: the singularity killed all stupid and irrational people :smalltongue:

[Xefas]

In my singularity, we are energy beings living on the astranet.

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad91/bluejanus/brofist.png


As for the first part, that was about how my father explained it to me.

Me too. My mother didn't mince any words teaching me about these basic principles of life, and I think I'm a better person for it.

[Avilan the Grey]

First of all, nudity != sex.

Amen to that. It drives me nuts every time somebody thinks they must be related.

[Yora]

Here in Germany, and I think most of Europe, people are a lot more chilled about all that.
People go crazy over violence, but I think that's at least partially justified.
But you can get away with a lot of nudity.

[Serpentine]

Me too. My mother didn't mince any words teaching me about these basic principles of life, and I think I'm a better person for it.I don't remember anyone ever actually explaining it to me, but nor do I remember ever not knowing how it worked. But then, the picture book Where Did I Come From? was probably one of the first books I ever read.

[akma]

Why would you want to put nudity in chlidren shows in the first place? I don`t even want to see nudity in works made for adults. In what context will nudity fit into a children show?
And I think it`s realy stupid that characters in children shows don`t bleed becuse that`s appearently vulgar, but you can show them having their teeth broken (seriously, how a bit of blood is worse then teeth breaking?).

[druid91]

Im less concerned with it being vulgar.. and more wondering what seeing someone naked adds?

There are two things I can think of. One is the comedy bit where the guy walks in on the girl and she hits him.

and two is fanservice... which annoys me.

[Eldan]

Why would you want to put nudity in children shows in the first place? I don`t even want to see nudity in works made for adults. In what context will nudity fit into a children show?
And I think it`s really stupid that characters in children shows don`t bleed because that`s apparently vulgar, but you can show them having their teeth broken (seriously, how a bit of blood is worse then teeth breaking?).

Children run around naked from time to time. It just happens. Why not in shows?

[Winterwind]

Here in Germany, and I think most of Europe, people are a lot more chilled about all that.
People go crazy over violence, but I think that's at least partially justified.
But you can get away with a lot of nudity.To put it mildly. During the summer, when making the weather report, they sometimes show pictures of people sunbathing in the parks or on beaches, and they have no problem at all showing topless women uncensored and full front. Right during the day, on main public channels.

I like it better that way. :smalltongue: :smallcool:

[Eldan]

Well, that's you Germans. :smalltongue:

Actually, about half a year ago, there was a controversy (mainly in the newspapers) about naked hikers up in the mountains. People who apparently but on nothing but boots and a backpack while going waking. A lot of people were offended, then it was declared illegal.

Turned out most of them were Germans because it wasn't technically illegal here.

[Lord Raziere]

Why is this a problem? "Son. That's a penis. That's a vagina. Everyone has one or the other. They're a fundamental part of our existence. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

At least I can hope that's what I'll talk to my kids about.

.......This post is win. I rarely say that sir. Have a Truth-Reinforced Cake.

[Frozen_Feet]

Amen to that. It drives me nuts every time somebody thinks they must be related.

Indeed. In fact, I think the connection is part of the reason why nudity is so heavily frowned up. I feel people these days are quick to jump to worst possible conclusion when seeing bare skin, especially in the case of kids.

But on the topic of children's entertainment... yeah, there isn't much reason to increase portrayals of either nudity or sex. There's rarely need for the former, and the latter would just go over the heads of the audience anyway. The argument that child entertainment should have less violence is wholly separate matter.

But it isn't really child entertainment that suffers the worst from nudity and sex taboos - it's adult and teenage entertainment. Video games, for example, can get away with downright horrific portrayals of violence and inhuman monstroties, but passionate romance is no-no.

Which is just stupid. Alien monstroties and showers of gore are more likely to traumatize a child seeing them at random than a pair of boobs.

I'd argue it's not the early end of entertainment that is too skewed towards violence and neurotic about nudity - it's the late end.

[Avilan the Grey]

Why would you want to put nudity in chlidren shows in the first place? I don`t even want to see nudity in works made for adults. In what context will nudity fit into a children show?

Not counting obviously educational material of the type "Where do I come from" or "How the body works" etc etc...

One example is classical Astrid Lindgren stuff (me being Swedish and all). Most of her books (and therefore the TV series and movies) are set somewhere between the turn of the last century and 1965, depending on series. In both the Emil series (set somewhere around the time she herself grew up) and the Bullerby series (set about 10-20 years later) takes place at a time where kids skinny-dipped, period. Bathing suits was something invented by city folk.
Any time a person goes for a swim, he or she does it naked.

[Frozen_Feet]

^ Swimming and all sorts of bathing (Sauna, sun, hotsprings) are things that are commonly done naked in many countries.

Is there any reason to portray people swimming naked in countries where it's not common? Maybe not. But it's good to remember that it's a self-reinforcing thing - people find swimming without suits odd because they don't usually swim without suits.

[TheArsenal]

Huh. I guess I was raised differently than all of you. Well anyway, sorry for my post.

[Dr.Epic]

I experienced this firsthand when at the age of 7 I saw Zim rip out Keefs eyes. As a kid my mind started INVENTING the details. In my mind I saw, not a shadow but the whole gory deal. Its not until recently that I re watched the show and saw a much less gruesome version.

Dude, I so remember that episode and seeing it the first and thinking Invader Zim will never be the same to me. Yet for some reason I still watched it and still like it.

[TheArsenal]

Dude, I so remember that episode and seeing it the first and thinking Invader Zim will never be the same to me. Yet for some reason I still watched it and still like it.

Agree. And HOPEFULLY NEW EPISODES WILL COME OUT!

But most likely Nick is too busy with iAmanincrediblybadshow and SpongebobWhywontyoudie,iusedtoloveyoubutnowiwantyo utodie pants and just lied to the Facebook group to raise sales. Sigh.

[Eldan]

Huh. I guess I was raised differently than all of you. Well anyway, sorry for my post.

Note how many of the people posting here are Europeans.

[Dr.Epic]

Agree. And HOPEFULLY NEW EPISODES WILL COME OUT!

But most likely Nick is too busy with iAmanincrediblybadshow and SpongebobWhywontyoudie,iusedtoloveyoubutnowiwantyo utodie pants and just lied to the Facebook group to raise sales. Sigh.

Dude, that show's not coming back. It's been years since it's cancellation. Most people have just moved on. Not to mention for a kid's show it's very graphic. Nick sure isn't bringing it back, maybe some other network, but I really doubt it.

[Frozen_Feet]

To provide contrast and maybe answer the question of "in what context would nudity fit a children's show?" :

Here in Finland, it's usual to be naked in showers and sauna of public swimming halls; using swimming suits in saunas is often downright banned. While there are separate showers and saunas for men and women, kids who are too young to go alone go with whichever parent is available. As such, it's hardly rare to see a small girl running about in a roomfull of grown naked men, and vice versa.

So, a realistic portrayal of a four-year-old's first trip to a swimming hall contains a whole lot of naked bodies of one sex or another. I could see an educational cartoon obscuring some bits with clouds of steam or something, though.

Actually, I think I've seen a cartoon like that...

[Worlok]

I never quite got what's the big deal with nudity, actually. Even as a very small child, I always thought about it like this: So that guy is naked. Awesome. Annoying, sure, but that may just be me. Stupid, because now his pinky's hung out in the open, anyone could just waltz by and kick it. Unnecessary, most of the time, but hey, some people like it, so why not? Ridiculous, sure, I mean, look at that guy, all naked on television, what would his buddies say? Perhaps, just perhaps a bit disgusting, but eh, see this? This right here? It's called a remote, I'm a-switching the channel 'til Captain Skinny-Dip there gets his act together.

However, there was a line I'd draw and hold: I subscribe to the notion of "Why put realistic nudity in children's television?". Personally, I remember little me wanting to see Zim or Goku or Wile E. Coyote or, I don't know, Pippi Langstrumpf kick some ass. I did by no means want to see their ass. Sure, occasionally someone would strip down for a swim or some stupidity with a fire hydrant, but hey, that's just how they roll, cool with me, being naked in a lake is something normal. I didn't care much for the facts and truths of life back then. Particularly because one of my favorite shows was DuckTales. See, Uncle Scrooge is naked from the stomach down. But that's okay, he's a duck. I could totally ignore that while he was searching for treasure and settling beefs with evil wizards and whatnot. I didn't need to see animated, octogenarian mallard dong. Noone in their right mind would conceivably have a reason to want to see animated, octogenarian mallard dong, I'd think, and those who did want were those weird men the police would rough up 'hind the school gym every now and then. What I believe I'm trying to say is: Children's television has a load of nakedness already, but it's tame nudity. And children understand that. You want to have your screen buddies - and characters in children's television obviously are just that, someone to spend time with and get some interesting stories from - be no closer than buddy-dom. Having to give your kids the talk because they saw a schlong on Sesame Street would just be awkward, I imagine.

Of course, opinions differ, and normalcy is something entirely subjective, so different people apply different measures to the whole affair. But still, remembering my childhood and its television, I just can't wrap my head around why it's that big a deal at all. Some children are used to their folks all naking it up, some aren't, children tend to know and to defend their comfort zone. As long as children's television is something that same children are alright with, why bother about what you are alright with? If you can't get them to at least think about your point of view against the one on television, you're quite probably doing it wrong anyway.

And yes, education needs to be provided. But children's television is just entertainment, children perceive and understand it as entertainment, it's their fun time on a boring afternoon. Sure, they have lessons on the power of friendship or the virtue that is honesty or other esoteric stuff like that, but those are things that come as a package deal with the awesome and that's cool. For the cold, hard facts, there's school, and Sendung mit der Maus or its equivalents (still television aimed at children, but it's science with some fun stuff in the middle, little you gets that, can keep those things apart and is prepared for it), and last but not least, your parent or parents or educator or whomever you get raised by. And it's up to those in that last category to decide when the lil' ones have to / should / need to get the whole disgusting truth - or simply answer any questions that come thataway. They may then use Saunamentaries or "Where did I come from" or similar, but neither is nudity anything you need in children's television, nor is it something you should sound the alarm about. Getting that whole genitalia thing is implemental to that whole growing-up thing, which leads to adulthood, which by its very definition is that thing after your childhood. And that last one's usually short enough anyway.

My 2 cp. Probably nothing new. Probably just me not getting the point, but hey, check the sig on this thing. Still, feels good to have it out there. :smallbiggrin:

[akma]

Children run around naked from time to time. It just happens. Why not in shows?

According to that logic, pee, poo and gruesome bodies of dead animals (YMMV) should also be included. I`m sure I could think of more exemples of things that heppen from time to time that wouldn`t add anything if they would be added to television shows.

[TheSummoner]

Censorship is a complicated issue and there isn't a simple answer...

Before I get too into this, let me just say that if I had to choose one and only one between sex and violence in my media, I would choose violence. Conflict is necessary in any good story. While conflict doesn't always have to be violent, eliminating that as an option kills off countless possibilities for the plot and makes action all but impossible. Sex on the other hand usually seems to be just tacked on in a poorly thought out attempt to appeal to... anyone they can.

Anyways... I thing the biggest problem with censorship (whether it be of violence of anything sexual) is not the fact that creators are limited by censors, but rather that there are far too many creators who use them shamelessly. I think its perfectly possible to write a plot that incorperates sex and/or violence in a meaningful way that works well in the context of the show/movie/etc and seems natural based on the characters involved and the general situation. Its a shame it so rarely happens... Essentially, the lowest common denominator is ruining it for the rest of us.

Now, the OP asked whether I would want to see nudity in children's TV shows. I wouldn't want to see it, but depending on how it was handled, I might not have a problem with it. It's an issue of context, not something that can have a rigid rule applied to it. I'll use OotS as an example since I'd be quite surprised if anyone here wasn't familiar with it... Everyone remember the scene when Elan thought stripping would make him invisible? I really wouldn't have a problem with something like that in a kid's show. In Elan's case it was stupidity that made him think it would work, but a similar situation could easily be caused by a kid's show character's ignorance or misunderstanding.

The same applies to violence... If theres a reason for it other than "because we can and it'll get peoples' attention" then its fine. Baron Badpants wants to take over the world. Baron Badpants sends his minion Commander Crusher to attack the city of Importantforsomeplotbasedreason. What is Ultraguy suppose to do, politely ask Crusher to stop? Sure, he can try it... Nothing wrong with trying diplomacy first, but what happens if it doesn't work? Is Superguy suppose to stand there trying in vain to convince Crusher to stop using pedestrians as ammo for his Crusher Cannon?

If censorship eliminates sex and violence from media, what do we have left? Puzzle games, edutainment and inane stupidity based plotlines. (Actually, that bit about stupidity based plotlines is a pretty accurate description of a good number of kids shows today...)

[Lord Seth]

Agree. And HOPEFULLY NEW EPISODES WILL COME OUT!

But most likely Nick is too busy with iAmanincrediblybadshow and SpongebobWhywontyoudie,iusedtoloveyoubutnowiwantyo utodie pantsYou mean their most popular shows? Yeah, I wonder why they spend so much time on the shows people want to watch!


and just lied to the Facebook group to raise sales. Sigh.Uh, what's this about Facebook and lying?

Also, maybe it's late to ask, but what's with the apparently random capitalization in the first post?

[John Cribati]

animated, octogenarian mallard dong.

This needs to be sigged.

[Fjolnir]

iCarly is written like iPod or any of apple's other interesting junk...

[nyarlathotep]

Well, that's you Germans. :smalltongue:

Actually, about half a year ago, there was a controversy (mainly in the newspapers) about naked hikers up in the mountains. People who apparently but on nothing but boots and a backpack while going waking. A lot of people were offended, then it was declared illegal.

Turned out most of them were Germans because it wasn't technically illegal here.

This is a bit off topic but naked hiking sounds like a terrible idea even if people weren't offended. Tripping would go from embarrassing to very painful, a low hanging branch would become a potential hazard, checking for ticks would take much much longer. I cannot imagine why you would do it other than offending people.

[Themrys]

Why is this a problem? "Son. That's a penis. That's a vagina. Everyone has one or the other. They're a fundamental part of our existence.

I sincerely hope, children will never see a vagina on TV. You only see vaginas in porn. (Okay, maybe if a woman gives birth on TV, but that'
s the only occasion it would be acceptable) The thing you see if a woman just stands around naked...don't know how it is called in English, but it is not a vagina.
I don't agree on your uncritical approach to science either, but that is off-topic.


I don't think it harms children to see naked people. (and it never ever will harm children to see the breasts of a breastfeeding woman. Every normal child has already seen that!)

I don't even think it harms children to see consensual sex of the kind shown in normal movies. (Where you don't really see anything anyway) It shouldn't be in children's TV shows, but it's not that bad if a child happens to see it accidentally in a movie.


Violence...well, I am a big fan of the "Horrible History" Series, and yes, it is a fact children like to see violence. I just think it shouldn't be graphic, and violence shouldn't be glorified as a means to solve all problems.

[Telonius]

Children run around naked from time to time. It just happens. Why not in shows?

This is also a big cultural difference between the US and Europe. "From time to time" has become an extremely rare event here. One of the things that surprised me most when I studied in Germany wasn't the amount of sex in advertisements - I'd been expecting that. It was how often parents permitted their younger kids to run around nude. In a lot of places in the US, something like that would be seen as extremely dangerous - basically inviting a pedophile to kidnap your child.

EDIT:

checking for ticks

Now that I think about it, this is also a big concern in some states, as far as nudity's concerned. Lyme disease is starting to be a very big problem in Virginia, at least. We're not exactly on the level of Australia as far as poisonous stuff goes, but it's still a pretty wild continent compared to Europe.

[Ragitsu]

{Scrubbed}

[Ragitsu]

Something that bugs me is that allot of people get REAL upset when the subject is censoring nudity in children's cartoons. The usual quot is "Oh sure VIOLENCE, is OK but NUDITY is evil!'

History has shown a strong bias towards progress. Try as you might, you can't fight it.

{Scrubbed}

Nudity will eventually be seen as less offensive in the United States, both on a moral and legal level. Call it a feeling. Others? They'll call it the decay of western civilization. Sad day for them.

[Hazzardevil]

This is a bit off topic but naked hiking sounds like a terrible idea even if people weren't offended. Tripping would go from embarrassing to very painful, a low hanging branch would become a potential hazard, checking for ticks would take much much longer. I cannot imagine why you would do it other than offending people.

I don't see the point in showing sex on kids programs. I don't see anything wrong with it but I dislike it simply because it wastes time giving them less wpork to do. Anyway at kids age they probably won't understand what's happeneing and it doesn't add to teh plot.

Talking about censoring, Sometimes they censor a random word like ninja, at one point I think they were goibng to censore every mention of ninja and add something else, something to do with there being issues with ninja's for a while.

Anyway, take out violence and it is difficult to make a program that isn't as torurous as Dora the explorer which doesn't even help you learn Spanish. I started learning it and Dora the explorer doesn't even teach you how to pronounce stuff properly.

Taking out blood, it's just another part of teh body. Anyway, it's just a way of letting kids decide that theses people can survive far too much blood loss.
It's unessecery censoring it and taking out mentions of death is pretty stupid as well. It's like in yu-gi-oh

ENglish script:
Steve: Oh no Jane has been taken to teh shadow realm!


Japenese script:
Steve: Damn, Jane has died, at least we cn still bring her back.

To be honest I think part of the reason for taking out dieing is to stop lots of poeple being brought back from the dead.

[Mystic Muse]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} I fail to see how this is progress, or how you could enforce it. Although, maybe it means something different than what I'm thinking it does.



Nudity will eventually be seen as less offensive in the United States, both on a moral and legal level. Call it a feeling. Others? They'll call it the decay of western civilization. Sad day for them.

I don't see this happening any time soon. Eventually, yes, but not any time soon due to the way certain laws work at the moment.

Also, as I've said before, some people don't like the way the human body works. It doesn't matter how natural it is. Humans going to the restroom is also natural and I don't want to watch that either.

[Eldan]

Now that I think about it, this is also a big concern in some states, as far as nudity's concerned. Lyme disease is starting to be a very big problem in Virginia, at least. We're not exactly on the level of Australia as far as poisonous stuff goes, but it's still a pretty wild continent compared to Europe.

We've got Lyme borreliosis too. Also meningoencephalitis. Not pretty.

[Ragitsu]

I fail to see how this is progress, or how you could enforce it. Although, maybe it means something different than what I'm thinking it does.


{Scrubbed}

And yes, it can be enforced. It takes clear definitions in law making, cross-checking, and vigilance.


I don't see this happening any time soon. Eventually, yes, but not any time soon due to the way certain laws work at the moment.

Also, as I've said before, some people don't like the way the human body works. It doesn't matter how natural it is. Humans going to the restroom is also natural and I don't want to watch that either.

Depends on how explicit you envision a scene showing someone going to the bathroom/restroom is. Are you visualizing a wide angle shot of someone urinating or defecating, or just the hinting of these events?

In any case, if a scene is well written, believably adds color/life, or is integral to a story, it should go in, regardless.

[Worira]

I feel like pointing out that separation of church and state is, by definition, politics/religion.

[Xefas]

I think a lot of folks are missing the point. It's not that we want more nudity in television, or that we think it'll enhance the ability to tell a story or whatever. It's that there's nothing wrong with it and it's being censored. Effort is being put into obscuring something harmless. It's nonsensical, and requires energy to be expended to continue it.



Also, as I've said before, some people don't like the way the human body works. It doesn't matter how natural it is. Humans going to the restroom is also natural and I don't want to watch that either.

Alright. Well, some people don't like the color red. Should we censor anyone from wearing red in public? It offends someone. What if people wearing red infringes on someone's religious beliefs? Shall we campaign for putting censor bars over anything red on television? Maybe we can bleep the word, too.

There's precedent. Nudity is the natural state of mankind. Red is a natural wavelength of light.

[JonestheSpy]

I'm really doubting anyone wants nudity and sex in kids' shows, just pointing out the double standard, as folks have said.

