Recent topfreedom on TV

Macanudist · #1 10-24-2003, 04:03 AM

I've noticed something on a couple of popular shows recently that I hope to be the start of a trend. A few months ago on "CSI" they were examining a female body and briefly showed her bare breasts. On last night's "ER" the doctors were examining an elderly lady having some sort of trauma. In the process they very realistically removed her shirt and bra to attach leads. For a few seconds I had to wonder if what I was seeing was real but it was.

Everyone is familiar with the "National Geographic" specials or the Discover Channel programs about tribes which show totally nude women and men. But these were mainstream shows employing nudity, albeit just female breasts, but I find it encouraging. Does anyone have other examples of this? Care to share your opinion of these advances?

Macanudist · #2 10-24-2003, 04:03 AM

I've noticed something on a couple of popular shows recently that I hope to be the start of a trend. A few months ago on "CSI" they were examining a female body and briefly showed her bare breasts. On last night's "ER" the doctors were examining an elderly lady having some sort of trauma. In the process they very realistically removed her shirt and bra to attach leads. For a few seconds I had to wonder if what I was seeing was real but it was.

Everyone is familiar with the "National Geographic" specials or the Discover Channel programs about tribes which show totally nude women and men. But these were mainstream shows employing nudity, albeit just female breasts, but I find it encouraging. Does anyone have other examples of this? Care to share your opinion of these advances?

nudeM · #3 10-24-2003, 07:05 AM

We watch a show that focuses on the emergency rooms thoughout the country. This show blurrs out the genitals on all of the subjects, but at times, they will show breasts. They even show operations being done, from the start to finish. It's weird that they show the blood and guts of patients, yet, go out of their way to blurr the genitals.

Also, speaking of National Geographic, I have seen episodes of tribes where all members were nude, yes, even the men. This one particular tribe showed the men with some sort of ribbon or cloth tied around their penis'. Evidently, after the males reach a certain age or after they go through a ceremony, they are allowed to wear this piece.

Just an observance I have noticed on how much nudity has come and how much left there is still to do when it comes to the mainstream TV.

#4 10-24-2003, 07:39 AM

Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

#5 10-24-2003, 07:58 AM

"Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity."

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] Too right. In films and TV programmes we know they're not real. But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Stu

BrianM · #6 10-24-2003, 09:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb]But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Stu [/qb]

Stu, I know you are a troll here, so I hate to reply to your non-sense, but I think you just have a very filthy mind.

#7 10-24-2003, 10:13 AM

Brian

A troll is someone who posts just to spark an argument. I believe what I say and engage in debate issues with others here, and have done so regularly for nearly a year. Hardly the behaviour of a troll, is it?

And why should there be anything filthy about my mind just because I disapprove of actors and actresses exposing their naked bodies before the world?

Please don't feel that you hav eto answer these points - after all, why reply to a troll?

Stu

sawdust · #8 10-24-2003, 10:45 AM

[quote]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] Brian

"A troll is someone who posts just to spark an argument. I believe what I say and engage in debate issues with others here, and have done so regularly for nearly a year."

I've never heard the term TROLL used to identify an argumentative person before, but accepting this as a new definition, Stu most certainly fits the bill. The fact that he has been prevoking arguments for over a year only makes him and Old Troll. I pointed out some time ago that we could always be sure that nomatter which way the tide was flowing, Stu would be swimming in the opposite direction. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

All that said, isen't this is what these postings are all about, the civil exchange of different points of view. I don't have to like or agree with Stu's point of view. Indeed I find sometimes humor in some of the positions he takes. That though is his right as a poster. So let him rant and rave. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Thanks for your time, Sawdust

Jochanaan · #9 10-24-2003, 10:49 AM

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb] "Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity."

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] Too right. In films and TV programmes we know they're not real.

Stu [/qb]

Do we? It's my understanding that the shows to which nudeM referred were live operations, not staged.

quote:
[qb]But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [/qb]

Perhaps if it became more commonplace, fewer people would see it so. This is the kind of nudity that I and many others would like to see more often on small and big screens: non-sexual, non-glamorous, everyday nakedness. Still, I respect your opinion while not sharing it.

BrianM · #10 10-24-2003, 11:09 AM

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb] Brian

A troll is someone who posts just to spark an argument. I believe what I say and engage in debate issues with others here, and have done so regularly for nearly a year. Hardly the behaviour of a troll, is it?

And why should there be anything filthy about my mind just because I disapprove of actors and actresses exposing their naked bodies before the world?

Please don't feel that you hav eto answer these points - after all, why reply to a troll?

Stu [/qb]

OK, I am somewhat self diagnosed as psycohotic, so I will reply to a troll....ocassionally. While I have my own views on several subjects, I like to think of these forums as a means to exchange ideas, sharing and learning from others. News forums have actually been a way that I have shared my ideas, which is also a springboard to test your own ideas by getting logical feedback on your views. Such as..."I think nudity is wrong, and is taught as bad in religion." as an opinion or view, with an opposing argument of "well, actually, there is very little if any reference to simple nudity as bad in the Judeo-Christian text, however conservative teachings in the latter centuries has covered up nudity in a poor attempt to control promiscuity". Then a person with a one sided opinion, realized that there may be merit in what was presented, since they shed some facts on the argument.
However, while in your case, you came to this forum with a "position" on nudity. Given that position I cannot understand why you spend so much time here unless you are not actually a believer in the firm opinions you promote, but enjoy playing the "devil's advocate", thus "sparking an argument".
As far a having a filthy mind, your automatic association of skin with filth is my answer. If your mind were clean, then you would view a naked body on TV as a body, without adornment or protection from the elements and possibly chilly unless in a warm climate or in the sun. Is it "necessary", perhaps not, but given that, is any visual represention in the form of TV necessary, or would radio suffice for entertainment and news. But is the sound of a voice really necessary, since we could just read everthing we need for entertainment and news. Or perhaps reading is too far out, and we should just sit alone and meditate (clothed of course) and await spiritial entertainment and guidance.