Images of the naked human form are routinely covered up but images of blood splattered corpses (animal and human) are a 'dime a dozen'
For instance...when Janet jackson exposed a breast at the superbowl a couple of years ago, the whole nation seemed to have an apoplectic episode with the indignity of it all. However the routine showing of murdered dead bodies is all over the place...
What's more natural? and normal?
2007-11-23 08:39:24 · 12 answers · asked by Mr Tripod 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
As an Englishman, when visiting the US I was shocked to see "Die Hard" being shown on a Sunday afternoon - in England it couldn't be shown before 9pm. It wasn't the "normal" version, either, but the version that was banned and then cut in England because it was too violent.
What surprised me even more was that they allowed all that mindless violence to be shown but "beeped" out the swearing...talk about having your priorities all wrong.
2007-11-23 09:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by BOOBOO 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We're a nation completely desensitized to violence so it seems totally normal, which is kind of sad. People got upset over the Janet Jackson thing because there were kids watching and its supposed to be family friendly, but in a few years , they'll just have naked, dead bodies all over the place.
2007-11-23 16:45:01 · answer #2 · answered by Dani 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm afraid to respond solely upon the basis of your user name, but **cringe**...I agree. The MPAA will give a movie an R rating if it shows full frontal female nudity, but full frontal male nudity earns an NC17. Is it because the film industry will lose too much money if their movies with female nudity are given an NC17, so the board somehow decides that its somehow less offensive, provocative, whatever, than male nudity? It's all about the money.
2007-11-23 16:46:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The image of Janet was "all over the place" also... as are much more graphic "naked human form" images...
2007-11-23 16:46:01 · answer #4 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the same the world over, God forbid there nudity on the TV, but decapitations and mangled bodies are OK......and I am just talking about the news channels and they are on 24 hours a day and broadcast before any "Watershed" comes into force.
Censors - hypocrites the lot of 'em.
2007-11-23 16:45:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anchor Cranker 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It boils down to this:
-"Daddy why is that man shooting that other man?"
-"Well son that man with a gun is cop and the other guy is a bad man"
Easy huh? Now later on in the film
-"Daddy why is he sucking on that woman's boobies like my baby sister?
- "Errr son, he likes her very much"
-"But why is he pretending to be a baby?"
-"Time for bed son"
-"I'm not tired daddy"
-"BED!"
Violence is easy to explain for many people but they get uncomfortable explaining sexual behviour to kids. The main reason so many complained about Janet's nipple was having to explain it to their kids.
I think its twisted too.
2007-11-23 16:54:44 · answer #6 · answered by godron_wookie 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
censer ship , its boll ox , what ever happened to freedom of speech , i mean what if i had turret's and i wanted to **** , **** reply to a **** ing
answer on hear , would that be my fault or would i just get censored for not being under stud , sorry for swearing by the ******* way xxx
2007-11-23 16:46:06 · answer #7 · answered by El Diablo King Of Kings 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well i think the answer to your question is for each individual to decide personally im boobs all the way :o)
2007-11-23 16:42:22 · answer #8 · answered by jessicacalvey 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are right, somehting has gone wrong there, rethinking is needed, there are some disturbing things shown.
2007-11-23 16:46:50 · answer #9 · answered by nonoodles74 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you serious? whats normal in america? JUST WHAT THE HELL IS NORMAL IN AMERICA?? i'd have to go with the whole blud and guts thing. lol
2007-11-23 16:47:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