As for violence, the fact is that there's lots of different kinds. There's Road Runner-Coyote cartoon violence, that's so silly no one should take it seriously. There's fantastical type violence that has no relation to what anoyne could actually do, like superheroes flying around shooting energy blasts out of their eyes or throwing cars at each other. There's 'kind of possible but totally out-there' kinds of violence, like martial arts movies. There's more realistic non-lethal fighting, the kind that's easy to imitate. There's swordfighting and all te other kinds of archaic weapons that are actually lethal but far removed from regular modern life. And then there's portrayals of people actually shooting each other with guns. And then the ultra-realistic, gore-celebrating stuff that's so popular in modern video games and other media.

So just saying "violence" really doesn't help much. But I will say that I am quite sure that exposing children to the more realistic types of violence, especially in contexts that glorify it and make it fun do cause a desensitizing to real violence and encourage real-life acts of violence. It's been studied a lot - the U.S. armed forces have done quite a lot of research into the subject, in fact - and it's incontravertible that exposure to violence makes committing violent acts psychologically easier. And simulations can work as well the real thing in this regard - that's one of the reasons the army switched from using round bullseyes to human shapes for target practice, so that it's easier for soldiers to to fire at real humans during battle. Now think of the implications of that in regard to games where you shoot with game guns at realistic people on screen, and receive positive reinforcement when you kill them.

[Ragitsu]

I'm really doubting anyone wants nudity and sex in kids' shows, just pointing out the double standard, as folks have said.

I don't think people WANT violence either. But, if it fits in the kid's show, and the kids can handle it (you'd be surprised what they can), why call it off-limits?


So just saying "violence" really doesn't help much. But I will say that I am quite sure that exposing children to the more realistic types of violence, especially in contexts that glorify it and make it fun do cause a desensitizing to real violence and encourage real-life acts of violence. It's been studied a lot - the U.S. armed forces have done quite a lot of research into the subject, in fact - and it's incontravertible that exposure to violence makes committing violent acts psychologically easier. And simulations can work as well the real thing in this regard - that's one of the reasons the army switched from using round bullseyes to human shapes for target practice, so that it's easier for soldiers to to fire at real humans during battle. Now think of the implications of that in regard to games where you shoot with game guns at realistic people on screen, and receive positive reinforcement when you kill them.

Would you make an equal comparison to sex and nudity, and that it would lower children's inhibitions towards sex and nudity?

Are you saying that media can influence people? That's not really a surprise. It depends a lot on the person in question, and also how they were raised/taught.

[Mystic Muse]

Alright. Well, some people don't like the color red. Should we censor anyone from wearing red in public? It offends someone. What if people wearing red infringes on someone's religious beliefs? Shall we campaign for putting censor bars over anything red on television? Maybe we can bleep the word, too.


Yes, because preventing everybody from ever doing something is exactly the same as preventing nudity on kids shows. /sarcasm

If it adds something to the story, fine but I still won't watch it. If it's going to get the people who produced it and everybody watching it in jail, then no, there's no reason to have it on the air.

[Xefas]

Yes, because preventing everybody from ever doing something is exactly the same as preventing nudity on kids shows.

It makes the exact same amount of sense to explicitly deny the ability to do either, yes. Which is to say: none.

EDIT: Also, I'd prefer less Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) next time.

[rayne_dragon]

Why is this a problem? "Son. That's a penis. That's a vagina. Everyone has one or the other. They're a fundamental part of our existence.

The rest of your post, I agree with, but this part is only generally correct. Not everybody has one or the other. Some people have both, some people have neither (most commonly due to mishap)... which is part of why censoring nudity is such a big deal - the idea that some people don't fit nicely into the either/or model makes some people very uncomfortable.

You express exactly the kind of sentiment I have for this topic, though. Why is this a big deal? I think it would do society a world of good to accept that nudity accepts and stop trying to hide it. People would be a lot less worked up about seeing a penis, vagina, or breasts if they were used to it. I think a lot of people have body issues precisely because of the censoring.

[Xefas]

The rest of your post, I agree with, but this part is only generally correct.

Absolutely. However, I think it's normal to teach from the basics up.

If you're learning how to cook, you don't start with all the uncommon niche stuff about how to properly sculpt your salmon mousseline or how to get your beef wellington perfectly cooked without harming the pastry.

You probably start with "This is how you boil water".

[Mystic Muse]

It makes the exact same amount of sense to explicitly deny the ability to do either, yes. Which is to say: none.

EDIT: Also, I'd prefer less Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) next time.

I wasn't making a straw man, that is exactly what you were saying. Making the color and word red illegal period is not the same thing as not allowing nudity in a children's cartoon.

[druid91]

My point is why should we?

What is the point? Name one reason not to ban it. It offends people and we gain nohing.

[Xefas]

I wasn't making a straw man, that is exactly what you were saying. Making the color and word red illegal period is not the same thing as not allowing nudity in a children's cartoon.

That, however, is not what you said. You said "preventing everybody from ever doing something". That, I believe, does qualify.

You're also completely avoiding my point.

[Mystic Muse]

That, however, is not what you said. You said "preventing everybody from ever doing something". That, I believe, does qualify.

You're also completely avoiding my point.

Meant to put in legally. My mistake.

Okay, so nudity is natural. That doesn't change the fact that the protagonists of most children's programs are under 18, and showing them nude would be illegal in the US

Tell me this, what does nudity add to children's programming? if you want to teach them about stuff like that, fine, but what does just having it in a show do to help anything?

[Xefas]

Okay, so nudity is natural. That doesn't change the fact that the protagonists of most children's programs are under 18, and showing them nude would be illegal in the US

That's kind of what we're talking about here. Nudity shouldn't be censored (i.e. made illegal). I don't think anyone was just talking about the bleeps and censor bars. It's "Censoring" to make it illegal in the first place.


Tell me this, what does nudity add to children's programming? if you want to teach them about stuff like that, fine, but what does just having it in a show do to help anything?


I think a lot of folks are missing the point. It's not that we want more nudity in television, or that we think it'll enhance the ability to tell a story or whatever. It's that there's nothing wrong with it and it's being censored. Effort is being put into obscuring something harmless. It's nonsensical, and requires energy to be expended to continue it.

[Mystic Muse]

If it adds nothing to the story, there's no reason to have it in.

[Frozen_Feet]

History has shown a strong bias towards progress. Try as you might, you can't fight it.


Bah, I say. Attitudes have swayed from one end to another throughout the times and I've yet to see any one direction labeled "better" emerge from it. The things you labeled as "progress" tell more about your own biases than any real historical trends.

[Xefas]

If it adds nothing to the story, there's no reason to have it in.

Definitely Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

[Mauve Shirt]

Because child pornography. I know that nudity doesn't mean sex, and I don't think a boob or genitals shot should make a movie R-rated, but I think broadcasting nude children is not a spectacular idea.

[Mystic Muse]

Definitely Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

I really don't know how else to address your statement. I've brought up about everything else I can but here it is again.

If it adds nothing to the story there's no reason to have it in.
If the characters are under 18 it is illegal here.
There are plenty of other things I could bring up if this board didn't have a "Stay PG" rule that are just as natural as nudity and many people would find just as offensive.
Even if it wasn't illegal, it would still offend plenty of people, and if it offends enough people, you lose viewers, and if you lose too many, your show gets canceled.

What else do you want?

[rayne_dragon]

My point is why should we?

What is the point? Name one reason not to ban it. It offends people and we gain nohing.

Because censorship also offends people.

Plus the censorship of nudity gives children the impression that there is something wrong with the naked body, which can (and does) lead to feeling that their body is wrong and shameful, thus causing them to have poor body image and feeling uncomfortable with nudity which can make it difficult to have healthy intimate relationships later in life.



Absolutely. However, I think it's normal to teach from the basics up.

If you're learning how to cook, you don't start with all the uncommon niche stuff about how to properly sculpt your salmon mousseline or how to get your beef wellington perfectly cooked without harming the pastry.

You probably start with "This is how you boil water".

There is a degree of validity to that, but I think that such knowledge ought to be closer to the basics. More of a "this is salt, this is ketchup, and some people like to put mayo on their fries too" sort of thing. Not everyone gets beyond the basics and starting with a purely binary understanding of gender seems to lead into all kinds of discrimination. It's kind of like telling someone that you can only cook things by either deep frying or microwaving them.

[Gaelbert]

The rest of your post, I agree with, but this part is only generally correct. Not everybody has one or the other. Some people have both, some people have neither (most commonly due to mishap)... which is part of why censoring nudity is such a big deal - the idea that some people don't fit nicely into the either/or model makes some people very uncomfortable.

I can see your point here, but I feel that censoring it altogether just makes every child feel uncomfortable. Maybe it's unique to where I grew up, but most people I knew were almost ashamed of their own bodies at certain stages in their life. Everybody. People would be ashamed of their body, because it's not something they were used to. This can lead to self esteem issues and a whole host of body image problems. Even people who are "normal," for whatever that may mean. So not censoring may make some people uncomfortable and even alienated, but right now we're making everyone uncomfortable and alienated.
For the record, I'm all banning limiting makeup commercials as well. They result in the same sort of problem as this censorship.
Blech, I wish I could be less ambiguous, but I'm still dealing with personal taboos imprinted on me from childhood media (or forum rules, you decide :smallwink:).

[druid91]

Because censorship also offends people.

Plus the censorship of nudity gives children the impression that there is something wrong with the naked body, which can (and does) lead to feeling that their body is wrong and shameful, thus causing them to have poor body image and feeling uncomfortable with nudity which can make it difficult to have healthy intimate relationships later in life.

As to the first... Thats little more than "can't tell me what to do" syndrome.

As to the second. I call shenanigans. It merely means that it's supposed to be private. That they shouldn't show it anyway therefore it will be blocked.

[Sholos]

I sincerely hope, children will never see a vagina on TV. You only see vaginas in porn. (Okay, maybe if a woman gives birth on TV, but that'
s the only occasion it would be acceptable) The thing you see if a woman just stands around naked...don't know how it is called in English, but it is not a vagina.

The word you are looking for is 'vulva', referring to the external female genitalia.

[Xefas]

I really don't know how else to address your statement. I've brought up about everything else I can but here it is again.

That's kind of the point. If one can't refute an argument without resorting to logical fallacies, then it's one's duty to re-examine their position. If you find it indefensible, maybe it's time to get on the market for a new one.

If it adds nothing to the story there's no reason to have it in.
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

If the characters are under 18 it is illegal here.
Yes, this is censorship. This is what we're arguing about.

There are plenty of other things I could bring up if this board didn't have a "Stay PG" rule that are just as natural as nudity and many people would find just as offensive.
It's not about whether or not something is offensive to some people. We shouldn't censor things just because they offend. Some people are offended by smoking. Some people are offended by religion. Heck, a lot of people are offended by censorship. If we got rid of anything that offended someone, there wouldn't be anything.

Even if it wasn't illegal, it would still offend plenty of people, and if it offends enough people, you lose viewers, and if you lose too many, your show gets canceled.
This also has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

What else do you want?
I was kind of hoping that I would motivate you to re-examine your beliefs. I don't necessarily want you to agree with me. What I want, I suppose, is for more people to start critically examining their everyday notions about life, and learn how to logically break them down and think about them rationally.

[rayne_dragon]

As to the first... Thats little more than "can't tell me what to do" syndrome.

As to the second. I call shenanigans. It merely means that it's supposed to be private. That they shouldn't show it anyway therefore it will be blocked.

How is the fact that some people don't like censorship any less valid than the fact that some people don't like nudity?

Also, there's nothing that gives children watching such shows any context of when it is and is not appropriate to be naked, it just gives the impression that being naked is wrong, period.


Because child pornography. I know that nudity doesn't mean sex, and I don't think a boob or genitals shot should make a movie R-rated, but I think broadcasting nude children is not a spectacular idea.

Yeah, the child pornography issue is a thorny one. Even though I'm anti-censoring as far as adult bodies are concerned, I'm iffier on children. It doesn't seem fair to make the problem the children's nudity though, since the issue is more the people who have an inappropriate interest in naked children. At the same time, it makes all the censoring make even less sense to me. Back in sex ed class I can remember the explicit handouts they gave us. Then there are medical books with full colour photographs of naked children. Anyone who really wants to see a naked child of either sex can get their hands on a picture if they're willing to browse a little. Plus the way some of these photos were taken was every bit as abusive and exploitive as actual illegal child porn. These kind of pictures make television and movie censorship seem like a farce to me.

[Frozen_Feet]

Because child pornography. I know that nudity doesn't mean sex, and I don't think a boob or genitals shot should make a movie R-rated, but I think broadcasting nude children is not a spectacular idea.

Nudity =/= pornography. The assumption that nude prebuscents are sexual, or will be viewed as such, is assuming the unhealthiest outlook possible. The disgust is self-created and stems from things external to the work.

Let's put it this way: there are people who have hots for sheep, or dogs. Should we ban pictures of sheep or dogs because someone might drool over them? Why should we limit our expressions of everyday occurrences because of what some tiny minority might think of them?

Who exactly is a non-sexual portrayal of a nude prebuscent harming? To say it's harming the one portrayed is, again, assuming some very unhealthy things about the process. To say it's harming children is... pretty odd, since most children encounter such things outside entertainment without any fuss. That leaves adults, but a normal adult is not going to have unhealthy thoughts about children anyway. Or rather, a normal adult shouldn't have any such thoughts - I'm afraid the nudity taboo is doing more harm than good here, as the idea that prebuscent nudity will be viewed in a wrong way is self-reinforcing.

There was a time when prebuscent nudity was used to signify innocence in children - that is, their nudity marked them as non-sexual objects. I have to wonder when the paranoia towards pedophilia turned this on its head.

[Avilan the Grey]

Because child pornography. I know that nudity doesn't mean sex, and I don't think a boob or genitals shot should make a movie R-rated, but I think broadcasting nude children is not a spectacular idea.

See below.


Definitely Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

Or to put it another way: This argument is another one that infuriates me.


If the characters are under 18 it is illegal here.

The Land Of Awesome is very weird.

[druid91]

How is the fact that some people don't like censorship any less valid than the fact that some people don't like nudity?

Also, there's nothing that gives children watching such shows any context of when it is and is not appropriate to be naked, it just gives the impression that being naked is wrong, period.

Becauseone is "this makes me unomfortable would you please not show it?" and the other is "This is pointless they have to find out sometime. quit being prudish and just show it please." one exists on it's own while the other is parasytical.

So would you agree that it would be best to merely never raise the issue by never having nudity to censor? Seems a lot easier to me.

[Mystic Muse]

That's kind of the point. If one can't refute an argument without resorting to logical fallacies, then it's one's duty to re-examine their position. If you find it indefensible, maybe it's time to get on the market for a new one. How is "There's no reason to have it" a logical fallacy?



This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about why it's not in kids programming. That is a reason not to put it in.


Yes, this is censorship. This is what we're arguing about. It's still a valid reason.



This also has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about why this isn't on children's programming and it's censored. "because it will lose money for the people hosting the program" is a valid response.



I was kind of hoping that I would motivate you to re-examine your beliefs. I don't necessarily want you to agree with me. What I want, I suppose, is for more people to start critically examining their everyday notions about life, and learn how to logically break them down and think about them rationally. This isn't a thing about "I believe that nudity is wrong" it's "If I don't want to watch it because I don't like it, I'm not going to."

I apologize for using a straw man, but I don't think my other argument applies to "Ignoratio Elenchi". I'm not trying to avoid the issue at all, I'm trying to give reasons why it's done. If you don't find those reasons to be good reasons to do so, that's fine, but I don't think I've committed that fallacy here.

[Avilan the Grey]

Becauseone is "this makes me unomfortable would you please not show it?" and the other is "This is pointless they have to find out sometime. quit being prudish and just show it please." one exists on it's own while the other is parasytical.

I feel it's the other way around. It's your personal preference vs society norms.

[Mystic Muse]

The Land Of Awesome is very weird.

No, see, I'm in the United states at the moment. The land of awesome is my own personal plane that I go to when I get bored here.

[Reverent-One]

How is the fact that some people don't like censorship any less valid than the fact that some people don't like nudity?

Also, there's nothing that gives children watching such shows any context of when it is and is not appropriate to be naked, it just gives the impression that being naked is wrong, period.

Why do you think children would even notice media producers having to conform to blanket ban on nudity in children's shows? Kids don't focus on the production process of their favorite shows, they focus on the end result.

[Eldan]

"Just don't show any nudity" doesn't seem to solve the issue here.

Really, I'm of the opinion that for the healthy development of a child, it has to learn about naked bodies, and that they are nothing to be ashamed off. Preferably sooner rather than later. Now, of course you don't have to show naked bodies on every program.

However, I think the entire fuzz people make about sexuality and nudity around children is definitely harmful. If every time a child sees someone naked, twenty moral guardians start shouting bloody murder and the child is sent to a psychologist, it will soon associate nudity and sexuality with the shame and disgust it sees around it.

And that just can't be healthy.

Edit: also, kids are sharper than you think. I'm pretty sure at least some will notice that there's things like nudity in real life which never show up in media.

[Xefas]

Stuff

Okay, well, I think we're arguing about two different things. I'm not really talking about children's programming or children anything.

Just for clarification, I've been arguing about the point "Should nudity be illegal on grounds of morality?". I thought that's what you've been talking about as well. But, from your latest post, I'm getting the impression your point of contention has been "Should there be more nudity in children's programming?".

If that's true, then I think our entire line of argument has been mostly pointless. My response to "Should there be more nudity in children's programming?" is a resounding "Meh." followed by "I guess it's a matter of taste, and I'm entirely apathetic either way."

(Also, if this is true, a lot of the things you said make a lot more sense...)

[Reverent-One]

"Just don't show any nudity" doesn't seem to solve the issue here.

Really, I'm of the opinion that for the healthy development of a child, it has to learn about naked bodies, and that they are nothing to be ashamed off. Preferably sooner rather than later. Now, of course you don't have to show naked bodies on every program.

However, I think the entire fuzz people make about sexuality and nudity around children is definitely harmful. If every time a child sees someone naked, twenty moral guardians start shouting bloody murder and the child is sent to a psychologist, it will soon associate nudity and sexuality with the shame and disgust it sees around it.

And that just can't be healthy.

Edit: also, kids are sharper than you think. I'm pretty sure at least some will notice that there's things like nudity in real life which never show up in media.

You're right that kids need to learn about naked bodies, but they really should be learning about such things from their parents, not the television. Kids who have televisions for parents are going to have bigger problems than showing a little more skin on tv is going to solve.

[rayne_dragon]

Becauseone is "this makes me unomfortable would you please not show it?" and the other is "This is pointless they have to find out sometime. quit being prudish and just show it please." one exists on it's own while the other is parasytical.

So would you agree that it would be best to merely never raise the issue by never having nudity to censor? Seems a lot easier to me.

Neither opinion exists on their own, they are both statements that imply a reaction to an action by someone else.

That would be practical if none of us had highly developed mammary glands and men had the sense to store all their organs inside their body. The thing is, there is nudity, it is on T.V., and there doesn't seem to be anything suggesting that these things are going to change any time soon.

They have those nudity/coarse language/violence warnings on a lot of shows now? Why not just keep those warnings and let viewers (or the parents of children viewers) decide if they want to watch something with violence and/or nudity?

[druid91]

"Just don't show any nudity" doesn't seem to solve the issue here.

Really, I'm of the opinion that for the healthy development of a child, it has to learn about naked bodies, and that they are nothing to be ashamed off. Preferably sooner rather than later. Now, of course you don't have to show naked bodies on every program.

However, I think the entire fuzz people make about sexuality and nudity around children is definitely harmful. If every time a child sees someone naked, twenty moral guardians start shouting bloody murder and the child is sent to a psychologist, it will soon associate nudity and sexuality with the shame and disgust it sees around it.

And that just can't be healthy.

Edit: also, kids are sharper than you think. I'm pretty sure at least some will notice that there's things like nudity in real life which never show up in media.

