October 25, 2003

Sex on TV

After spending most of the last 24-hours in a Rush (the band, not the idiot)-induced haze (::ahhhhhh!:: and good haze it is!) I'm finally returning to the land of the non-Canadian power trios and decided to catch up on all the TV shows I've been putting off, starting with ER.

Something threw me for a bit of a loop, though - namely, a pair of naked, on-camera, human, female breasts. Last I heard, those were a no-no on broadcast TV - unless, of course, the show is a nature documetary on PBS. Now, I've never quite understood why, exactly, it was ok to show the nakes breasts of women in tribal Africa but not the breasts of white women in America, but it was one of those things I just sort of accepted as being the one exception to the rule.

This week's ER, however, apparently decided that there's a second exception to the rule. If the breasts are over a certain age, it seems, they're safe to show. The woman who's topless shot was included in the show is probably around 75 or so. Interestingly, she, like the African women are black - and, in both cases, the breasts in question are saggy and what most people would consider unattractive.

So, what, exactly, is the rule, then? Are just perky, standard-issue "sexy" breasts unviewable, but it's ok to show any that "no one" would find attractive? There's something about that kind of reasoning that just seem off. I can't imagine that it would be considered ok to show a 75-year-old man's penis on a prime-time TV show - probably because there's no real standard of beauty for penises.

Honestly, I'm not sure why this bugs me, but it seems like the standards are anything but standard. It's not "no sex organs can be shown on broadcast TV", but "no sex organs, except unattractive female breasts, can be shown on TV" - on the apparent theory that showing either male or attractive female genitalia would somehow cause a erosion of our morals and values. At the same time, however, they seem to try and get as close as they can to showing attractive breasts (I'm expecting that soon all that will be required as a "shirt" will be a couple strategically placed Band-Aids), and they also like to show as much sexual activity as possible, without exposing any of the forbidden body parts.
There's no rhyme or reason to it.

If anyone understand what the deal is, would you be willing to explain it to me?

Posted by thorswitch at October 25, 2003 12:23 AM | TrackBack


Comments

I'm not sure that I would want any part of my 55 year old body exposed on television, although my tush is still fairly firm from snowboarding. So I don't understand why it's acceptible to show sagging breasts and flaccid penises as opposed to the more attractive forms of these organs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is television.

Posted by: Christopher Key at October 25, 2003 02:10 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?