We are -so- weird, as a culture.
So I’m using images.google.com to look up a picture of Naomi Watts (I had no idea who she was), and it strikes me that we flip out if you can see the color of a girl’s nipples, but we’re absolutely fine with the exact shape and texture being visible. I mean, if a thin silk dress is so revealing you can see the bumps on a girl’s areola, that’s acceptable, but whoa, no fully uncovered nipple, that means SEX is right around the corner!
I’m not the first person (or the thousandth) to say we have an asinine set of moral standards, as a whole.
So true! And damn, I have seen many a nipple on television shows.
Somehow, I got logged out. Who are “we”?
We as determined by the kind of photos that are and are not acceptable in your everyday publication, for instance, and the kind of clothing that will elicit a higher rating on a film, or the content of scenes cut out for showing on TV, versus those that pass.
I think you’re talking about money, not morals.
You’re gonna lay out a line like that and not explain? Money follows morals – not the morals of those running the business, but those buying the product.
Besides, “we have an asinine set of money standards” just sounds weird, when speaking of nipples.
We do have an asinine set of money standards.
Especially when it comes to nipples!
Anyway.
If you’re talking about every single publication, every media outlet, every entertainment standard you can think of, from movies to music to fashion to television to video games, you’re making it awfully convenient for yourself to lump all these varied moral sets together and calling it “culture.”
Whose culture? America’s? Huh?
I hate when google erases my LJ comment.
While mixing every entertainment medium that specializes in every subculture ever together is going to give you the moral equivalent of a mud pie, consider that nearly every city and town has a local newspaper or three and a local tv station or three.
Their cumulative judgments on what is okay to air and what is not okay may vary some for, say, the SF Times vs the NY times, they’re still surprisingly uniform. And those verdicts of acceptability may not be the same standards any one of us would choose on our own, but they are our defacto standards. The Automotive News will never show a nipple, and Vanity Fair and art magazines clearly have a more permissive standard, but it’s the media we consume every day that shows us what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ according to our culture.
As I see it. :)
Wait, I’m confused… isn’t healthy sexuality… bad? Isn’t it unnatural to be turned on by anything other than the nine square inches of skin that is Not Okay to be shown on public TV? My God, next you’re going to be saying that mammary glands have some function other than luring impressionable young males into either a state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship or determining who is not to be listened to in a civilized society…
What are you, some kind of Communist? Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of science fiction fandom?
LOL You are wonderful!
I find it SO weird that they only blur the nipples on surgery shows. I mean, they’ll let you see the whole boob, but they’ll blur that stupid nipple. And like, these are boobs in TRAUMA; boobs that are getting cut open and having implants shoved mercilessly inside, and they still blur that fucking nipple. Like, what, I’m going to be so turned on if I see nipple? On a program about SURGERY? HUH? THE BOOBIE IS BLOODY.
They also blur just the nipples on THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR. I mean, I can see the damn underboob and all, but apparently an unblurred nipple might turn me into a rapist.
it is, after all, all about your nipples. and now, also skippy’s.
Well, we have to draw the line somewhere. :P
Our Puritan forebears are still looking down on us. (Take that any way you like.)