If they notice nudity in real life. Which I assure you is not gauranteed.

And again it seems to me that the best solution is to keep nudity off air. And let parents handlle this.

Which is usually my attitude towards moral gaurdians. Be quiet and let the parentd handle it.

[Raistlin1040]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090724200457/en.futurama/images/a/a2/225px-Neutral_President.jpg
I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

But seriously, both sides get a little blustery for my tastes. Censorship is bad, and I think anyone who contests that needs to think a little more about why their morals are so much better than anyone else's. Blue Valentine, a film I'm interested in seeing, was originally given an NC-17 rating for a sexual scene, which I thought was stupid. I don't think little kids need to see sex, but I also don't think we need to hold it away as some scary taboo.

That said, I also don't see a reason to put nudity in children's TV. It's a purely theoretical argument in my opinion, because as Kyuubi said, there's little reason for it. If there was a good reason, I wouldn't mind, but I just can't think of a reason why a show marketed to 12 and unders (and therefore probably has protagonists from that age to maybe 15 or so), needs to include any sex. On a theoretical standpoint, I side against censorship. On a practical one, I don't see why the argument needs to exist.

[Frozen_Feet]

If they notice nudity in real life. Which I assure you is not gauranteed.

My brain breaks when I try to concieve how one can life through childhood without seeing single naked body.

[rayne_dragon]

Why do you think children would even notice media producers having to conform to blanket ban on nudity in children's shows? Kids don't focus on the production process of their favorite shows, they focus on the end result.

Because I like to read about sociology and a number of things I've read suggest that while children are primarily concerned with the end result, they're still quite intelligent and good at noticing things. Combine this with my own personal experiences as a child (which I don't think represent "typical" childhood, but still have some relevance) and I think I have some insight into how much a child might notice.

[Mystic Muse]

(Also, if this is true, a lot of the things you said make a lot more sense...)

Yeah, sorry that I was misunderstanding you. On the bright side, this isn't the worst argument I've ever had. That honor goes to my two cousins.:smallsigh:

The difference between them and a brick wall? A brick wall listens to what you're saying.:smallannoyed:

[druid91]

Neither opinion exists on their own, they are both statements that imply a reaction to an action by someone else.

That would be practical if none of us had highly developed mammary glands and men had the sense to store all their organs inside their body. The thing is, there is nudity, it is on T.V., and there doesn't seem to be anything suggesting that these things are going to change any time soon.

They have those nudity/coarse language/violence warnings on a lot of shows now? Why not just keep those warnings and let viewers (or the parents of children viewers) decide if they want to watch something with violence and/or nudity? Yes but one is a polite request that you keep yourself to yourself, the other is saying no.

And what do the various organs involved matter? Just wear clothes dang-it. OR even better develop and wear a fully sealed environmental suit with air purifiers, and various visual enhancement technologies.

Personally I don't get why we have the shows with nudity on them except to appeal to the oversexed idiots of my generation.


My brain breaks when I try to conceive how one can life through childhood without seeing single naked body.

Name one occasion where it was a normal occurrence to see someone other than yourself naked as a child.

[Xefas]

Yeah, sorry that I was misunderstanding you. On the bright side, this isn't the worst argument I've ever had. That honor goes to my two cousins.:smallsigh:

The difference between them and a brick wall? A brick wall listens to what you're saying.:smallannoyed:

I know what you mean. I used to have a roommate whose every argument ended with him putting his hands over his ears and yelling "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" really loud until I left the room.

Literally. That was exactly what would happen. Every time. About anything - like if the milk was expired or not, or if rent was due the next day, or if Megaman could beat a Chaos Space Marine in a baking contest.

But, yeah, so, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding as well.

[Reverent-One]

Because I like to read about sociology and a number of things I've read suggest that while children are primarily concerned with the end result, they're still quite intelligent and good at noticing things. Combine this with my own personal experiences as a child (which I don't think represent "typical" childhood, but still have some relevance) and I think I have some insight into how much a child might notice.

However, if the child has decent parents who teach them that one doesn't get naked and parade around in public in the same way one doesn't just get out a bucket and heed nature's call in public, then if they do notice it, the lack of shown nudity would actually seem normal to them. Additionally, one can have nakedness on a show without actually showing anything explicit. Take the stereotypical bathtub scene of a kid sitting the tub, playing with bathtub toys. The character is obviously "naked", since you don't take a bath with clothes on, yet there's no need to actually show anything that anyone might object to.

[Mystic Muse]

I know what you mean. I used to have a roommate whose every argument ended with him putting his hands over his ears and yelling "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" really loud until I left the room.

Literally. That was exactly what would happen. Every time. About anything - like if the milk was expired or not, or if rent was due the next day, or if Megaman could beat a Chaos Space Marine in a baking contest.

But, yeah, so, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding as well.

It was pretty much like that except it went more like this.

"I believe in this but I don't know it to be true."

"So you don't believe it?"

"no, I believe it, I just don't know that it's true because I can't know that."

"So you don't believe it?"

Internal monologue afterward "I'm never bringing up that subject again, ever, because all it ever does is make me mad"

[Gaelbert]

You're right that kids need to learn about naked bodies, but they really should be learning about such things from their parents, not the television. Kids who have televisions for parents are going to have bigger problems than showing a little more skin on tv is going to solve.

But no matter what television shows, it's going to teach the children something. Be it the morals of a society or socially accepted practices, media in general always transfers something and especially to children. So when nudity is not shown, it's implying to the child that nudity (and in extension parts of the body) are something to be ashamed of.


That said, I also don't see a reason to put nudity in children's TV. It's a purely theoretical argument in my opinion, because as Kyuubi said, there's little reason for it. If there was a good reason, I wouldn't mind, but I just can't think of a reason why a show marketed to 12 and unders (and therefore probably has protagonists from that age to maybe 15 or so), needs to include any sex. On a theoretical standpoint, I side against censorship. On a practical one, I don't see why the argument needs to exist.

I don't think most people are arguing to show sex, just nudity. There's a large difference, and nudity can easily exist without being sexual.

[Reverent-One]

But no matter what television shows, it's going to teach the children something. Be it the morals of a society or socially accepted practices, media in general always transfers something and especially to children. So when nudity is not shown, it's implying to the child that nudity (and in extension parts of the body) are something to be ashamed of.

Or it simply means that nudity is something personal and not for when in public. Again, similar to how we treat going to the bathroom.

[Gaelbert]

Or it simply means that nudity is something personal and not for when in public. Again, similar to how we treat going to the bathroom.

But it's censored in TV shows even when they're in private.

[druid91]

Or it simply means that nudity is something personal and not for when in public. Again, similar to how we treat going to the bathroom.

This. Not showing something does not mean it is wrong. It means that it is private.

I think that trying to force intimacy on everyone, And it's intimate if someone is naked even if no sex is involved, is just as unhealthy if not worse than teaching someone that they should be ashamed of their parts.


But it's censored in TV shows even when they're in private.

And why are the cameras following them in private? Who wants to see the hero bathe? I want to see ben kenobi slice and dice storm-troopers not take a bath.

[Reverent-One]

But it's censored in TV shows even when they're in private.

A) What kids TV shows are you watching that have even censored nudity in them? B) If they're on tv, it's obviously not that private. Notice that I also said it's personal. And to turn it back on you, are you saying that if a kid watches a show that censors peoples' faces, they're going to think their faces are then shameful?

[rayne_dragon]

Yes but one is a polite request that you keep yourself to yourself, the other is saying no.

I'd say one is asking someone who happens to be naked to put on some clothes, while the other is just accepting that the person is naked and not making a big deal about it, since the nudity is already there before the censoring.


And what do the various organs involved matter? Just wear clothes dang-it. OR even better develop and wear a fully sealed environmental suit with air purifiers, and various visual enhancement technologies.


So I need to walk around an opaque bubble just because you don't want to see any of my skin? :smallconfused: How is this a polite request? Having to cover up your body is being forced to take an action, while allowing nudity just gives you the option of not dressing if you don't want to. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.



Personally I don't get why we have the shows with nudity on them except to appeal to the oversexed idiots of my generation.


It was also quite popular with classical art. What should we do about nudes in art? Not let children see them because other cultures aren't as respressed as we are?



Name one occasion where it was a normal occurrence to see someone other than yourself naked as a child.

Changing my younger brother. A mother breastfeeding in public. Skinny dipping up at the cottage. Change rooms. Accidently catching someone coming out of the bathroom early in the morning when they hadn't thought to get dressed yet.


However, if the child has decent parents who teach them that one doesn't get naked and parade around in public in the same way one doesn't just get out a bucket and heed nature's call in public, then if they do notice it, the lack of shown nudity would actually seem normal to them. Additionally, one can have nakedness on a show without actually showing anything explicit. Take the stereotypical bathtub scene of a kid sitting the tub, playing with bathtub toys. The character is obviously "naked", since you don't take a bath with clothes on, yet there's no need to actually show anything that anyone might object to.

If only everyone had decent parents.

That typical scene is well done, and I'm not saying we need to put nudity into the media. But it does happen and when it does, I think it is silly to cover it up. Besides, our cultural taboo for nudity is something that has evolved over hundreads of years and seems to be on the decline - there's nothing to say that this taboo is good for society or that it will remain in place. I don't recall there being as many nude beaches in my youth as there are now.

Also, as a side note: "heeding nature's call" in public has legitimate health concerns associated with it.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The real question in response to questions of the necessity of nudity/sex in any given narrative is how violence is any more necessary to any given narrative. The idea that nudity is just for embarrassment comedy and fan-service is the equivalent to the idea that violence is just for slapstick and action/horror-movie gorn. Either can be used for those functions, but that's hardly the only way they've ever been used, especially in any medium with a reasonable display of verisimilitude; the classic "crying in the shower" sequence would lose a lot of its dramatic effect and become almost comically absurd if the person crying in the shower were a Tobiasesque nevernude, forever in blue jeans, just as a heroic depiction of a gravely-wounded hero rising up despite his horrific injuries would lose its sense of magnitude if he appeared entirely unharmed.

[JonestheSpy]

This conversation seems to be going around in circles, so here's a couple of questions for people to consider to bring this back to the original topic.

Say you have a young child (I actually do, turning 5 soon). Would you rather have that child see a nude scene in a movie (not an explicitly sexual one), or an action scene with people being shot and killed? Which do you think would be more troubling and disturbing to the kid the first time they see such a scene?

Second question, fast forward to around age 11 or so. Would you be more upset if you walked in the room and caught that child looking at porn on the internet, or playing a video game that features very graphic, realistic (or even exaggerated) depictions of violence that the kid has fun perpetrating on the simulated people the game provides? Which do you think might be more damaging to the kids developing psyche over the long term?

Me, I'd prefer option one in each case, no question.

[Ragitsu]

Bah, I say. Attitudes have swayed from one end to another throughout the times and I've yet to see any one direction labeled "better" emerge from it. The things you labeled as "progress" tell more about your own biases than any real historical trends.

Sure, i'm biased.

But at least it's a bias based on things which benefit the whole. You can't go around killing people without repercussions, people vote as a whole on things (not perfect, due to manipulation of the system at higher levels, but it's mostly worked so far), folks can't be bothered about silly things like skin color/accent/gender without getting some kind of deterrent based compensation, and so forth.

The fringe bits of society may sway as the times change, but the fundamentals have pretty much stayed the same, or gotten better. I'm glad about that.

[druid91]

I'd say one is asking someone who happens to be naked to put on some clothes, while the other is just accepting that the person is naked and not making a big deal about it, since the nudity is already there before the censoring.



So I need to walk around an opaque bubble just because you don't want to see any of my skin? :smallconfused: How is this a polite request? Having to cover up your body is being forced to take an action, while allowing nudity just gives you the option of not dressing if you don't want to. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.



It was also quite popular with classical art. What should we do about nudes in art? Not let children see them because other cultures aren't as respressed as we are?



Changing my younger brother. A mother breastfeeding in public. Skinny dipping up at the cottage. Change rooms. Accidently catching someone coming out of the bathroom early in the morning when they hadn't thought to get dressed yet.



If only everyone had decent parents.

That typical scene is well done, and I'm not saying we need to put nudity into the media. But it does happen and when it does, I think it is silly to cover it up. Besides, our cultural taboo for nudity is something that has evolved over hundreds of years and seems to be on the decline - there's nothing to say that this taboo is good for society or that it will remain in place. I don't recall there being as many nude beaches in my youth as there are now.

Also, as a side note: "heeding nature's call" in public has legitimate health concerns associated with it.

But see, I'm suggesting that their not be nudity to begin with. Nothing to censor.

Eh not so much that second part was just me fantasizing about the future. Sorry. But yes wearing clothes is not that hard. They keep you warm and protect you.

Classical art. So we are taking our cues from the ancient savages with nothing else to do but work and have children? What you call repressed I call evolved.

1: Not everyone has siblings, and really your parents should have taken care of that. 2: It's called formula. Or if you insist on being "natural" a pump. 3: what is this change room of which you speak? Is it the large bathroom-like areas with the private stalls in which to change? 4: This is unusual. It isn't that hard to get up and put on clothes.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In response to Jonesthespy, I really don't see a problem with either. However, the social attitude which causes the second option to be less restricted is damaging, in its implication that killing sprees are more morally justified than one removing one's clothes in public. The simulation of either won't really ruin anybody's morals, the way some claim, but the idea that sex is more tainting than violence is incredibly harmful.

[rayne_dragon]

This conversation seems to be going around in circles, so here's a couple of questions for people to consider to bring this back to the original topic.

Say you have a young child (I actually do, turning 5 soon). Would you rather have that child see a nude scene in a movie (not an explicitly sexual one), or an action scene with people being shot and killed? Which do you think would be more troubling and disturbing to the kid the first time they see such a scene?

Second question, fast forward to around age 11 or so. Would you be more upset if you walked in the room and caught that child looking at porn on the internet, or playing a video game that features very graphic, realistic (or even exaggerated) depictions of violence that the kid has fun perpetrating on the simulated people the game provides? Which do you think might be more damaging to the kids developing psyche over the long term?

Me, I'd prefer option one in each case, no question.

For the first question, I'd rather have the child see the nude scene. For the second it depends on the porn and violence in question, but as long as the porn isn't derogitory to anyone then the violence is worse in my opinion. Unfortunately, a lot of porn is sexist (and not just to women), so in all likelyhood the porn would worry me more.

[Mystic Muse]

Say you have a young child (I actually do, turning 5 soon). Would you rather have that child see a nude scene in a movie (not an explicitly sexual one), or an action scene with people being shot and killed? Which do you think would be more troubling and disturbing to the kid the first time they see such a scene? Depends on the amount of Nudity/violence in each.



Second question, fast forward to around age 11 or so. Would you be more upset if you walked in the room and caught that child looking at porn on the internet, or playing a video game that features very graphic, realistic (or even exaggerated) depictions of violence that the kid has fun perpetrating on the simulated people the game provides? Which do you think might be more damaging to the kids developing psyche over the long term? I'd prefer neither. Also, I don't think either would be Necessarily damaging in the long run. It depends on the child and parents in question.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

For the first question, I'd rather have the child see the nude scene. For the second it depends on the porn and violence in question, but as long as the porn isn't derogitory to anyone then the violence is worse in my opinion. Unfortunately, a lot of porn is sexist (and not just to women), so in all likelyhood the porn would worry me more.

What of the generally implicit demonization of the "other" in most violent fiction, though; while Orcs/Aliens/whatever might not actually exists, it essentially teaches that anything unlike oneself is evil.

[druid91]

This conversation seems to be going around in circles, so here's a couple of questions for people to consider to bring this back to the original topic.

Say you have a young child (I actually do, turning 5 soon). Would you rather have that child see a nude scene in a movie (not an explicitly sexual one), or an action scene with people being shot and killed? Which do you think would be more troubling and disturbing to the kid the first time they see such a scene?

Second question, fast forward to around age 11 or so. Would you be more upset if you walked in the room and caught that child looking at porn on the internet, or playing a video game that features very graphic, realistic (or even exaggerated) depictions of violence that the kid has fun perpetrating on the simulated people the game provides? Which do you think might be more damaging to the kids developing psyche over the long term?

Me, I'd prefer option one in each case, no question.

1) Action scene, with people being shot and killed. They would be told, as I was that it wasn't real. Just an action movie. But personally I don't see how either could be all that damaging unless it's prolonged/constant.

2) I would much rather find my kid playing a graphically violent game. The other would mean that they are attracted to the actors/actresses in said video, Considering I would never approve of said actors/actresses. You save yourself for your chosen one, that's it.. that's all.

[rayne_dragon]

But see, I'm suggesting that their not be nudity to begin with. Nothing to censor.

Eh not so much that second part was just me fantasizing about the future. Sorry. But yes wearing clothes is not that hard. They keep you warm and protect you.


The thing is the nudity is already there.

What about in summer when clothes are a pain in the ass because it's too hot? I may not be the kind of person who wants to walk around nude, but there are times when it would be nice to have that option.



Classical art. So we are taking our cues from the ancient savages with nothing else to do but work and have children? What you call repressed I call evolved.


So you don't think we gained anything from "savages"? Like Michelangelo or DaVinci? Is the savage invention of democracy useful to you? How about savage doctors who have taken the oath of that ancient savage Hippocrates? These so-called savages were responsible for the foundation and advancement of science, math, philosophy and art. Some of the people you're calling savages even managed to make robots in a time when you couldn't go to a store and buy a premade kit for one. Your statement is dismissive of nearly every great mind who made it possible to have the "evolved" society we have today.



1: Not everyone has siblings, and really your parents should have taken care of that. 2: It's called formula. Or if you insist on being "natural" a pump. 3: what is this change room of which you speak? Is it the large bathroom-like areas with the private stalls in which to change? 4: This is unusual. It isn't that hard to get up and put on clothes.


You asked me to name a situation in which a child would see nudity. These are all plausible scenarios and happen to people. Dimissing them because you don't think they should happen doesn't mean that they don't. Heck, children apparently have a tendancy to play doctor with each other, or do the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Neither of those have happened to me, but they're regarded (in sociological and psychological) liturature as normal childhood occurances.


What of the generally implicit demonization of the "other" in most violent fiction, though; while Orcs/Aliens/whatever might not actually exists, it essentially teaches that anything unlike oneself is evil.

This is bad too, but I would be more worried about the child getting the idea that they should hate themselves first simply because if they hate theirself it will be even easier to hate something that is "other."

[Worira]

Classical art. So we are taking our cues from the ancient savages with nothing else to do but work and have children? What you call repressed I call evolved.


Little-known fact: Sandro Botticelli invented the pointy stick.

[druid91]

The thing is the nudity is already there.

What about in summer when clothes are a pain in the ass because it's too hot? I may not be the kind of person who wants to walk around nude, but there are times when it would be nice to have that option.



So you don't think we gained anything from "savages"? Like Michelangelo or DaVinci? Is the savage invention of democracy useful to you? How about savage doctors who have taken the oath of that ancient savage Hippocrates? These so-called savages were responsible for the foundation and advancement of science, math, philosophy and art. Some of the people you're calling savages even managed to make robots in a time when you couldn't go to a store and buy a premade kit for one. Your statement is dismissive of nearly every great mind who made it possible to have the "evolved" society we have today.



You asked me to name a situation in which a child would see nudity. These are all plausible scenarios and happen to people. Dimissing them because you don't think they should happen doesn't mean that they don't. Heck, children apparently have a tendancy to play doctor with each other, or do the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Neither of those have happened to me, but they're regarded (in sociological and psychological) liturature as normal childhood occurances.



This is bad too, but I would be more worried about the child getting the idea that they should hate themselves first simply because if they hate theirself it will be even easier to hate something that is "other."

And this means that it should stay? No.

You are really asking the wrong person, I've never had problems with too warm clothing, and I wear heavy winter coats in the dead of summer if noone stops me.

