NationStates Jolt Archive

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*

Most 14 year olds can deal with it. Some can't.

Most 14 year olds can deal with it. Some can't.


But what do you think is too young? Thats what I am asking.

Under 14.

Under 14.


Ok. Would it be ok with you on Children and or family shows like the disney channel? Should have made a better poll.

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*
Why a 13 year old would be naked on tv? There's nothing wrong with nudity but there should be a good reason for it.

Ok. Would it be ok with you on Children and or family shows like the disney channel? Should have made a better poll.

why would the disney channel show naked kids?

I think Disney and what it stands for would be better off not showing it, but it depends on the context really

why would the disney channel show naked kids?

I think Disney and what it stands for would be better off not showing it, but it depends on the context really

What she said...

Ok. Would it be ok with you on Children and or family shows like the disney channel? Should have made a better poll.
Well, no. Little kids like the Disney Channel.

I put 14.
Of course seeing a 13 year old on Disney Channel would be wrong.
I'm kinda confused. Are you talking about at what age a kid should be allowed to see naked people on TV or what age naked people should be allowed on TV?

What she said...

you're so agreeable first thing in the morning :p

Too young for whom?

Do you mean the age of the viewer of the nudity, the age of the nude, or both?

Europe has had toplessness on TV ads for decades with no ill effects. I don't know how young the restriction is for models, but Europe seems to allow kids to handle stuff like natural human bodies and wine with dinner at young ages. The US, not so much. Buncha paranoid control freaks around here.


WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?

Too young for whom?

Do you mean the age of the viewer of the nudity, the age of the nude, or both?

Europe has had toplessness on TV ads for decades with no ill effects. I don't know how young the restriction is for models, but Europe seems to allow kids to handle stuff like natural human bodies and wine with dinner at young ages. The US, not so much. Buncha paranoid control freaks around here.


WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?

In what way? You're being... random

I put sixteen, because the is the age of consent in New Zealand, and I think it corrospondes for some reason...

you're so agreeable first thing in the morning :p


:fluffle: I haven't had time to get grumpy yet

In what way? You're being... random
Yes. And?

In what way? You're being... random
Just please, start thinking of children. They disappear without the power of all of our imaginations.

Too young for whom?

Do you mean the age of the viewer of the nudity, the age of the nude, or both?

Europe has had toplessness on TV ads for decades with no ill effects. I don't know how young the restriction is for models, but Europe seems to allow kids to handle stuff like natural human bodies and wine with dinner at young ages. The US, not so much. Buncha paranoid control freaks around here.


WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
US also doesn't allow prostitution, cigarette vending machines, most drugs, and seems to actually enforce their drinking age.

:fluffle: I haven't had time to get grumpy yet

ha!.. have a coffee.. quick! :fluffle:

Too young for whom?

Do you mean the age of the viewer of the nudity, the age of the nude, or both?

Europe has had toplessness on TV ads for decades with no ill effects. I don't know how young the restriction is for models, but Europe seems to allow kids to handle stuff like natural human bodies and wine with dinner at young ages. The US, not so much. Buncha paranoid control freaks around here.


WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?


This is what I get for being too vauge. Lets see. How young is to young to protray nudity on TV? Not when a kid can see it because that is up to the parents, but what age can they be naked on TV?

Like if the Disney Channel had Miley Cyrus nude on her show would that be going far? She is 13. How far is too far anyway?

Just please, start thinking of children.

Naked? Not naked? In veils? In porn movies? In kagools as eskimos? On the antarctic? In schools? Having tea? Playing cricket?

US also doesn't allow prostitution, cigarette vending machines, most drugs, and seems to actually enforce their drinking age.


I think thats a good thing, but thats me.

This is what I get for being too vauge. Lets see. How young is to young to protray nudity on TV? Not when a kid can see it because that is up to the parents, but what age can they be naked on TV?

Like if the Disney Channel had Miley Cyrus nude on her show would that be going far? She is 13. How far is too far anyway?

Well, now, I recall seeing a film about some father recovering his infant daughter from some amazonian tribe. The movie had a scene of a naked, just-born infant in it. Is that going to far, and if so, in what sense?

ha!.. have a coffee.. quick! :fluffle:

:fluffle:
I need tea + a sip of blood.
However, the utter randomness of certain posters is getting me grumpy already.

Naked? Not naked? In veils? In porn movies? In kagools as eskimos? On the antarctic? In schools? Having tea? Playing cricket?
Yes. But exclusively those things which you've mentioned.

Well, now, I recall seeing a film about some father recovering his infant daughter from some amazonian tribe. The movie had a scene of a naked, just-born infant in it. Is that going to far, and if so, in what sense?



No. All people are born naked....

its okay to show it on TV. just no sex.

:fluffle:
I need tea + a sip of blood.
However, the utter randomness of certain posters is getting me grumpy already.

the blood thing is really off-putting ya know.. but :fluffle:

No. All people are born naked....

So it is ok as an infant.

Would it be appropriate to show a 2 year old babygirl, similar movie, being taught how to swim?

its okay to show it on TV. just no sex.
With the exception of lesbians, right?

its okay to show it on TV. just no sex.


at any age? Interesting.

the blood thing is really off-putting ya know.. but :fluffle:
Blame it on Whitby :fluffle:

Most kids from 12/13 have tv & video recorders in their rooms, I remember taping or staying up and watching every film and show in the tv guide that had the word "erotic" in it. Never did me any harm

Blame it on Whitby :fluffle:

Shame on you ;)

So it is ok as an infant.