Yes they contributed, they were better savages, helping us climb out of that pit. They wanted better for us even if they didn't know how. Simply because it was acceptable in their time does not make it good.

No they wouldn't happen if the parents took very easy precautions to prevent them.

That is ridiculous. It is easiest to hate the other if you love yourself, if you can find no fault in yourself than why should they be different?

[Worira]

Annnd... they should have to take precautions to prevent children from seeing their own mother's breast while being fed... why, exactly?

I don't think you really understand what censorship is. Something doesn't have to be a solid black bar or pixelization pattern to be censorship.

[druid91]

Annnd... they should have to take precautions to prevent children from seeing their own mother's breast while being fed... why, exactly?

I don't think you really understand what censorship is. Something doesn't have to be a solid black bar or pixelization pattern to be censorship.

Well if they are actually feeding off said breast they are too young for it to matter anyway. They won't remember it.

[Worira]

Actually, I guess I should have asked why precautions should be taken to prevent people in general from seeing a breastfeeding mother.

[druid91]

Actually, I guess I should have asked why precautions should be taken to prevent people in general from seeing a breastfeeding mother.

Why shouldn't they? Who breast-feeds anyway. Good old new-fangled formula.

[Gaelbert]

This. Not showing something does not mean it is wrong. It means that it is private.

I think that trying to force intimacy on everyone, And it's intimate if someone is naked even if no sex is involved, is just as unhealthy if not worse than teaching someone that they should be ashamed of their parts.

And why are the cameras following them in private? Who wants to see the hero bathe? I want to see ben kenobi slice and dice storm-troopers not take a bath.

1. But when the character is in private, when no one is there, and the character is still prohibited, that implies there is something inherently wrong with being naked. Many children would make the extension, "It's wrong to be naked because there's something wrong with my body."

2. I don't know what definition of intimate you're using, but the most touching moments on film I have every seen have been incredibly intimate, with no nudity or sexual overtones. Intimacy is not a bad thing.

3. I'm not calling for more gratuitous sex or nudity, I'm saying those things should be allowed if it would make sense in the plot. I can't think of a reason such things would make sense in Star Wars or action movies, but dramas? Certainly


A) What kids TV shows are you watching that have even censored nudity in them? B) If they're on tv, it's obviously not that private. Notice that I also said it's personal. And to turn it back on you, are you saying that if a kid watches a show that censors peoples' faces, they're going to think their faces are then shameful?

You're completely missing the point. There aren't any, because the nudity is illegal. So I guess every single kids show I've ever watched has censored nudity because there's no nudity because it's illegal.
That's completely not true. Everything people have ever done in real life has probably been shown on TV at some point or another, things such as using the bathroom, praying, sleeping, the like. That doesn't mean those things are no longer private. I feel like I'm missing your point here.
If every single show on TV censored faces, refused to show them? Of course I would assume there was something wrong with showing your face. Now that may or may not be combated by my experiences with reality, but with nudity children won't have the experiences with reality to the same degree and so won't know what to believe.

JonestheSpy:
1. I wouldn't want my 5 year old in a movie anyways, I wouldn't know what to choose.
2. If we assume media influences behaviour, I would much rather my child be influenced to have sex rather than kill someone. I'm not saying that I believe video games turn people into murderers, but I still much prefer sex over violence anyways.

Edit:

You are really asking the wrong person, I've never had problems with too warm clothing, and I wear heavy winter coats in the dead of summer if noone stops me.

That's lovely for you, but most people can't do that. Stopping somebody from being naked in an excessively hot summer day would be similar to... I don't know, stopping someone from wearing a heavy winter coat in a hot summer day?
You might argue that with nudity there are negative externalities. I don't buy that, but even if there are, the actual stopping of the naked person is comparable to the actual stoppage of a coat person.

[druid91]

Actually, I guess I should have asked why precautions should be taken to prevent people in general from seeing a breastfeeding mother.

Why shouldn't they? Who breast-feeds anyway. Good old new-fangled formula.

[Gaelbert]

Why shouldn't they? Who breast-feeds anyway. Good old new-fangled formula.

I'm not entirely sure you're serious, but this is a good list of reasons why (http://www.healthychildren.org/english/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/pages/Why-Breastfeed.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token).

[druid91]

I'm not entirely sure you're serious, but this is a good list of reasons why (http://www.healthychildren.org/english/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/pages/Why-Breastfeed.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token).

I'm not buying the benefits to the child, if it exists and we know what it is and how to produce it then it would go in the formula. Now the benefits to the mother may or may not be true.

[rayne_dragon]

Annnd... they should have to take precautions to prevent children from seeing their own mother's breast while being fed... why, exactly?

I don't think you really understand what censorship is. Something doesn't have to be a solid black bar or pixelization pattern to be censorship.

Exactly.


And this means that it should stay? No.

You are really asking the wrong person, I've never had problems with too warm clothing, and I wear heavy winter coats in the dead of summer if noone stops me.


And do you like it when people stop you from wearing heavy coats?



Yes they contributed, they were better savages, helping us climb out of that pit. They wanted better for us even if they didn't know how. Simply because it was acceptable in their time does not make it good.


Except it isn't just acceptable in their own time. These works of art are still considered masterpieces today. Who would dare suggest censoring them?

Also: would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with Leonardo DaVinci or me? Or anyone else on this forum for that matter? I'm pretty sure my chances of getting off that island are about 10 times better with DaVinci than someone else. Compared to the great geniuses of history, most of us are still savages. Plus, consider the reverse of your statement: Just because it is how we're doing it now doesn't mean it is better.



No they wouldn't happen if the parents took very easy precautions to prevent them.


Except that:
1) people are lazy and it's easier not to.
2) how does seeing naked people as a child hurt you?
3) there's a lot of things to take 'easy' precautions against and all together the effort required is no longer easy or even feasible.
4) children are naturally curious and the moment they are out of parental supervision who knows what they would get up to. Preventing something like playing doctor would take 24/7 watching.
5) they're children, most of the time they don't even seem to care about if they're naked or not. Some of them will actively try to take off their clothes and run around naked.
6) some parents just won't care.
7) some parents will actively spite any regulations to the contrary because they disagree with it.



That is ridiculous. It is easiest to hate the other if you love yourself, if you can find no fault in yourself than why should they be different?

How can you care about anyone if you don't care for yourself? I don't deny that the idea of being perfect would make it hard to accept others too, but I'm you don't have to think you're perfect to love yourself. In fact, I would say that you can't really love yourself if you think you're perfect (which you are welcome to say is nonsense).

[Gaelbert]

I'm not buying the benefits to the child, if it exists and we know what it is and how to produce it then it would go in the formula. Now the benefits to the mother may or may not be true.

But why go out of your way to try to produce an artificial replacement when the original works perfectly well?

[CorrTerek]

Why is this a problem? "Son. That's a penis. That's a vagina. Everyone has one or the other. They're a fundamental part of our existence. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

At least I can hope that's what I'll talk to my kids about.

...Huh. Good to know you hope that everyone who doesn't conform to what you find logical and rational gets wiped out someday.

Lol, censorship.

[KerfuffleMach2]

And I think it`s realy stupid that characters in children shows don`t bleed becuse that`s appearently vulgar, but you can show them having their teeth broken (seriously, how a bit of blood is worse then teeth breaking?).

The teeth breaking isn't as bad because of how they do it. With glass shattering sound effects, and the victim will often have a dazed look.

I'm all for the violence used in, say, Looney Tunes or Tom and Jerry. That stuff was hilarious.

I really don't see the need to have blood in kids shows. Or nudity. I mean, I'm not gonna throw a fit if it's there, but I don't really see a need for it.

[Mystic Muse]

But why go out of your way to try to produce an artificial replacement when the original works perfectly well?

Especially since even I, who won't watch a movie with nudity in it and can barely stand my (Male) cousins without their shirts on, wouldn't complain about it.

Please don't comment on this. I really can't explain it, it's just the way I am.

[druid91]

Exactly.



And do you like it when people stop you from wearing heavy coats?



Except it isn't just acceptable in their own time. These works of art are still considered masterpieces today. Who would dare suggest censoring them?

Also: would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with Leonardo DaVinci or me? Or anyone else on this forum for that matter? I'm pretty sure my chances of getting off that island are about 10 times better with DaVinci than someone else. Compared to the great geniuses of history, most of us are still savages. Plus, consider the reverse of your statement: Just because it is how we're doing it now doesn't mean it is better.



Except that:
1) people are lazy and it's easier not to.
2) how does seeing naked people as a child hurt you?
3) there's a lot of things to take 'easy' precautions against and all together the effort required is no longer easy or even feasible.
4) children are naturally curious and the moment they are out of parental supervision who knows what they would get up to. Preventing something like playing doctor would take 24/7 watching.
5) they're children, most of the time they don't even seem to care about if they're naked or not. Some of them will actively try to take off their clothes and run around naked.
6) some parents just won't care.
7) some parents will actively spite any regulations to the contrary because they disagree with it.



How can you care about anyone if you don't care for yourself? I don't deny that the idea of being perfect would make it hard to accept others too, but I'm you don't have to think you're perfect to love yourself. In fact, I would say that you can't really love yourself if you think you're perfect (which you are welcome to say is nonsense).

No I don't but I accept it and move on.

I would, If I actually cared about ancient art. Have a rope, noone under the age of [insert arbitrary age limit here].

Actually I'd take you, though if it is anyone from these boards I'd see about taking PaladinBoy.

You can care about others without caring about yourself quite easily. And no you don't have to think you are perfect to love yourself. But if one is perfect they would have no flaws. therefore not loving yourself being a flaw, they would indeed love themself.


But why go out of your way to try to produce an artificial replacement when the original works perfectly well?

Because you can add things to the artificial replacement. try adding extra ingredients to a mothers milk...

[rayne_dragon]

No I don't but I accept it and move on.

Then why can't you do this as far as nudity is concerned?



I would, If I actually cared about ancient art. Have a rope, noone under the age of [insert arbitrary age limit here].


Sorry, that was a silly thing to ask. But the thing is that as a child, I had access to this art (and hopefully still would) and looking at naked people in art (both modern in ancient) is considered cultured. On TV and film, it's something that needs to be strictly regulated.



Actually I'd take you, though if it is anyone from these boards I'd see about taking PaladinBoy.


Despite that we would probably just argue about nudity all day if we managed not to kill each other? :smalltongue:

And that I'd honestly consider walking around naked just to piss you off if I was the kind of person who was comfortable doing so?



You can care about others without caring about yourself quite easily. And no you don't have to think you are perfect to love yourself. But if one is perfect they would have no flaws. therefore not loving yourself being a flaw, they would indeed love themself.


I'm just gonna agree to disagree with you on this, it's rather off topic and likely to just be more about our own individual definitions of love.



Because you can add things to the artificial replacement. try adding extra ingredients to a mothers milk...

This is fairly easy to do. It's why a lot of drugs need to be avoided by nursing mothers.

[Frozen_Feet]

Name one occasion where it was a normal occurrence to see someone other than yourself naked as a child.

I already did: public swimming halls. No-one usually wears swimsuits in the shower, and in saunas they are banned. The first time I went to the local swimming hall, I went to the pool naked too, because who the hell wears clothes in water? They just get wet. My mother had to pcik me up and explain the convention to me, because prior to that I'd always swum naked.

But in the case one example isn't enough, here be others:

Saunabathing with family and friends. Traditionally, you go to sauna naked.

Swimming in a lake with friends. As noted, I learned to swim without a suit. It felt like a natural thing. Even after I learned to use swimsuits, spontaneous skinny-dipping was a perfectly ordinary past time on hot summers.

Visiting my friends. Kids below age of 4 don't always get the idea of clothing. When I was 7 to 9 years old, my best friend's little sisters were running around naked every other time I visited them.

Just being at home. Every family member comes out of the shower naked, always has. No-one has ever been shy or made a fuss of other family members seeing them.



Say you have a young child (I actually do, turning 5 soon). Would you rather have that child see a nude scene in a movie (not an explicitly sexual one), or an action scene with people being shot and killed? Which do you think would be more troubling and disturbing to the kid the first time they see such a scene?

I'd rather have them see a nude body. Nudity taboo and using clothes are learned things! As far as my experiences go, it isn't even guaranteed kids below 5 have grasped those things yet. A child that young does not consider a nude body sexual, or even pay any special heed to it.

Shooting scenes are far more traumatic. Just the sounds guns make are something that are instinctively feared by kids. The child might not yet grasp fully what's happening on the screen, but a hectic, violent scene is much more prone to cause anxiety.

Of course, this is coming from the guy whose father first took him to butcher an elk at the age of four...


Second question, fast forward to around age 11 or so. Would you be more upset if you walked in the room and caught that child looking at porn on the internet, or playing a video game that features very graphic, realistic (or even exaggerated) depictions of violence that the kid has fun perpetrating on the simulated people the game provides? Which do you think might be more damaging to the kids developing psyche over the long term?

I'm non-plussed at both. Note the present tense - I work with kids of this age regularly, and it sometimes drops my jaw to the floor to listen what they speak about.

Anyways, how miffed I'd exactly be would depend on the kind of the porn. Tasteful softcore erotica? Eh, pretty much expected. Typical porn clips? Those are about as interesting and damaging as watching engine parts move, the shine will wear off though it'd better not come a habit. Hardcore S&M, bondage and the kind of mindbreaking H-manga that lurks in the depths of the net? No more computer for a week, dammit! And who forgot to delete the site history?

Generally, outside simple erotic nudeshots porn is a horrible way to learn about sex, and leads to a truckload of stupid misconceptions. Kids don't really have to see anything worse than Playboy until mid-to-late teens.

Now, what comes to violence... you ever listened preteens foam about GTA IV and how cool it is to kill people? They most certainly don't sound well-adjusted when they do that. And I've seen much, much more primitive games scare the **** out kids that age. I'd rather still see them play Super Mario or other highly cartoonish games that something ultra-realistic at that age.

To use myself as an example, by the age of 11, I'd read my home town library's whole adult comic book section. This included furry porn and the like. The only measurable effect that had was that when other boys found the same comics two to three years later, I wondered what all the fuss was about, because I found those comics incredibly boring.

I played Metroid Prime at 14. I've seen dozens of nightmares about it, and it is neither terribly violent or realistic. I played DOOM at seven; I see nightmares about it to this day. Game violence is highly de-sensitizing to itself, so a preteen kid will likely stop being bothered it fairly quickly in the waking world, but games are far more involving than simple porn clips. In my opinion, feelings of horror and tension they evoke leave potentially a much stronger imprints to a child's psyche.

[druid91]

Then why can't you do this as far as nudity is concerned?



Sorry, that was a silly thing to ask. But the thing is that as a child, I had access to this art (and hopefully still would) and looking at naked people in art (both modern in ancient) is considered cultured. On TV and film, it's something that needs to be strictly regulated.



Despite that we would probably just argue about nudity all day if we managed not to kill each other? :smalltongue:

And that I'd honestly consider walking around naked just to piss you off if I was the kind of person who was comfortable doing so?



I'm just gonna agree to disagree with you on this, it's rather off topic and likely to just be more about our own individual definitions of love.



This is fairly easy to do. It's why a lot of drugs need to be avoided by nursing mothers.

Because I am here for the sole purpose of stating my ideas and arguing about them, perhaps learning in the process.

Which simply means these forms of art are more venerated than the others.

I have mastered the art of functioning/ speaking to and otherwise interacting without actually paying attention to the other person. This was out of necessity. As my mom insists on wandering around naked on occasion.
. And I wouldn't kill you, There is very rarely someone who I would truly want to see dead.:smalltongue:

Probably.

Ah but can you get the exact precise measure required? Easily?

[JonestheSpy]

Hmm, somebody seems to be making an effort to dominate the conversation by being provocative to such an extent it looks a wee bit like trolling...

[druid91]

Hmm, somebody seems to be making an effort to dominate the conversation by being provocative to such an extent it looks a wee bit like trolling...

Hmm? Who? I haven't seen anything that looks trollish, and we passed the point where it would explode out of control a while ago.

Now we just have a friendly disagreement.

[rayne_dragon]

Because I am here for the sole purpose of stating my ideas and arguing about them, perhaps learning in the process.

Which simply means these forms of art are more venerated than the others.

I have mastered the art of functioning/ speaking to and otherwise interacting without actually paying attention to the other person. This was out of necessity. As my mom insists on wandering around naked on occasion.
. And I wouldn't kill you, There is very rarely someone who I would truly want to see dead.:smalltongue:

Probably.

Ah but can you get the exact precise measure required? Easily?

Which is a fair enough purpose and one that I find admirable.

It is good to know that there would be no point in trying to torment you, but I have to wonder if you have a mother who inists on wandering around naked (ick) why you disputed my points about times when a child is exposed to nudity.

You also have a point with the precise measure however, for most naturally occuring chemical compounds our bodies have a system for regulating them so a certain lack of percision will be compensated for.


Hmm, somebody seems to be making an effort to dominate the conversation by being provocative to such an extent it looks a wee bit like trolling...

I'm not sure who you're refering to here, but the topic itself looks a wee bit like trolling - it is an issue people can easily get opinionated on and debate for a long time. I do apologize if somehow I have offended, for that is not my intention.

[shadow_archmagi]

I find nudity to be distasteful and in many cases unpleasant.

I also find censorship to be distasteful and in many cases unpleasant.

Obviously, both can be useful and without them, quality of life would decrease.

Too much of either is a bad thing.

The only thing I can clearly say I dislike is page-long essays written with no regard for readability.

[JonestheSpy]

Okay, sorry, just can't help but regard calling Michaelangelo a savage and insisting mothers shouldn't breast feed are more attempts to provoke reaction than engage in honest conversation.

[druid91]

Which is a fair enough purpose and one that I find admirable.

It is good to know that there would be no point in trying to torment you, but I have to wonder if you have a mother who inists on wandering around naked (ick) why you disputed my points about times when a child is exposed to nudity.

You also have a point with the precise measure however, for most naturally occuring chemical compounds our bodies have a system for regulating them so a certain lack of percision will be compensated for.



I'm not sure who you're refering to here, but the topic itself looks a wee bit like trolling - it is an issue people can easily get opinionated on and debate for a long time. I do apologize if somehow I have offended, for that is not my intention.

Because, Even with that, I barely saw anyone naked, I didn't even usually see her.
So take her out of the picture and bam. I would have had a nudity free childhood.


Okay, sorry, just can't help but regard calling Michaelangelo a savage and insisting mothers shouldn't breast feed are more attempts to provoke reaction than engage in honest conversation.

I call everyone a wide variety of horrible names. Meatbags, Savages, weirdo natury lunies... No offense meant. Heck I even insult myself half the time. The only one who is exempt is my girlfriend/ her family. Except her brothers. I try to keep it out of referencing forum-dwellers because of various flaming rules. no matter how non-hostile I am that might get lost in the internet..

And I was fed formula. I believe I turned out alright. And I tend to go for artificial and therefore controllable over natural any day.

Just a personal preference.

[Gaelbert]

Okay, sorry, just can't help but regard calling Michaelangelo a savage and insisting mothers shouldn't breast feed are more attempts to provoke reaction than engage in honest conversation.

He was a savage. Savagely awesome! *high five* :smallcool:

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu:This might be an appropriate time to point out that accusing someone else of trolling is in itself classified as Flaming under the Forum Rules (hint, hint). Suspected violations should be reported, not called out.

Play nice, people.

[golentan]

Nudity is a lot less offensive to me than violence. And there's a simple reason: I can imagine a world in which I never have to view or partake in violence. Furthermore, I can imagine being extremely, extremely happy in that world.

I cannot say the same for nudity. At some point, I will have to take off my clothes. In fact, I would like to do so very much for a wide range of recreational activities. And just for chilling at my own pace, for that matter.

[druid91]

I still hope for a world in which I can leave this rotting cage of meat behind and take on a nice clean metal body.

Nudity? No.

Violence? Hopefully not.

[golentan]

Having had metal bodies, you haven't thought it through.

Though it's nice for the first couple centuries. You know, before the part degradation kicks in on the pieces you can't repair or replace. Only way to swap out is the way you swapped in: Die, and hope that transfer of memory is "good enough." I've always found that aspect less than pleasant. Of course, if you're not up for dying every couple centuries to get a new body, you can always network yourself. Viruses aren't too bad, it's just like developing a mental illness. Only itchier, and more invasive.

Also, being made of metal doesn't make nudity go away. It just changes what you look like when nude.

[druid91]

Nude: an unclothed human figure.

Nudity: the state or fact of being nude.

I don't think I'd count as human anymore.

[warty goblin]

We've got Lyme borreliosis too. Also meningoencephalitis. Not pretty.

We've got Lyme's disease in the deer ticks where I live, my Mother's had it as have several friends, neighbors and one of our dogs. About the only way to make sure you don't have a tick is to strip naked, because they definitely crawl up under clothing. I've pulled quite a number of the little bastards off of my belly and thighs, and I always hike in long pants and some form of shirt. I'd think being naked would make them much easier to find.

Although hiking naked around here would be fairly unpleasant between all the raspberries, gooseberries, prickly ash, wild parsnip, nettles, wood nettles, poison ivy and small arms caliber mosquitoes. Come summer the important question is how much clothing you can wear while not overheating too badly; going naked would be an invitation to losing all your skin.

[Tavar]

I'm not buying the benefits to the child, if it exists and we know what it is and how to produce it then it would go in the formula. Now the benefits to the mother may or may not be true.

It would go into the formula, if we could do it.

But we can't. Just like we can't make silk. Is it possible at some point? Maybe. But not yet. Nevermind that Formula has a host of other problems associated with it. Like, being less healthy for a baby, needing to prepare(which has problems like burns, not properly prepared making the kid sick....).

There's also problems like storage. Breast milk, well, it isn't stored. It's made, and used, or thrown away. Formula has to be stored, transported, sold, stored some more, and then prepared. This mean that you need preservatives, and that anything going into the formula shouldn't break down quickly. Unfortunately, some useful things in breast milk have a very short shelf-life, so you can't(at this point) put them in formula.

Not saying that formula is evil, far from it. It useful to some, necessary to others. But it doesn't give all the benefits of breast milk, yet, and has some significant downsides.

[golentan]

Nude: an unclothed human figure.

Nudity: the state or fact of being nude.

I don't think I'd count as human anymore.

Sure you would. You don't change your nature by getting a facelift. That takes serious reprogramming to the point it's more an overwrite than upgrade.

[Partysan]

I really don't get how these kind of discussions evolve into what they do.

1.) We are saying that nudity is not evil and therefore is not to be forbidden to show. That does not mean we think that there should be a lot of nudity in children's media. We just say if there would be a point at which nudity is fitting then it should be ok to have it there.

I don't think that nudity is harmful to children at all and I know that small children for the most part just don't get sexuality and thus pay no special heed to such things. Sex does not actually have a big place in children's entertainment. Children aren't interested in it and that's probably a good thing.
But while nobody says that we should endorse children's contact with sexual situations (and I am firmly of the opinion that children should not see porn, at least not hardcore, even if there probably wouldn't be a lot of damage if it's a one time thing), sexuality is still not an evil thing. Children should know where people come from and should also know that there's nothing wrong with it. And if the question comes up then why shouldn't they know that the process actually feels nice to adults and that there's nothing wrong with that either?
Point is, children don't make a fuss out of nudity and so shouldn't we. It just sends a false message to them.

And by the way, while I don't get people wandering in the nude, they don't hurt anyone but possibly themselves, so what of it? Land of freedom indeed...

2.) The point we make about nudity wasn't actually aimed at children specifically, the discussions only revolve around that because it seems to be easier to refute. The extreme imbalance between violence and is also very prevalent in teenage and adult media, media aimed at sexual beings who can understand (and enjoy) both nonsexual and sexual nudity.

Just take games like GTA San Andreas or the newer Bioware RPGs. In San Andreas (which is for adults anyway) you can kill every civilian on the street with a chainsaw, but when they found out there was a mod (!) to include consensual (!) sex scenes between adults (in which they didn't even show any naughty parts), MY GOD what an outrage!
In Dragon Age (for adults as well) you can make people explode and their flying body parts infect people with explosionitis too, but when you can have a romance with a party member of your gender (you don't have to and you can have two other members of the different gender as well) then that's extremely bad and evil and unholy and whatofit.
Don't you get what I'm saying? It just doesn't make sense. We're talking situations of violence that aren't short of rape in terms of cruelty (yes, the victims die horribly and thus aren't psychologically harmed for the rest of their lives, but I don't want to discuss that because it's not the point) and still normal consensual sex in the same medium is deemed inappropriate, even if it makes sense in the story and isn't even that explicit. In Germany a game like GTA: SA usually has the same age rating as porn anyway (18+) so there wouldn't be any problem in featuring explicit sex. I'm not saying they should, mind you, but I don't see how it would be a bigger problem. I can't be more evil than dismembering random civilians, can it? In fact, I don't consider it evil at all.

[Lord Seth]

The extreme imbalance between violence and is also very prevalent in teenage and adult media, media aimed at sexual beings who can understand (and enjoy) both nonsexual and sexual nudity.I see this claim a fair amount, but I do have to often wonder exactly how one quantifies it. You can say "you can get away with more violence than you can sex" but again, how is that quantified? What levels of violence match up with what levels of sexual content?


Just take games like GTA San Andreas or the newer Bioware RPGs. In San Andreas (which is for adults anyway) you can kill every civilian on the street with a chainsaw, but when they found out there was a mod (!) to include consensual (!) sex scenes between adults (in which they didn't even show any naughty parts), MY GOD what an outrage!And there was (and remains) outrage at the violence in GTA as well. You seem to act as if the killing and violence and GTA isn't controversial--it is. Maybe the controversy's died down some, but it was and still remains controversial. You also somewhat exaggerate the mod part with the exclamation mark. If it was just a random mod, okay, but this was an activation of what was already in the game, even if it was hidden.

I don't think the issue was just the sexual part of the game, it was the high violence coupled with the sexual part. It was already rated M (Mature) for high violence, and the additional factor pushed it up to AO (Adults Only) until Rockstar released their patch that removed the "hot coffee" portion of the game entirely. This wasn't a case of just some sex, this was a case of sex in addition to the already high violence and swearing.
Don't you get what I'm saying? It just doesn't make sense. We're talking situations of violence that aren't short of rape in terms of cruelty (yes, the victims die horribly and thus aren't psychologically harmed for the rest of their lives, but I don't want to discuss that because it's not the point) and still normal consensual sex in the same medium is deemed inappropriate, even if it makes sense in the story and isn't even that explicit.As I pointed out in regards to Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, if the sexual content was the only problem, I do doubt it would have caused the fervor it did. It caused an uproar because it was in a game that was already controversial and, by your own admission, very violent.

[Partysan]

I see this claim a fair amount, but I do have to often wonder exactly how one quantifies it. You can say "you can get away with more violence than you can sex" but again, how is that quantified? What levels of violence match up with what levels of sexual content?

And there was (and remains) outrage at the violence in GTA as well. You seem to act as if the killing and violence and GTA isn't controversial--it is. Maybe the controversy's died down some, but it was and still remains controversial. You also somewhat exaggerate the mod part with the exclamation mark. If it was just a random mod, okay, but this was an activation of what was already in the game, even if it was hidden.

I don't think the issue was just the sexual part of the game, it was the high violence coupled with the sexual part. It was already rated M (Mature) for high violence, and the additional factor pushed it up to AO (Adults Only) until Rockstar released their patch that removed the "hot coffee" portion of the game entirely. This wasn't a case of just some sex, this was a case of sex in addition to the already high violence and swearing.As I pointed out in regards to Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, if the sexual content was the only problem, I do doubt it would have caused the fervor it did. It caused an uproar because it was in a game that was already controversial and, by your own admission, very violent.

I give you the mod part (well, it was self-censorship by the makers because they predicted the outcry) and you are right in that the violence has been disputed as well. But you ask for the quantification, and that's an excellent point that I have trying to make with exactly these examples.
The "sex" in that game was consensual, between adults and nonexplicit. I fail to see how it measures up. If all the violence in that game couldn't push it to the adult section, why can this little piece do it? I you're standing besides firing artillery you can't hear a silenced pistol shot. In other words, I don't believe that the additon of hot coffee (which is a very very tiny and unimportant part of the game) could actually make that game more deserving of an adult badge than it was before. I found it to be laughably tame and without the news from the US about the moral outcry would probably never have heard of it.
Besides, GTA only served as an example. And speaking of examples, Dragon Age as far as I know was never disputed because of violence, nor was Mass Effect (or was it the second one? I didn't play those myself.) but the relationship issue was there.

[Lord Seth]

The "sex" in that game was consensual, between adults and nonexplicit. I fail to see how it measures up. If all the violence in that game couldn't push it to the adult section, why can this little piece do it?Because it was in addition to the already-existing violence, as I pointed out.

Think of the AO rating as being 100 points. All the violence, language, drug use, and everything else in the game brought it up close to 100, but not all the way. The "hot coffee" part may not have been worth as many points as those other factors, but it was enough to bring it up to 100.


I you're standing besides firing artillery you can't hear a silenced pistol shot. In other words, I don't believe that the additon of hot coffee (which is a very very tiny and unimportant part of the game) could actually make that game more deserving of an adult badge than it was before. I found it to be laughably tame and without the news from the US about the moral outcry would probably never have heard of it.I find the "pistol shot" to be a false analogy. This is more like stacking a lot of stuff on top of each other (violence, drug use, language, etc.) and then something else coming along and being put on it, and it being enough to push it over the edge and make it fall.


Besides, GTA only served as an example. And speaking of examples, Dragon Age as far as I know was never disputed because of violence, nor was Mass Effect (or was it the second one? I didn't play those myself.) but the relationship issue was there.The "relationship issue" also does not seem to relate to the topic, hence my skipping over of it. Furthermore, in Dragon Age it doesn't seem to have actually provoked that large an outcry; or, at any rate, not anything notable enough to appear on its Wikipedia article, unlike Mass Effect and GTA. And speaking of Mass Effect...

Mass Effect did cause some controversy, but that had little to do with the actual sexual content of the game and more to do with the fact that the information being spread about it was blatantly false. Even Jack Thompson complained that the whole thing was ridiculous and was a contrived controversy.

[Partysan]

Because it was in addition to the already-existing violence, as I pointed out.

Think of the AO rating as being 100 points. All the violence, language, drug use, and everything else in the game brought it up close to 100, but not all the way. The "hot coffee" part may not have been worth as many points as those other factors, but it was enough to bring it up to 100.

I find the "pistol shot" to be a false analogy. This is more like stacking a lot of stuff on top of each other (violence, drug use, language, etc.) and then something else coming along and being put on it, and it being enough to push it over the edge and make it fall.

While this might be the reasoning used I don't accept it as actually being a good way of reasoning in that case. The points that hot coffee could have added would be like 5 at most. It would be proof of a very inflexible an poorly thought out measuring system if indeed one so little thing would make such a huge difference.
Other question, if we were so close to the adult category, how much pure violence do you actually need to get there without sex? If GTA had to resort to drugs, swearing and stuff and still needed hot coffee besides the violence, then your could have extremely gruesome games within a teenage category as long as they don't feature sex, drugs and rock'n roll. Games that include sex are pretty much automaticly adult. Still sensing an imbalance there.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

This is bad too, but I would be more worried about the child getting the idea that they should hate themselves first simply because if they hate theirself it will be even easier to hate something that is "other."

I buy into Foucault and Guattari enough to agree with that, fair enough. I might question other aspects, but I can at least agree with that reasoning.


I'm not buying the benefits to the child, if it exists and we know what it is and how to produce it then it would go in the formula. Now the benefits to the mother may or may not be true.

Wait, what? Who says we know what it is and how to produce it 100% of the time? Never-mind the possibility of negative side-effects of the artificial substitute.

For the record, I don't ever believe in censorship or age limits etc. Honestly, this boat is sinking, I just wanna tread water long enough to see the awesome explosion.

[Avilan the Grey]

Name one occasion where it was a normal occurrence to see someone other than yourself naked as a child.

Public saunas, public changing rooms, and if you are not european: the locker room at school... (or are American kids not taught to shower after gym class?)


Classical art. So we are taking our cues from the ancient savages with nothing else to do but work and have children? What you call repressed I call evolved.

1: Not everyone has siblings, and really your parents should have taken care of that. 2: It's called formula. Or if you insist on being "natural" a pump. 3: what is this change room of which you speak? Is it the large bathroom-like areas with the private stalls in which to change? 4: This is unusual. It isn't that hard to get up and put on clothes.

Okay I am sorry but... you are coming off as extremely ignorant.

First of all, your definition of "savages" is one nobody with any knowledge of history (or art) would agree with.

Second: your ill-concieved argument about breast-feeding formula is just not... factual.

Third: Why is it wrong for an older sibling to take care of a younger sibling?

Fourth: Don't tell me you have never been in a normal locker-room?

[nyarlathotep]

While this might be the reasoning used I don't accept it as actually being a good way of reasoning in that case. The points that hot coffee could have added would be like 5 at most. It would be proof of a very inflexible an poorly thought out measuring system if indeed one so little thing would make such a huge difference.
Other question, if we were so close to the adult category, how much pure violence do you actually need to get there without sex? If GTA had to resort to drugs, swearing and stuff and still needed hot coffee besides the violence, then your could have extremely gruesome games within a teenage category as long as they don't feature sex, drugs and rock'n roll. Games that include sex are pretty much automaticly adult. Still sensing an imbalance there.

Here's a problem a hot coffee type mod can be added to literally any game. it is an extra mod that players have to add themselves. It's like saying the Diary of Anne Frank should be banned cause I can scribble penises all over the pages.


Public saunas, public changing rooms, and if you are not european: the locker room at school... (or are American kids not taught to shower after gym class?)

At a nudist colony, changing room for band, they themselves have to be partially naked for physicals, if you happen to have a fat dad whole likes to be naked at home, the list goes on. The simple fact is that there is nothing inherently bad about nakedness, it's just unwise to be naked most places because of the environment or the impression you want to leave on people.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Americans are just terrified of nudity. I remember when I started undergrad at Brown, I was more shocked that people were shocked at Sex Power God than most people were shocked by it.

[Elder Tsofu]

Except it isn't just acceptable in their own time. These works of art are still considered masterpieces today. Who would dare suggest censoring them?

Well, the Vatican have quite a few fig-leaves on their numerous Roman and Greece statues - so at some point they did decide to censor them. (Which could most likely happen again I don't doubt, see discussion about old books using words with new meanings)
---
I don't see a reason to censor nudity, if nudity add something to the story.
The main reason people would think it is odd is because they've grown up with it being odd. I disapprove of quite a lot of things I see on children's programs today and think it would be better if we showed them stuff from the late eighties and early nineties when I was a kid - but I'm confident in my belief that in 10-20 years the kids of today will say the same thing about what the kids of the future watch on tv.

Only by going to the public bathhouses I've seen numerous naked women of all ages - and neither I or them did take any obvious offence as I was just a very young child. Sure some of them might have secretly ogled me, I can't deny that on the same line of thought that its hard to "prove" that there are no unicorns somewhere in the Amazonas, but there will always be odd people out there.
And I can add that I've seen numerous naked young girls in the same situation, but in the mens changing room.
- But I've yet to see an erection on any of the changers, and if I did I would suspect it would go very badly indeed for the individual in question.
Can't really speak for the women though as I'm now to old for entering without causing an slight uproar which would make it hard to do any observations of merit.

[Kuma Kode]

Besides, GTA only served as an example. And speaking of examples, Dragon Age as far as I know was never disputed because of violence, nor was Mass Effect (or was it the second one? I didn't play those myself.) but the relationship issue was there. Dragon Age I never heard much about. Mass Effect I heard repeatedly refered to as a sex-simulator due to the romantic subplots. Bioware (one of the reasons I am somewhat pleased with the company) responded to these allegations with an apology that they could not include a homosexual romantic option due to time constraints. Hackers found male hero/Aidan homosexual dialogue in the games code that remained unfinished, indicating they really did mean for this to be an option. Bioware promised they would make due in Mass Effect 2.

Dead Space 2 had a bunch of problems due to its ludicrously gorey nature, but it managed to use this for its own gain during a Your Mom Will Hate This Game campaign. I saw it at a friend's house, and even I found its gore somewhat excessive. I do, however, understand that the story it meant to tell would be severely crippled without instances of visceral horror, and for the most part they did actually add to and characterize the unthinking, horrific, alien nature of the game's nemesis. Though, if you touch the Shade in the final battle (an instant death), you shoot yourself in the head with a harpoon gun. (look up "Dead Space 2 final battle death" if you really want to see that... :smalleek:) There's even a scene where you must aim a needle to be pierced into your character's eye ("Dead Space 2 eye poke machine" should fullfill your curiosity if you're dead set on seeing it. I didn't link it for a reason. :smalleek:).

Honestly, if I had to choose, I would much rather my child see a passionate love scene, even if it were detailed and graphic, than that. Even if I didn't have to choose, I would rather my child see a Mass Effect sex scene with Liara or whatever than watch the hero of the story (their personal avatar) get his eye gouged out in a needle-machine.

EDIT: Note, I did not intend to imply that a child should be playing either of these games. Gore/Sex aside, a small child (<10) would simply not get much of what they have to offer, character-wise. A child should play something that pushes them, but still something they can relate to and understand. Put Dead Space 2 and Mass Effect on the shelf for when they're more mature. It's not that "children should not see sex/gore," it's that "children would not really understand what this sex/gore means within the context of the story."

More directly on topic, and not relating to the violence/sex subplot of this thread...

It's not that "nudity doesn't belong in children's shows" so much as "nudity and the emotions that accompany it (whether positive or negative, depending on the scene) are typically lost on small children." there are many children, however, who can understand the intricacies of human relationships at surprisingly modest ages. It's a viewership thing more than it is morality.

I don't think that people saying that nudity in children's shows is "okay" are saying that somehow they want more nudity in children's shows. It's more that if for whatever reason, it would help the story or flesh out the characters or illustrate the hero and the princess and their passionate love for each other, it should be allowed.

Likewise, I don't think people who are saying children's shows should not have nudity or sex are saying that nudity and sex are themselves wrong, just that, for the same fact that children will likely not "get" the sex anyway, it really isn't appropriate. If 90% of your audience will not understand or extract any emotional reaction from a scene, the scene is pointless.

[drakir_nosslin]

I'm not buying the benefits to the child, if it exists and we know what it is and how to produce it then it would go in the formula. Now the benefits to the mother may or may not be true.

Statements like this makes me wonder where the world is heading. So, something that has nursed billions of babies through the ages isn't good enough anymore? No matter if the human body was designed by some cosmic deity or through evolution we as a race is far from understanding how it works, but still we persist in believing that we already can replace it with technology.
And what about the environment? Your formula has to be manufactured, packaged, shipped etc.
No, it's about time that we started accepting that some things are best left untouched, and move on to better things. Like immortality.
Also, nudity isn't hurting anyone.

[John Cribati]

To use myself as an example, by the age of 11, I'd read my home town library's whole adult comic book section. This included furry porn and the like.


This included furry porn and the like.


furry porn
wat.

Anyway, to throw my hat in the ring, I see nothing inherently wrong with nudity either. Katy Perry got a ton of flack for showing cleavage on Sesame Street. Um... they're breasts. As of a study in 2006, 77% of the target audience was breasts several times a day for the first two or three years of their lives. Kids know what breasts are, guys.

That being said, to comment on something said a while back, I'd prefer to catch my kid with porn than Grand Theft Auto. Mainly because he'd probably find some porn in GTA anyway. Seriously, it's the human body. There is no part of it that is "wrong" to see.

[Kato]

General note...
It's something which always bugged me. Yeah, recently violence in kid's shows was turned down a lot. But not too long ago killing people was rather common for the hero to do. I guess in recent years censoring got worse in both cases but still at least in Germany (and I think US as well) sexual content is restricted for older teens/children than violent content. Well, I guess both things are part of human life (and things I'd a rather keep away from kids until a certain age for sure) but nudity? They see themselves, their parents, possibly their friends naked at regular intervals. When I was in school we were showering together after sports and such. Are you telling me I can see my classmates wangs but not random people ones? (Well, actually I'm not too eager to see them, but don't see the problem) Probably it's more about the other gender but still. What's the worst to happen? I... just don't get it. I mean, I really don't need to have any unnecessary sex (or violence) in any media but I don't see the issue with nudity, at all. It just makes people feel awkward later on in life. Heck, we might be a much more open society if we weren't so stuck up on some things ;)

On a related issue, I'm not completely up to date but is it (still) illegal in US television to show people's behinds? I at least know they use to censor them in all kinds of things, while we germans usually don't have any ssues at all about that. (Well, we show other stuff as well, but with thoe there's at least a certain amount of... well, it's less common)

[Mystic Muse]

No, it's about time that we started accepting that some things are best left untouched, and move on to better things. Like immortality.


Immortality probably wouldn't work. It really sucks to think like this, but people kind of need to die. I don't remember what it was called, but I recall there being a very good cracked article on why almost nobody would be allowed to live forever.

Also, quite a few would argue that immortality is best left untouched as well.

[drakir_nosslin]

Immortality probably wouldn't work. It really sucks to think like this, but people kind of need to die. I don't remember what it was called, but I recall there being a very good cracked article on why almost nobody would be allowed to live forever.

Also, quite a few would argue that immortality is best left untouched as well.

Do you mean this one? (http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death_p2.html)

Because it speaks of an entirely different immortality than the one I was. There are some doctors who believe that it will be possible for all humans to live forever (or at least for a very long time) in the future. We're not there yet, but one day maybe. This won't be a magical kind of immortality, if you don't eat you die, if you get shot you die. You just don't age past 35 or something like that.
The negatives is of course the lack of evolution, or rather, a slow down of evolution. Also, birth control would have to be in effect and we'd have to solve our environmental issues as well, probably by realizing that we don't need that much stuff anyways. Personally I think it'd be worth it.

[Mystic Muse]

Do you mean this one? (http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death_p2.html) No, it was actually only one part of an article. Here http://www.cracked.com/article/192_6-insane-laws-well-need-in-future/



Because it speaks of an entirely different immortality than the one I was. There are some doctors who believe that it will be possible for all humans to live forever (or at least for a very long time) in the future. We're not there yet, but one day maybe. This won't be a magical kind of immortality, if you don't eat you die, if you get shot you die. You just don't age past 35 or something like that.
The negatives is of course the lack of evolution, or rather, a slow down of evolution. Also, birth control would have to be in effect and we'd have to solve our environmental issues as well, probably by realizing that we don't need that much stuff anyways. Personally I think it'd be worth it.

People always say immortality would be awesome, but I fail to see how immortality would be worth it. In addition, I think a lot of people would be opposed to having laws that prevented them from having kids in order for anybody with the required amount of money to live another 300 years.

[drakir_nosslin]

No, it was actually only one part of an article. Here http://www.cracked.com/article/192_6-insane-laws-well-need-in-future/


Ah, thanks



People always say immortality would be awesome, but I fail to see how immortality would be worth it. In addition, I think a lot of people would be opposed to having laws that prevented them from having kids in order for anybody with the required amount of money to live another 300 years.

It wouldn't work like that. You see, in order to keep your body at a (more or less) permanent 35 year old stage you'd have to take some kind of medical treatment every 20 years or so. So if you decide that you don't want to live forever, don't take the treatment. If you want to have kids? Stop taking the treatment. Those who are immortal don't get to have kids. If they get kids anyway? They aren't allowed to get any more treatments.

[Mystic Muse]

It wouldn't work like that. You see, in order to keep your body at a (more or less) permanent 35 year old stage you'd have to take some kind of medical treatment every 20 years or so. So if you decide that you don't want to live forever, don't take the treatment. If you want to have kids? Stop taking the treatment. Those who are immortal don't get to have kids. If they get kids anyway? They aren't allowed to get any more treatments.

Ah okay. I'm not sure how well this would work in practice, but at least we have an idea of what one would have to do.

[drakir_nosslin]

Ah okay. I'm not sure how well this would work in practice, but at least we have an idea of what one would have to do.

Well, as I said, it's far from possible today, but scientists are beginning to see the beginning of it anyway.
For some it wouldn't be worth what you are giving up, while others wouldn't hesitate for a second. It all depends on the person I'd guess.

/Derail :smallsmile:

[Frozen_Feet]

wat.

It's called "Omaha the Cat Dancer" in the case you are interested. :smalltongue: You didn't think such things only exist in the net, did you?

[druid91]

So why can't immortals have children?

[Tavar]

Overpopulation. If an immortal has kids, they're adding to the overall population. Currently, this isn't a problem, because people die, but that isn't true anymore.

[warty goblin]

Overpopulation. If an immortal has kids, they're adding to the overall population. Currently, this isn't a problem, because people die, but that isn't true anymore.

Currently there probably already are more people than the planet can healthily maintain. If people stopped dying of illness and physical failure entirely, it would get much, much worse.

Regardless, immortality seems like an extremely bad idea. For one thing it is almost certain to be extremely expensive, which of course means that only the rich can afford it. I don't think it's hard to see why someone might object to the wealthy living forever - and amassing wealth forever - while everybody else just keeps on dying. Seems to me like that would set the stage for some serious political upheaval and violence, something that the world really does not need more of so the privileged can continue to be privileged.

Besides which, dying is pretty integral to what it is to be human; I can only exist because the generations before me died. It seems the crowning pinnacle of selfishness to say that my continued existence is worth more than the total of all the people who could come after me.

[golentan]

Depends on the type of immortality. If we basically say "sorry, but when you're dead you're dead" it's just an increased lifespan to an average of a few hundred years, and you just need to drop birth rates through the floor rather than remove them all together. If you're going the full "and you or a version of you will live till the sun explodes" route then yeah. Though that requires body swapping and while you're at it it's easy to make em tiny and less resource/space intensive. Which at least puts the problem off.

[Foeofthelance]

Note how many of the people posting here are Europeans.

Eh, I'm an American and I agree with them. Personally, I just don't see why its a concern. I mean, you're pretty much guaranteed to see one or the other every day of your life, and you're pretty much bound to see the way the other half functions short of dropping out of society and living the life of a cavebound hermit. People end up naked all the time, including the people we're trying to hide nudity from. Why try and teach them that being naked is bad?

Sex, yeah, I can't see putting sex in a show aimed at kids, even as "fan service" if only because it wouldn't really be serving the fans outside of the few adults who watch it with their kids. That just makes it a waste of story time and detracts from the show overall.

Granted, I also think Stranger in a Strange Land should be required reading at some point in school...

[warty goblin]

Granted, I also think Stranger in a Strange Land should be required reading at some point in school...

Nah, Time Enough for Love is a better choice.

[nyarlathotep]

Statements like this makes me wonder where the world is heading. So, something that has nursed billions of babies through the ages isn't good enough anymore? No matter if the human body was designed by some cosmic deity or through evolution we as a race is far from understanding how it works, but still we persist in believing that we already can replace it with technology.
And what about the environment? Your formula has to be manufactured, packaged, shipped etc.
No, it's about time that we started accepting that some things are best left untouched, and move on to better things. Like immortality.
Also, nudity isn't hurting anyone.

This is an extremely silly notion. In the world of science and progress no stone should be left unturned no option unexplored it is the only way we can fulfill our manifest destiny as a species. Immortality will allow future generations to benefit from the knowledge of elders with thousands of years of experience. When we stop looking at global warming as "we're affecting the environment in a horrible way let's reverse it" and start thinking of it as "we have so much power over the environment let' find out how to make the changes we want" then we will no longer be at the cruel whims of nature. Space exploration will ensure that no single great catastrophe can wipe out our race in its entirety. It is a disservice to our descendants not to explore all of these ideas and any others that will b found in the future.



Granted, I also think Stranger in a Strange Land should be required reading at some point in school...

I think that the idea of required reading should be done away with just like censorship, but to each his own.

[Heliomance]

Name one occasion where it was a normal occurrence to see someone other than yourself naked as a child.
My parents never had any qualms about letting us see them naked, still don't. Y'know, the whole "the human body is entirely natural and there's no shame in it" thing.

Interestingly, society's pressure is strong enough that all four of us have grown up uncomfortable with letting each other see us naked anyway. Personally, I think that's slightly scary, thinking about it.

[AtlanteanTroll]

My parents never had any qualms about letting us see them naked, still don't. Y'know, the whole "the human body is entirely natural and there's no shame in it" thing.
Personally, that would creep the living self censor out of me.


Interestingly, society's pressure is strong enough that all four of us have grown up uncomfortable with letting each other see us naked anyway. Personally, I think that's slightly scary, thinking about it.
To each his own. All countries are different. By and large my country prefers people clothed, and so do I. No nakedness in kids shows? Guess what? They don't have a reason to be naked. Or shouldn't. Well, in my opinion.

[drakir_nosslin]

This is an extremely silly notion. In the world of science and progress no stone should be left unturned no option unexplored it is the only way we can fulfill our manifest destiny as a species. Immortality will allow future generations to benefit from the knowledge of elders with thousands of years of experience. When we stop looking at global warming as "we're affecting the environment in a horrible way let's reverse it" and start thinking of it as "we have so much power over the environment let' find out how to make the changes we want" then we will no longer be at the cruel whims of nature. Space exploration will ensure that no single great catastrophe can wipe out our race in its entirety. It is a disservice to our descendants not to explore all of these ideas and any others that will b found in the future.

First of all, if we're going to continue this discussion, maybe we should move it to another thread?

Last response on this subject in this thread:
Sorry that last sentence came out wrong. I meant that we shouldn't be mass producing things artificially when nature does it better, and instead use the resources for research in areas where we can improve on nature. I didn't mean to imply that we, as a race, should stop researching. What I do believe is that before we start using things, we should stop and ask ourselves: is this the best for us, and for the planet as a whole? If yes: go on! If no: keep researching. If maybe: keep researching.
I don't see immortality as a problem, the problem is our materialistic life style.

[Lord Seth]

While this might be the reasoning used I don't accept it as actually being a good way of reasoning in that case. The points that hot coffee could have added would be like 5 at most. It would be proof of a very inflexible an poorly thought out measuring system if indeed one so little thing would make such a huge difference.It doesn't seem that little, as it is on screen and controllable if not explicit. Like I said, if the violence and the rest hadn't already been so high, I doubt it would've brought it up to an AO.


Other question, if we were so close to the adult category, how much pure violence do you actually need to get there without sex? If GTA had to resort to drugs, swearing and stuff and still needed hot coffee besides the violence, then your could have extremely gruesome games within a teenage category as long as they don't feature sex, drugs and rock'n roll.Er, I have no idea how rock and roll would up a game's rating (unless it had swearing in the lyrics, which is not an issue with the rock and droll but rather the language), but the issue here is more this: The violence by itself bumped the rating up to an M, all the other stuff brought it up to the "upper regions" of the M rating, and the hot coffee stuff pushed it over the edge.

And offhand I can't think of any "extremely gruesome games" that are in a teenage category, regardless of whether they have sex or drugs or whatever.


Games that include sex are pretty much automaticly adult. Still sensing an imbalance there.I don't know, there's been explicit games that only got an M rating.
Here's a problem a hot coffee type mod can be added to literally any game. it is an extra mod that players have to add themselves. It's like saying the Diary of Anne Frank should be banned cause I can scribble penises all over the pages.Except the hot coffee mod in this case came from using what was already in the game. It wasn't a case of adding something to a game, it was making use of what was already there, albeit hidden, and it (apparently) only took changing a single bit of the game's code to make it available. There were mods that did things like make characters outright nude, but there wasn't controversy over that because they weren't in the game itself.
On a related issue, I'm not completely up to date but is it (still) illegal in US television to show people's behinds?I don't think it was ever illegal or is illegal. I can't think offhand, though, of any non-cartoon examples of it.
This is an extremely silly notion. In the world of science and progress no stone should be left unturned no option unexplored it is the only way we can fulfill our manifest destiny as a species.Drakir's post wasn't phrased terribly well, but I think he had a point in that if what's natural currently works better than what's artificial, there's not much reason to use the artificial until such time as the artificial works better than the natural.

[Fjolnir]

NYPD Blue showed dennis franz's butt in 1994...

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

This is an extremely silly notion. In the world of science and progress no stone should be left unturned no option unexplored it is the only way we can fulfill our manifest destiny as a species. Immortality will allow future generations to benefit from the knowledge of elders with thousands of years of experience. When we stop looking at global warming as "we're affecting the environment in a horrible way let's reverse it" and start thinking of it as "we have so much power over the environment let' find out how to make the changes we want" then we will no longer be at the cruel whims of nature. Space exploration will ensure that no single great catastrophe can wipe out our race in its entirety. It is a disservice to our descendants not to explore all of these ideas and any others that will b found in the future.

Welcome to modernity, where hubris is a virtue!

Seriously, though, you don't think any of these will possibly have vast negative side-effects? You just kind of handwave off the huge damage caused by any missteps in environmental control, the issue of overpopulation with regard to immortality, and so on. It's nice to say "Let's just make everything better with no negative consequences whatsoever," but that's not really how the world works.


To each his own. All countries are different. By and large my country prefers people clothed, and so do I. No nakedness in kids shows? Guess what? They don't have a reason to be naked. Or shouldn't. Well, in my opinion.
There is no reason to ever be nude?

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldr16ra2QB1qcm16uo1_500.jpg

[Eldan]

Okay, how can you even grow up without ever seeing your parents or your siblings nude? I used to bathe with my brother when I was about six and he a few years younger. There were a few times when I had to use the bathroom while my father was showering.

And of course, there's gym class. Everyone gets naked (though it was separated by gender) and showers. Perfectly normal.

Breastfeeding too: you just see women doing it from time to time. I don't see what the problem is.

There's naked children running around on playgrounds, in parks or in public baths. It happens.

[nyarlathotep]

Welcome to modernity, where hubris is a virtue!

Seriously, though, you don't think any of these will possibly have vast negative side-effects? You just kind of handwave off the huge damage caused by any missteps in environmental control, the issue of overpopulation with regard to immortality, and so on. It's nice to say "Let's just make everything better with no negative consequences whatsoever," but that's not really how the world works.


That's rather silly of course there will be missteps just as there are in every human effort. However it is justified by the damage that is currently happening by the world's natural course huge damage occurs with every flood, drought, volcanic eruption and more importantly these catastrophes will never change if we do nothing to change them. Overpopulation is only a problem when the population of those fit and able to contribute to the continued expansion of living space is outweighed by the population of those too young, old, or unfit to help. With the addition of true immortality the old population remains capable of helping. The idea that living space is truly scarce compared to the human population is a very earth centric viewpoint. All of these things are efforts to end tragedy that human beings have been conditioned to accept as inevitable simply because up until recently we have had no real hope of stopping them.

All of that being said I do agree with Drakir's rephrased point that using an artificial means just because it is artificial is silly.

[JonestheSpy]

Overpopulation is only a problem when the population of those fit and able to contribute to the continued expansion of living space is outweighed by the population of those too young, old, or unfit to help.

Until you run out of fresh water...

Seriously, I think you should read Jared Diamond's amazing book Collapse (his follow-up to the equally amazing Guns, Germs, and Steel). It was an in-depth study of why various societies all over the globe have failed and vanished throughout history. Environmental damage and overpopulation were frequent contributing causes - laziness and lack of folks able to work was not one.

[nyarlathotep]

Until you run out of fresh water...

Seriously, I think you should read Jared Diamond's amazing book Collapse (his follow-up to the equally amazing Guns, Germs, and Steel). It was an in-depth study of why various societies all over the globe have failed and vanished throughout history. Environmental damage and overpopulation were frequent contributing causes - laziness and lack of folks able to work was not one.

But there's the problem I was talking about overpopulation in a vacuum without taking into consideration other problems that could cause a civilization. I did however love Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Besides would it really be so bad once the immortality drug is established to say all guys who get it have to get vasectomies once space in off-planet colonies fills up?

[SiuiS]

First of all, nudity != sex. Secondly, if it were as cartoony as the violence, I wouldn't mind a kid seeing some nipples or whatever. It would seem pretty odd, but only because it's always been so very condemned. And imagine the potential for testicles in Loony Tunes...


Amen to that. It drives me nuts every time somebody thinks they must be related.

See, this is interesting. You're right, except you're not.
Now, that sounds like I'm being a jerk, so let me explain.
Objectively, yes, there is a difference between nudity (lack of clothing) and coitus. This is a fact, which cannot really be disputed.
The problem is one of association. I'm 25, and I just realized about 3 weeks ago that I equate the two. That is, barring special circumstances (or obvious ones like 'I'm changing clothes' or 'I'm taking a shower') I see being nude as a sexual act. It's irritating; I thought I'd conditioned myself better than that. But I guess not, because my default thought-train is "you're getting nekkid? But I don't like you like that!", etc.

What makes it a sticky wicket is that, to a degree, this connection is desirable. It enhances and elevates the associated acts above a mere animal function. This is a good thing, for reproduction as a species, and for being able to tolerate each other on a macro level. I know that personally, if there wasn't a single Romantic connotation to love and courtship, I wouldn't have survived to age 18. I'd have given up; my romantic nature sustains me.


It's called "Omaha the Cat Dancer" in the case you are interested. oh man, I found an issue of that when I was six at a flea market. I begged my mom to buy it for me, even if she had to hide it in a closet for like, 15 years before I could really read it. Me and the author-guy (artist, actually) have the same last name. When you're that little, something so cool as having a family member you didn't know of making comics about hot cat people was the bees knees!

[Heliomance]

Personally, that would creep the living self censor out of me.

Not if you'd grown up with it, I suspect. You are partially right though, in that I'm less comfortable in seeing my parents naked than they are in being seen. That's entirely a product of society.

[warty goblin]

This is an extremely silly notion. In the world of science and progress no stone should be left unturned no option unexplored it is the only way we can fulfill our manifest destiny as a species.

We don't have a destiny, manifest or otherwise. We're just another accident of self replication on a moist dirty rock in a universe of nearly unimaginable vastness.

Also manifest destiny is a very poor choice of words. Let's hope humanity's future is characterized by a decrease in greedy, violent genocide, not characterized thereby.


Immortality will allow future generations to benefit from the knowledge of elders with thousands of years of experience. When we stop looking at global warming as "we're affecting the environment in a horrible way let's reverse it" and start thinking of it as "we have so much power over the environment let' find out how to make the changes we want" then we will no longer be at the cruel whims of nature.

'Cept that global warming isn't really environmental control, it's environmental destabilization, and the difference is exceptionally non-trivial. Moreover its control over only a very few variables and at an entirely global scale. Raising CO2 in the atmosphere is a long damn way from being able to prevent floods; it's probably about like saying squinting really hard at something is like a scanning electron microscope.

Space exploration will ensure that no single great catastrophe can wipe out our race in its entirety. It is a disservice to our descendants not to explore all of these ideas and any others that will b found in the future.

Here's a fun fact: it takes a delta v of about 10 km/s to push something from Earth's surface into orbit. It is a disservice to the people alive right now to squander fortunes putting stuff into space instead of dealing with actual, currently extant problems. By extension it is a disservice to our descendants to spend vast sums on space travel (and building a self supporting space colony will have astronomical costs in every possible sense of the phrase) and by not dedicating ourselves to current problems, foist them onto the next generation.

The idea that living space is truly scarce compared to the human population is a very earth centric viewpoint.


Or a viewpoint that has some grasp on how stupidly huge and hostile the universe really is.

[Mystic Muse]

As interesting as this conversation is, it really needs to be in a separate thread.

[leafman]

Doesn't Sesame Street technically already contain nudity? Every time Ernie takes a bath with his rubber ducky he is depicted as not wearing a shirt, which implies that he is naked (an inference any child who has taken a bath would be able to make). They don't show his genitals, but then who would actually want to a) see that and b) craft his muppet reproductive system?

[Frozen_Feet]

My parents never had any qualms about letting us see them naked, still don't. Y'know, the whole "the human body is entirely natural and there's no shame in it" thing.

Interestingly, society's pressure is strong enough that all four of us have grown up uncomfortable with letting each other see us naked anyway. Personally, I think that's slightly scary, thinking about it.


Personally, that would creep the living self censor out of me.


To each his own. All countries are different. By and large my country prefers people clothed, and so do I. No nakedness in kids shows? Guess what? They don't have a reason to be naked. Or shouldn't. Well, in my opinion.


See, this is interesting. You're right, except you're not.
Now, that sounds like I'm being a jerk, so let me explain.
Objectively, yes, there is a difference between nudity (lack of clothing) and coitus. This is a fact, which cannot really be disputed.
The problem is one of association. I'm 25, and I just realized about 3 weeks ago that I equate the two. That is, barring special circumstances (or obvious ones like 'I'm changing clothes' or 'I'm taking a shower') I see being nude as a sexual act. It's irritating; I thought I'd conditioned myself better than that. But I guess not, because my default thought-train is "you're getting nekkid? But I don't like you like that!", etc.


In light of the above comments, I feel the need to restate my view on this:

Nudity taboo is a learned thing. So is the automatic association of nudity with sexuality.

Humans are born without clothes on. Humans are also born as non-sexual beings (they grow into that later in life). By default, the reasons why nudity is listed as so offensive are cultural creation. Here we once again run to the concept of self-reinforcing cycle: some cultures keep teaching the negative associations because they've teached them in the past.

Clothing's original purpose was protection from the elements, not obscuring naughty bits - best witnessed when looking at cultures living in climates where humanity evolved. They tend to have less clothing overall, because it isn't as needed.

So, this raises a few questions. One, for those with strong nudity taboos, how much is your aversion towards naked bodies a learned thing, and how much is for your "own reasons"? Second, are nudity taboos and nudity's automatic association with sexuality beneficial, harmless, or harmful?

To resume the example of naked parents: family members don't generally view each other in sexual ways; there are biological - psychological factors preventing that. I hazard the guess that the reason why many people find nude family members icky is because of the reinforced association of nudity with sex (and not the other way around; this is important). It's caused by their natural instincts clashing with their cultural upbringing in regards to the given message; by default, no-one wants to think of their family members in sexual manner, yet that is what the nudity taboo "encourages" them to think.

Considering family members are the people you are most likely to see naked: is the culturally-reinforced awkwardness making life easier, or harder?

[Mystic Muse]

So, this raises a few questions. One, for those with strong nudity taboos, how much is your aversion towards naked bodies a learned thing, and how much is for your "own reasons"? Considering none of my cousins or siblings seem to have the same taboo I have, I'd say it's entirely my own reasons.
Second, are nudity taboos and nudity's automatic association with sexuality beneficial, harmless, or harmful? Not possible for me to know at this point. I can't see the future.


Considering family members are the people you are most likely to see naked: is the culturally-reinforced awkwardness making life easier, or harder? Actually, it would make my life easier if I avoided the people I know who tend to not care whether or not they're nude. I don't because they're my family, but yes, avoiding them entirely would make my life easier.

[Themrys]

Second question, fast forward to around age 11 or so. Would you be more upset if you walked in the room and caught that child looking at porn on the internet, or playing a video game that features very graphic, realistic (or even exaggerated) depictions of violence that the kid has fun perpetrating on the simulated people the game provides? Which do you think might be more damaging to the kids developing psyche over the long term?

Me, I'd prefer option one in each case, no question.


I am not sure.
I don't watch porn, not even to see what it is like, I think it's icky to watch other people have sex, but from what I read, porn for heterosexual men is mostly violence towards women in a sexualized way.
Which is worse than violence towads people in general that is not sexualized.


Someone has mentioned that there isn't a reason to show completely naked people in kids' TV since someone sitting in a bathtub isn't completely naked.
Well...if people were sensible, yes.
However, some people even sexualize the chest of girls at age 8 or so. There are people who insist that girls have to wear a bikini top even if there isn't anything that would look the least different from a boy's chest.
So, have a girl sitting in a bathtub and some people would complain. And I won't even start on how people sexualize women's breasts and nipples, although it is male nipples that don't have any not-sexual use at all.


Also, I guess for some children it would be good to see some naked people.

1. It makes you realize most people look far from perfect when naked and your own body is completely normal the way it is.

2. It makes you realize that women don't only have a vagina. Which is important so you don't fail biology forever. :smallwink:

However, I don't think you need nakedness on TV for that reason. Some normal naked people in sex ed books would be a good idea...and people should get sex ed. It makes life as an adult so much less embarassing.



Concerning the nudity taboo...I like it that people are expected to wear pants, since there are things that I really don't like that much to see. From an aesthetic point of view.
However, I am not happy with the fact that women aren't allowed to run around topless in most countries. It's sexist and it's uncomfortable and breasts aren't ugly. (At least not uglier than men's beer-bellys)

[akma]

but from what I read, porn for heterosexual men is mostly violence towards women in a sexualized way.

Don`t believe everything you read.

[Themrys]

Don`t believe everything you read.

I don't.
This is why I won't believe you if you write porn is all flowers and butterflies and no objectification of women. :smalltongue:
The strange ideas about sex people have today have to come from somewhere. Which is why I believe my sources.

[Partysan]

I don't.
This is why I won't believe you if you write porn is all flowers and butterflies and no objectification of women. :smalltongue:
The strange ideas about sex people have today have to come from somewhere. Which is why I believe my sources.

There is yet a difference between violence and objectification, besides the men in porn not being any less objectified.
Apart from that you are correct. Your formulation was just overly drastic.

[Kris Strife]

There's a big difference between violence and objectification.

And ninja'd. :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

For that matter, I've seen some convincing arguments that straight porn objectifies the male actors almost as much as it does the female actresses, by way of reducing them via camera focus to a single unmentionable body part as if that is the sole reason for their existence.

[0Megabyte]

We don't have a destiny, manifest or otherwise. We're just another accident of self replication on a moist dirty rock in a universe of nearly unimaginable vastness.

Also manifest destiny is a very poor choice of words. Let's hope humanity's future is characterized by a decrease in greedy, violent genocide, not characterized thereby.

'Cept that global warming isn't really environmental control, it's environmental destabilization, and the difference is exceptionally non-trivial. Moreover its control over only a very few variables and at an entirely global scale. Raising CO2 in the atmosphere is a long damn way from being able to prevent floods; it's probably about like saying squinting really hard at something is like a scanning electron microscope.

Here's a fun fact: it takes a delta v of about 10 km/s to push something from Earth's surface into orbit. It is a disservice to the people alive right now to squander fortunes putting stuff into space instead of dealing with actual, currently extant problems. By extension it is a disservice to our descendants to spend vast sums on space travel (and building a self supporting space colony will have astronomical costs in every possible sense of the phrase) and by not dedicating ourselves to current problems, foist them onto the next generation.

Or a viewpoint that has some grasp on how stupidly huge and hostile the universe really is.

Another fun fact: No matter how much is fixed, it won't matter when the sun turns into a red giant and the planet dies.

Here's another thing: All it takes is a single large asteroid, and we're done. All it takes is a large enough nuclear war and the precarious system we've created collapses. And, ultimately, the earth will die, no matter what we do. Just because the sell-by date is a long ways away doesn't mean we can ignore it.

Making the earth a utopia is pointless if we go extinct anyway. It's a disservice to all the people who ever lived to allow that.

Furthermore: There will always be problems! There will always be things we need to improve, people who are suffering, countries in turmoil, broken homes, children without parents, disease, anger, murder, inefficiency, corruption, greed, and the limited resources of our planet.

But if we are to truly think long-term, we have to understand that some portion of our resources must be devoted to this endeavor. Heck, by your own logic the amount we spend on military is an utter waste: It's orders of magnitude larger than the amount we spend on space currently. Why don't we just siphon a good hundred billion a year from all that military expenditure and put that into space exploration instead? It's certainly a better use of those funds to take steps to keep us from going extinct than to build a new carrier group or something.

Honestly, working towards improving our world is an important, vital goal. But it isn't the only goal, and we DO have enough resources on this planet to do both.

How exactly will we survive a large asteroid strike, or the death of the sun, otherwise? These things will happen, after all.

It's better to have people out there. Do you know how much stuff there is in all the asteroids? In all the moons? We could even have groups of humans out as far as the Oort cloud, hunting comets and gathering asteroids. It would even be in our nature to do it.

[akma]

I don't.
This is why I won't believe you if you write porn is all flowers and butterflies and no objectification of women. :smalltongue:
The strange ideas about sex people have today have to come from somewhere. Which is why I believe my sources.

I`m not saying that it is all flowers and butterflies etc, I`m saying that claiming that porn is mostly violence towards women is untrue and exaggerated.

And what kind of strange ideas about sex?

[Frozen_Feet]

^ there are buttloads of them. I'm unable to find a good list off the bat and don't feel like writing one myself, but you can look up "Porn Tropes" on TV tropes to check typical elements of pornographic entertainment. You'll pick up the unrealistic parts soon enough.

[Partysan]

I`m not saying that it is all flowers and butterflies etc, I`m saying that claiming that porn is mostly violence towards women is untrue and exaggerated.

And what kind of strange ideas about sex?

Just to give (http://www.menagea3.net/d/20081030.html) a few examples. (http://www.menagea3.net/d/20081101.html)
(NSFW, though those two strips I linked are clean)

[shadow_archmagi]

You know, people always talk about a side effect of porn being sticky keyboards, so I always made a point of avoiding it when I was using this computer. No porn on this machine for six years, and you know what? Last week my spacebar broke.

I feel so betrayed.\

[AtlanteanTroll]

There is no reason to ever be nude?


In a children's show. Also, that man has a thing about not getting naked, and is most certainly not from a children's show. :smallwink:

[warty goblin]

Another fun fact: No matter how much is fixed, it won't matter when the sun turns into a red giant and the planet dies.

Look at it this way: we fix nothing, the sun does its thing, everybody dies. Or we put energy into fixing things, the sun does its thing, everybody dies, but more of them had better lives than in scenario 1. That does not strike me as pointless, in fact it seems to be the very essence of a productive action.


Here's another thing: All it takes is a single large asteroid, and we're done. All it takes is a large enough nuclear war and the precarious system we've created collapses. And, ultimately, the earth will die, no matter what we do. Just because the sell-by date is a long ways away doesn't mean we can ignore it.
Nuclear war is an entirely human made problem that is best solved at home, rather than sending some tiny fragment of the population into space. And yes, eventually the Earth will die; call me shortsighted but I'm more worried about problems over the next fifty or a hundred years than those with an expected arrival date of a few million.


Making the earth a utopia is pointless if we go extinct anyway. It's a disservice to all the people who ever lived to allow that.

Not really, no.


Furthermore: There will always be problems! There will always be things we need to improve, people who are suffering, countries in turmoil, broken homes, children without parents, disease, anger, murder, inefficiency, corruption, greed, and the limited resources of our planet.
Which means we'll always be solving them, so what?

But if we are to truly think long-term, we have to understand that some portion of our resources must be devoted to this endeavor. Heck, by your own logic the amount we spend on military is an utter waste: It's orders of magnitude larger than the amount we spend on space currently. Why don't we just siphon a good hundred billion a year from all that military expenditure and put that into space exploration instead? It's certainly a better use of those funds to take steps to keep us from going extinct than to build a new carrier group or something.
You'd have no arguments from me about spending less on the military, although I'd rather see the money go towards something productive instead of sending more stuff into space.


Honestly, working towards improving our world is an important, vital goal. But it isn't the only goal, and we DO have enough resources on this planet to do both.
Based on what evidence? Surely not the current craptastic state of the planet.

How exactly will we survive a large asteroid strike, or the death of the sun, otherwise? These things will happen, after all.
We probably won't, strangely I don't care all that much. For one thing if one takes the very long view, it all goes away when dark energy tears the universe apart, or entropy reaches the point where nothing can survive, whichever comes first. Longterm we're screwed either way


It's better to have people out there. Do you know how much stuff there is in all the asteroids? In all the moons? We could even have groups of humans out as far as the Oort cloud, hunting comets and gathering asteroids. It would even be in our nature to do it.
I actually do have a fairly good grasp of how much is out there. I also have a fairly good grasp of how disgustingly far away it is, the unfortunate effects of long exposure to low gravity and high radiation, the fact that most of it is horribly cold, and the serious lack of good real estate.

We currently have, so far as we know, the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life, and certainly the only one we can access. Making sure it works for the next few million years seems a far more attainable and useful goal than trying to scratch a hydroponic living out on the side of an asteroid while wondering if you can manage to reproduce fast enough to stay ahead of the cancer, bone atrophy and mental instability while not outgrowing the tiny population your godforsaken rock can support.

[Fjolnir]

RE: porn and objectifying. I would actually argue that in modern pornography the man is at least as objectified as the woman if not more. Pornographers have learned that by making the woman the nominal "star" of the film and reducing the man to furnishings with a penis they make more money.

[Gaelbert]

I've also heard (from multiple sources in the industry) that female actors tend to have much more generous contract deals than the male actors. With the females, they have a following that will follow the actress no matter what company she's in. Not so much with males, the company can always find a replacement and no one cares.

[nyarlathotep]

Someone has mentioned that there isn't a reason to show completely naked people in kids' TV since someone sitting in a bathtub isn't completely naked.
Well...if people were sensible, yes.
However, some people even sexualize the chest of girls at age 8 or so. There are people who insist that girls have to wear a bikini top even if there isn't anything that would look the least different from a boy's chest.
So, have a girl sitting in a bathtub and some people would complain. And I won't even start on how people sexualize women's breasts and nipples, although it is male nipples that don't have any not-sexual use at all.


To be fair this is mostly an overreaction to America admitting there were such things as pedophiles in the 70s. Ever since then moral guardians have gone through everything with a fine toothed comb looking for anything that might attract pedos to any media and trying to have it removed. I'm not sure how they think this protects children but it's what they do.

[0Megabyte]

Look at it this way: we fix nothing, the sun does its thing, everybody dies. Or we put energy into fixing things, the sun does its thing, everybody dies, but more of them had better lives than in scenario 1. That does not strike me as pointless, in fact it seems to be the very essence of a productive action.

Or we can, you know, not go extinct. I'd rather live ten years longer with bland food the whole time than get to eat a smorgasbord of wonderful food then die tomorrow. Considering the time-spans involved, that's not too bad an analogy, either. Except for the fact that I exaggerate how badly one would eat for dramatic effect.

I'd rather my children's children's children don't all die out because our world does. By avoiding extinction, we could break the cycle. Most species go extinct. But five billion years from now, our descendants can still exist, amongst distant stars. All it takes is putting a little money aside now, and working on it amongst all the other projects we have.


"Nuclear war is an entirely human made problem that is best solved at home, rather than sending some tiny fragment of the population into space. And yes, eventually the Earth will die; call me shortsighted but I'm more worried about problems over the next fifty or a hundred years than those with an expected arrival date of a few million."

Then I'll call you shortsighted. Keep in mind, this is not an either/or proposition. We don't need to spend everything on one or the other. But just as a prudent individual puts some of their money away in savings on the off chance something bad happens, so it is prudent for us to do the same. Our ultimate survival is at stake, and even you admit the end result if we don't act.

As for nuclear war: It's a single example of many threats. But you cannot control all humans for all history. We have these weapons. Someday, someone will use them. And even if we do eliminate nuclear weapons for now, pandora's box is open. They will never go away, and somewhere, someday, they will be used. They may not destroy the world, but they could. We have the power to destroy ourselves. It's irresponsible not to create the power to save ourselves, too.

Besides, by this logic nobody should have spent the time or energy to send ships to the New World. I shouldn't live in America right now: They should have used those resources to fix their problems! Of course, the problems of the times are fixed anyway, and my ancestors still got to come here...




Not really, no.


Which means we'll always be solving them, so what?

You'd have no arguments from me about spending less on the military, although I'd rather see the money go towards something productive instead of sending more stuff into space.

Which means that if we focus solely on the short term as you suggest, we'll never, ever get around to the long term. And then it'll destroy us just as surely as the short term could. More surely, actually. Procrastination is not a virtue. And it isn't an either/or thing. It's not like our planet cannot build systems to support a few tens of thousands of people. (hint: we support WAY more than that, on very small bits of the planet!)



Based on what evidence? Surely not the current craptastic state of the planet.

You underestimate the condition of the planet. Do you realize how much iron we take out of the ground every year, even now? More than ever. Do you realize how much solar energy we can acquire? Do you realize the sheer scale of the resources we do have?

In 2006 we mined 1.5 billion tons of iron. How much do you think is required to build a self-sustainable habitat? An aircraft carrier holding over 4,000 people for upwards of months at a time is about 100,000 tons. Obviously this isn't all iron, but iron is only one of many things we mine every year. (Further, while an aircraft carrier isn't bad to think of, a better example of an actual spaceship is a submarine. They stay self-sufficient for upwards of months without surfacing. And in space, we won't have the same size restrictions. We can do this. We're already taking the steps.)

How large do you think a ship to handle ten thousand people would need to be? Consider:

We mine more than a billion tons of iron alone each year. Single, 1 km M-class asteroids have been shown to have over two billion metric tons of nickel-iron ore. That's two or three times the total production of such ore in the world in 2004.

We don't even need to ship most of the ore to build the ships I'm thinking of into space! Yes, we need to ship a lot more out there than we do now, sure. But private industry's already got that in the bag. SpaceX, a private company, already has orders to send satellites into orbit using its Falcon9 rockets. They've already launched their first ships, and are open for business.

Also consider: A large number of objects, such as comets, contain large amounts of ice. We don't even need to send all that much water up there: People can get their own.

It's not hard to send ships to asteroids, in the long run. We're already preparing to send the first ships to land on asteroids and comets. If we can do it now, those who actually live in space, and thus won't need to escape Earth's atmosphere, will have an easier time.

So: We can't build the ships, which may even be ten times the size of the largest aircraft carriers, on Earth. We shouldn't even build the component parts.

What we do, is build mining vessels to create the needed parts in space.

Impossible? The International Space Station is a trial run of the same concept: A large, multi-part machine put into orbit piece by piece. Conceptually, building a mining vessel isn't all THAT much different. The machines we send up are different, but we already have practice putting together complicated stations in space.

The energy involved isn't a big deal either: Solar energy is quite efficient this close to the sun. And farther out, we have nuclear power, and possibly someday fusion power.

So once we have the machines in space it may take centuries, or at least decades, to build the ships we need. But so what? Once we have even one, it's worth it. If we build it with the right capabilities, the first task of the ship is to build another. We will be as a noble virus. Take the water of a comet, the materials of an asteroid, including the organic materials which many asteroids are rich with, and we have the makings of life. Our descendants won't be built out of Earth's molecules: They'll be built out of molecules coming from the rocks of space, much like viruses are built out of the bacteria their ancestors first invaded. (calling Agent Smith...)

Also, short term? Building large-scale structures in space has its benefits for earth: It solves one of our society's greatest problems.

The problems it solves is those of energy. Once we have the means to build such large-scale structures, we can use them to build solar arrays. Out in space, there's no atmosphere, no clouds, and it's never nighttime. We can beam energy to the Earth, and we will no longer be limited to the Earth's energy budget, the amount of light energy that strikes Earth directly. We can have more. We certainly won't need to rely on fossil fuels in that case.

In the long run, we can do this, and it won't bankrupt us. In the long run, it can solve our energy problems too, killing two birds with one stone. In the long run, the amount of resources needed to do it is trivial compared to the amount we actually use on a yearly basis.

To continue my analogy, we can put this money into savings, and not only will we have that money for when things go wrong... the interest will be valuable to us in and of itself.


We probably won't, strangely I don't care all that much. For one thing if one takes the very long view, it all goes away when dark energy tears the universe apart, or entropy reaches the point where nothing can survive, whichever comes first. Longterm we're screwed either way

Long term, I'll die whether I exercise five times a week or not. I'd rather have the extra ten or twenty years exercising will give me, all else being equal. I don't find my ultimate death an excuse to not act towards my own self-preservation: Why should our species?

Why should humanity settle for a few million years? You know what's better than a million? A billion!

Yes, I went there.

Anyway, if I can help it, I won't let my descendants die because of your existential malaise. I'll act for the sake of their survival, as far as I can guarantee it, thank you very much.

The amount of happiness and joy and love and art and science and laughter and friendship and camaraderie and insight and humanity that will come of doing this will vastly dwarf the amount of these good things that will exist if we stay forever on this one planet.

Is the laughter of humans a billion years from now around a distant star worth it, even though it will all end anyway? Yes! A thousand times yes. A hundred trillion times yes.


I actually do have a fairly good grasp of how much is out there. I also have a fairly good grasp of how disgustingly far away it is, the unfortunate effects of long exposure to low gravity and high radiation, the fact that most of it is horribly cold, and the serious lack of good real estate.

Disgustingly far? It's not like there's friction. The amount of energy to go from the Earth to Mars (the approximate distance between things in the Oort cloud. There are a lot of things much closer to each other than that!) is something we can put even into small machines the size of a minivan. All you need to know is where the object is, how fast you need to accelerate (and so, how long you need to have the thrusters on), and where the object will be so you know which direction to point. (Say, the opposite direction for the sake of a gravitational slingshot around Jupiter, or whatever.) It's not very hard, we do it all the time right this very instant.

The effects of low gravity can be combated. Gravity isn't special: The effect is indistinguishable from acceleration. All you need to do is to design the ship correctly. Inertial rings creating enough centrifugal force to create some simulacrum of gravity, preferably the minimum necessary to prevent degradation. Why do you think we have people in the ISS these days? One reason is to see how we can do it.

This problem isn't insurmountable.

The radiation, though, may be harder. And the radiation of space will always be a danger, and will always be something we have to fight. But we can build better machines. We can work on it, though. I'll less certain of the solution myself, but we can't just say "oh, we can't do it. Oh well, let's go home."

That isn't how humans work. We're far too stubborn for that, and we can find solutions.

Also, space isn't actually all that cold. Really, the main problem in spaceships, like the Apollo missions, is and was excess heat. After all, the only method for heat to transfer in open space is radiation. There's nothing for conduction or convection to conduct or convect! That's why, if you go out into space without a space suit, you won't be that cold. Sure, the gasses coming out of your eye sockets will be unpleasant, and you'll pretty quickly die of decompression, and it'll still be a horrible death.

But cold? Not so much.

As for the real estate: There's plenty! Besides, we're taking our homes with us. We'll be nomads again. It's not that strange a thing for humans to be nomadic. It's kind of how we rolled for the vast majority of our time on Earth.


We currently have, so far as we know, the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life, and certainly the only one we can access. Making sure it works for the next few million years seems a far more attainable and useful goal than trying to scratch a hydroponic living out on the side of an asteroid while wondering if you can manage to reproduce fast enough to stay ahead of the cancer, bone atrophy and mental instability while not outgrowing the tiny population your godforsaken rock can support.

I guarantee you, we'll have found another planet capable of supporting life within twenty years. Do you realize how many planets we've found lately?

Just last Wednesday the first part of Kepler's search results came in: 1200 new candidate planets, in addition to the over 500 we've found elsewhere.

And some of them are the right size, at the right distance. Close enough for us, anyway. Now we're in the process of confirming them.

We'll find another Earth. And soon. And, btw, the only stars we're searching are within 300 light years. We can probably get there in a few tens of millennia.

As for the rest: I will never say that working to improve the Earth isn't a worthy goal. We need to do that. We live here, after all. But we also have to look long-term. Will it be expensive? Sure. But will it be more expensive than the projects we're doing now? I don't think so. We can do both. Building the ships we need isn't going to bankrupt the Earth's resources.

As for your description of life in space: It's inaccurate at best, and your language is rhetorically meant to imply a negativity that isn't there.

Really, a nomadic existence amongst the asteroids will not be as bad as you say. It's certainly preferable to living today in many parts of Africa! Gravity can be accounted for, radiation can be blocked, medicine and genetic engineering have their own place in making humans more suitable for the conditions.

Deconstructing asteroids isn't terribly more arduous than mining underneath the earth today. Especially if we use a lot mechanization in the process, or just fire a few small kinetic weapons at them to pulverize them.

Besides, who'd stay on one asteroid for any longer than necessary? There's tons of them, and a stationary colony would be unwise. We may be used to living in one place these days, but nomadic living isn't so bad. Especially not when you bring your whole city with you! After all, it's not like someone's going to have to carry it.

---

Now, let me be clear: These efforts will in fact take a LOT of time, and energy, and money. I'm not pretending they don't. It's hard to do these things, and when I say "x isn't so hard" I mean that relatively. I mean we already do it, and can do it even more in the future.

But it's worth it. And we can do that, as well as fight to protect the Earth. We can switch to renewable energy sources AND send rockets into space. The United Nations is already working to halve the number of people without a sustainable water supply by 2015 as part of the Millennium Development Goals project.

They may not succeed, and they certainly aren't on track to fulfill all the goals. But the goals are there, and improvements have been made. China's been fulfilling it's obligations in that regard: The country's poverty population has decreased from 452 million to 278 million. India has improved a lot as well.

From 1990 to 2005, the amount of people living on less than $1.25 a day has decreased in Southern Asia from 49 to 39%. In Southeast Asia it's gone down from 39 to 19%. In Eastern Asia from 60 to 16%. Things like this are real. They aren't perfect indicators, but they're real ones. We can work to improve, we are working to improve, and I believe we should be working harder to improve this world we live in.

But we can, and are, doing this even as we send things into space at the same time. It's not a choice between rockets and clean water. And in the end we need both, each as surely as the other.

[Lord Seth]

Am I the only one who finds this whole discussion to be so hypothetical that any real discussion about it is about as pointless as speculating what would happen if we invented a time machine?

Sure, it can make for some interesting science fiction stories and it can be interesting to idly speculate about, but any serious discussion about it is essentially pointless at this time.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In a children's show. Also, that man has a thing about not getting naked, and is most certainly not from a children's show. :smallwink:

Well, yeah, Tobias being a nevernude was the whole point; not ever being naked is comically absurd.

[Frozen_Feet]

Am I the only one who finds this whole discussion to be so hypothetical that any real discussion about it is about as pointless as speculating what would happen if we invented a time machine?


No, you are not. I, too, would rather resume the more down to earth discussion of whether it's more proper to show kids boobs rather than grown men beating each other up. :smallbiggrin: That's why I'd like to direct those interested in more philosophical things to this new thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186368) :smalltongue:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I honestly don't even get what negative effect showing kids sex will supposedly have on them, now that I think about it. Someday they'll grow up to have sex? I really don't understand.

[John Cribati]

I honestly don't even get what negative effect showing kids sex will supposedly have on them, now that I think about it. Someday they'll grow up to have sex? I really don't understand.

It's more about them having sex too early. I mean, since I was 12, when I went in for a physical, the first thing I was asked is if I were sexually active. Maybe that just says something about where I grew up, but seriously, 12?

[Mystic Muse]

It's more about them having sex too early. I mean, since I was 12, when I went in for a physical, the first thing I was asked is if I were sexually active. Maybe that just says something about where I grew up, but seriously, 12?

Well, I hear some pretty disturbing things about the middle schools around here so I'm not actually surprised.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It's more about them having sex too early. I mean, since I was 12, when I went in for a physical, the first thing I was asked is if I were sexually active. Maybe that just says something about where I grew up, but seriously, 12?

I don't particularly see what's wrong with this, either. There are smart twelve-year-olds and dumb twelve-year-olds, just like there are smart and dumb adults, and dumb twelve-year-olds will be dumb adults when they become adults, so waiting until it's no longer "too early," probably won't make their miserable decisions any less stupid and awful.

[Poison_Fish]

It's more about them having sex too early. I mean, since I was 12, when I went in for a physical, the first thing I was asked is if I were sexually active. Maybe that just says something about where I grew up, but seriously, 12?

Better to ask the question then not.

On the subject of pornography, there was quite an interesting tedtalk a bit ago on the subject. Cindy Gallop: Make love not porn. (http://blog.ted.com/2009/12/02/cindy_gallop_ma/)

[Frozen_Feet]

I honestly don't even get what negative effect showing kids sex will supposedly have on them, now that I think about it. Someday they'll grow up to have sex? I really don't understand.

It's about creating unhealthy misconceptions of sex. Porn was already brought up as an example.

There is a measurable point in the physiological development of an invidual to mark when they're ready for intercourse. There's a harder-to-measure-but-still-there psychological point too.

Forcing minors to, or creating the preconception that they should, have sex before that point disrupts normal behavioral development and potentially leads to problems later in life.

[SiuiS]

It makes you realize that women don't only have a vagina. Which is important so you don't fail biology forever fun fact; what you are seeing is actually a vulva. If you can look at a nude female and see her vagina, something has gone terribly wrong.
Tangent: infectors from the Dead Space series creep me out, for related reasons.


However, I am not happy with the fact that women aren't allowed to run around topless in most countries. It's sexist and it's uncomfortable and breasts aren't ugly. oddly enough, I've been told (many, MANY times) that not wearing a top is generally uncomfortable AND inefficient. A woman with unbound breasts is going to have trouble if an emergency requires athletic activity; the movement under duress is horribly painful in any but the most petite. This is similar to men who don't wear briefs or something with suitable support; imagine scissors that had a dangly bit that fell between the blades.
Running nude requires it's own technique, fellas. Never forget that.


How exactly will we survive a large asteroid strike, or the death of the sun, otherwise? These things will happen, after all. this may be my spiritual bent talking, but why do we have to survive? If something as inexorable as a meteor destroying the earth's biosphere were to occur, then surviving earns kudos but I couldn't view dying as a failure. The continuation of the species is not imperative for the balance of all creation; it would be nice though.

Then again, my deepened fear is being utterly immortal, stuck on the surface of a black hole in agony for billions of years.


I don't particularly see what's wrong with this, either. There are smart twelve-year-olds and dumb twelve-year-olds, just like there are smart and dumb adults, and dumb twelve-year-olds will be dumb adults when they become adults, so waiting until it's no longer "too early," probably won't make their miserable decisions any less stupid and awful. the big issue is for every "mistake" a 12 year old makes, I (and everyone who pays taxes) have to pick up the burden. And it's a subtly huge problem; 12 year olds with kids are likely to be single parents. Single parents tend to raise children who are more inclined to crime and thuggery. Crime and thuggery increase gang activity, which promotes both child stupidity (screw your high shook diploma! Just sell weed like I do, and you too can be rolling in watered-flour and farm tools!) and a higher amount of pregnant 12 year olds.
I've had a kindergartner try to start a fight with me while his play-date buddies flanked me. One had knife, another claimed to have 'borrowed' his dad's taser. I pointed out that, age be darned, I had every legal right to kick the first one to approach me into traffic. They left, but seriously, kindergarteners! Not hyperbole, but five- and six-year olds! Such language they had.

[Helanna]

oddly enough, I've been told (many, MANY times) that not wearing a top is generally uncomfortable AND inefficient. A woman with unbound breasts is going to have trouble if an emergency requires athletic activity; the movement under duress is horribly painful in any but the most petite. This is similar to men who don't wear briefs or something with suitable support; imagine scissors that had a dangly bit that fell between the blades.
Running nude requires it's own technique, fellas. Never forget that.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find not wearing a top to be pretty comfortable. And just because it's inefficient doesn't meant that it's not nice to have the ability to wander around topless, should you so choose.

I'm pretty glad that I live in a state that allows women to go topless - it's almost certainly not something I'll ever actually do, but it's nice to have the choice.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm pretty glad that I live in a state that allows women to go topless - it's almost certainly not something I'll ever actually do, but it's nice to have the choice.

While I don't like nudity, I agree with the mindset of, "It's always nice to have the choice" regarding things that don't really hurt others.

While seeing nudity probably won't hurt a child's development, I do believe that sex can.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

My sister usually preferred to run topless, but we're a skinny people.

Anyway, misconceptions of sex arising doesn't occur simply because sex is depicted, necessarily; the problem, then, is with the kind of sex depicted.

[warty goblin]

While I don't like nudity, I agree with the mindset of, "It's always nice to have the choice" regarding things that don't really hurt others.

While seeing nudity probably won't hurt a child's development, I do believe that sex can.

Er, why? Being exposed to people having sex is probably the historical norm for humans, and in modern times I am not aware of any study linking children being exposed to other people having sex with issues later in life. I don't really have an opinion here, and since nobody seems to have any actual evidence that seems like just about the only logical position to hold.

[Mystic Muse]

Er, why? Being exposed to people having sex is probably the historical norm for humans, and in modern times I am not aware of any study linking children being exposed to other people having sex with issues later in life. I don't really have an opinion here, and since nobody seems to have any actual evidence that seems like just about the only logical position to hold.

I guess it really depends on the context in which sex in the show is used, but I refer you to the previous post about twelve year olds becoming pregnant. I don't believe sex before marriage is a good idea, and I'll attempt to convince my child of that as well* but while I want my hypothetical child to view sex as natural, I also want them to view it as generally being a bad idea before you get married due to the problems it can cause.

*I believe this for religious reasons, and the aforementioned bad things it can cause. I'm not going to force my kid to believe the same things I do. Although I'll still teach them about my beliefs, I will be sure to stress that is only what I believe, and they are free to choose what to believe/not believe/make their own path in life.

[Avilan the Grey]

See, this is interesting. You're right, except you're not.
Now, that sounds like I'm being a jerk, so let me explain.
Objectively, yes, there is a difference between nudity (lack of clothing) and coitus. This is a fact, which cannot really be disputed.
The problem is one of association.

This is a cultural thing. MOST of the time I do the same connection, but there are a number of socially accepted areas where that part of the brain is turned off, such as the locker room at school, the sauna, or very young kids (in general, duh).


It's more about them having sex too early. I mean, since I was 12, when I went in for a physical, the first thing I was asked is if I were sexually active. Maybe that just says something about where I grew up, but seriously, 12?

Twelve should be a little early for actually doing it with other people. Personally I was rummaging through people's recycle bins to find second-hand porn mags at the time... (ahem). Anyway, the average age for girls to have their first sexual experience is 13½ in this country, and I think for boys it's 14.
However official age of concent is 15 here, not 18 or 21 (providing you do it with another person about your age. We have statutory rape laws here too).

[druid91]

Overpopulation. If an immortal has kids, they're adding to the overall population. Currently, this isn't a problem, because people die, but that isn't true anymore.

Expansion. Start sending people to other planets. We need to get a move on with becoming a space-faring society.

[Tavar]

That isn't feasible at the moment. You might as well say that we'll solve the problem by waving our magic wands. Never mind the problem with sending people to other planets in the solar system, which has many problems, it's still only a temporary solution, and a haphazard one at that. If immortality is widely available, we're unlikely to be able to send more than a pittance away from earth at a time, and thus we'll still have population problems.


Edit:V Ah, sorry. I'll take it there if I want to continue, then.

[Kuma Kode]

Expansion. Start sending people to other planets. We need to get a move on with becoming a space-faring society.
That isn't feasible at the moment. You might as well say that we'll solve the problem by waving our magic wands. Never mind the problem with sending people to other planets in the solar system, which has many problems, it's still only a temporary solution, and a haphazard one at that. If immortality is widely available, we're unlikely to be able to send more than a pittance away from earth at a time, and thus we'll still have population problems. I would like to point out that a topic has been specifically created to continue this discussion in a more appropriate thread.

That's why I'd like to direct those interested in more philosophical things to this new thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186368) :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Maybe this discussion has moved on beyond the point where it's relevant, but I would like to point out again that nudity != sex. If I'm saying, "I'm okay with my kids seeing some cartoon nipples or dingaling", that doesn't mean I'm saying "I'm gonna show my kids hentai when they're 6".
It's similar to kicking up a stink because children are running around nude. I have no intent to needlessly discomfort my children just because other people are so hung up on nudity and sex that they'll even apply it to kids - I'm not sexualising them, you* are.

Also, if 12 year olds are getting pregnant there's a lot more going on than just a bit of booby on TV.

*Hypothetical complainer/strawperson.

[Foeofthelance]

It's more about them having sex too early. I mean, since I was 12, when I went in for a physical, the first thing I was asked is if I were sexually active. Maybe that just says something about where I grew up, but seriously, 12?

Eh, I've heard a second grader ask a classmate for oral sex. To this day I still do not know whether or not either one knew what he was asking for. Part of this, I think, is the result of how screwy our culture has become about it. Billboards of bikini clad models drinking from beer bottles in provocative manners, shirtless guys carefully airbrushed into those skin tight jeans, shots of rumpled bedsheets all over the television... But don't ask what it all means! Oh dear {insert chosen deity/philosopher here}! We can't have the wee ones knowing about that! Its like the Adult Conspiracy from the Xanth books; the less you're willing to tell a kid about something, the more they want to know.

So yeah. When they're younger, let them see some skin every once in a while. Let them get comfortable with the fact that men are different than women, and so what? Different body parts, same general functions. When the get old enough to realize they have questions, answer them honestly and directly, so that the don't have any questions left. (No, this does not mean drive them down to the erotic section of the local bookstore and let them browse. The only thing there worth giving them is the Kama Sutra, and only if you can find an honest translation rather than the one cheaper knock offs.) A little bit of knowledge will keep folks out of more trouble than hiding the truth from them normally does.

[Ragitsu]

History has shown a strong bias towards progress. Try as you might, you can't fight it.

{Scrubbed}

Nudity will eventually be seen as less offensive in the United States, both on a moral and legal level. Call it a feeling. Others? They'll call it the decay of western civilization. Sad day for them.

Funny that a post talking about progress experiences censorship. Life sure has a sense of humor.

[DomaDoma]

Twelve should be a little early for actually doing it with other people. Personally I was rummaging through people's recycle bins to find second-hand porn mags at the time... (ahem). Anyway, the average age for girls to have their first sexual experience is 13½ in this country, and I think for boys it's 14.

Wait, so Stieg Larsson was understating things? :smalleek: Here I was hoping it was a gritty thriller thing...

[Foeofthelance]

Wait, so Stieg Larsson was understating things? :smalleek: Here I was hoping it was a gritty thriller thing...

Kids will be kids, and will listen to the hormones in lieu of someone giving them better information. It's really not that hard to figure out the basics at least, but there is so much bad information, wrong information, misleading information that it all gets muddled up. Just another reason to be blunt and honest about it; it prevents all the accidents caused by experimentation.

[Avilan the Grey]

Wait, so Stieg Larsson was understating things? :smalleek: Here I was hoping it was a gritty thriller thing...

It also depends on the quality of education. We have a MUCH lower number of teenage pregnancies than the US, for example.

My personal theory (for my generation at least) is that it is helped by the fact that in third grade we saw a full detailed movie of a live birth in sex ed. Makes you think twice about unprotected sex :smallbiggrin:.

Seriously though, if the age of consent is 15 years old, doing it one year early is not that strange. It's about the same thing as doing it at 16 if the age is 18...

[Serpentine]

Interesting side-note for which I'll have a quick look for evidence: I saw a survey done with teenagers, in which they were asked what they think the average age for loss of virginity is, and when they lost theirs. The perceived age for first sexual encounters was several years lower than the actual average.
I'm willing to bet that, if you surveyed the wider population, the results would be similar.