Would it be appropriate to show a 2 year old babygirl, similar movie, being taught how to swim?



To me yes. Still a very young child, as long as it wasn't on a family or childrens show.

Shame on you ;)

Woffor? Proud to think Dracula in Whitby!

Most kids from 12/13 have tv & video recorders in their rooms, I remember taping or staying up and watching every film and show in the tv guide that had the word "erotic" in it. Never did me any harm



TV's yes, but video recorders? I assume you mean VCR.

US also doesn't allow prostitution, cigarette vending machines, most drugs, and seems to actually enforce their drinking age.
Ah yes, "seems". You've either not been to the US or not been to anyplace that's had a concentration of teenagers...especially places in the Midwest where they have very little esle to do. The phrase "turn a blind eye" is more apropos to the enforcement of drinking laws in suburban and rural areas...hell, in the cities, too, for that matter.

I can't say I approve of allowing the state to be the sole enforcer of statutes regulating the behavior and cultural consumption of children.

To me yes. Still a very young child, as long as it wasn't on a family or childrens show.


And what about 20?

I'm getting the feeling that you have failed to define the problem that you are trying to resolve.

Fuzzy logic is great for making ricecookers - but pointless for most other problems.

Woffor? Proud to think Dracula in Whitby!


Please stop spamming and stick on topic?

Woffor? Proud to think Dracula in Whitby!

... need..more... coffee.... I'm not quite with it today - bit tired.. you'll have to keep me awake

US also doesn't allow prostitution, cigarette vending machines, most drugs, and seems to actually enforce their drinking age.

And, oddly enough, has much more probblems in those areas. Though I do agree that actually enforcing laws is a good thing.

I am unclear on what the problem with prostitution is though, as long as noone is forcing the prostitute to be one.

Please stop spamming and stick on topic?


I believe I've just invited you to define your problem, and therefore your topic?

TV's yes, but video recorders? I assume you mean VCR.
DVRs like TiVO or streaming video from online sources is what I think he may mean. Though there may yet be many VCRs in childrens' rooms across this fading republic.

... need..more... coffee.... I'm not quite with it today - bit tired.. you'll have to keep me awake


An icecream on the bay... coffeeflavoured.

And what about 20?

I'm getting the feeling that you have failed to define the problem that you are trying to resolve.

Fuzzy logic is great for making ricecookers - but pointless for most other problems.


This isn't about what I think, I wanted to know what everybody else thought. I tried to make it as clear as possible. There is only so much a poll with 10 options can do.

Gaze in confusion: we are all naked under our clothes. Anyone, of any age (notwithstanding the blind) can see a naked body any time they want, simply by stripping naked and looking down. Our culture is obsessed with physical beauty-- which often leads to copius exposure of firm, naked flesh, be it in advertisements or on the beach. There's skin *everywhere,* both chiseled and jiggled, for better or worse. And as for TV-- well you can see naked (or half-naked, anyway) adults, and you can see naked babies in diaper commercials & the like, but buck-nekkid children are verboten. I don't really get it. I mean those babies in the diaper commercials-- who we've already seen naked-- are going to grow up to be children (that god forbid anyone see naked)-- and subsequently grow up to be adults (who we can then see naked again). It's neurotic, and all founded upon some constructed notion that children between X years and Y years old are these innocent, undespoiled beings that must be sheltered from knowledge and protected from something 'r other. Tell ya' what, having observed children (having even been one, once, unfortunately) they aren't that innocent. They're frikkin' diabolical. And curious as hell, still playing Doctor and "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and all of that, it's just all the neurotic adults-- wantonly casting off their own Victorian shackles but leaving them on the kids-- who are in *denial.*

And no, I'm not trying to subtly open up the field for kids to be treated as adults out of some pedophilic desire to eroticise children (because someone's bound to be tempted to point the finger and screech "j'accuse!"). I just think that people are neurotic, and that if you're covering up the kids to protect them from horny eyes then why not the babies? You don't think there's anyone out there getting off on diaper commercials? But seriously: we're all naked under our clothes. Anyone can look at a naked body whenever they want (public indecency charges notwithstanding-- though we don't charge little kids with that for running around naked on the beach, while their parents would be [unless it was a nude beach]). The neurosis needs to be dismantled and people need to get over the whole nudity hang-up. It's only so tittilating because it's taboo. Stop making an issue out of it, let people be naked if they want, let people see naked people, and people will get used to it and stop acting so *crazy.*

I believe I've just invited you to define your problem, and therefore your topic?

:( *sulks in the corner and refrains from "spaming"*

how hard is it to ignore the odd converstationalist post?

This isn't about what I think, I wanted to know what everybody else thought. I tried to make it as clear as possible. There is only so much a poll with 10 options can do.

No, you utterly haven't.

You are asking: how much is 5 + unknown factor?
Followed by several options as a possible answer.
You haven't adressed the identity of your unknown factor.

So, forget your poll, and define the problem you wish to adress.

And, oddly enough, has much more probblems in those areas. Though I do agree that actually enforcing laws is a good thing.

I am unclear on what the problem with prostitution is though, as long as noone is forcing the prostitute to be one.

Selling is legal.

Fucking is legal.

Why isn't selling fucking legal?

Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?


That's a consensual crimes question, and needs it's own thread.

I believe I've just invited you to define your problem, and therefore your topic?


I'm trying to, But you keep talking about whitby and coffee and being grumpy.:( Cut me some slack, its late. :(

:( *sulks in the corner and refrains from "spaming"*

how hard is it to ignore the odd converstationalist post?

*hugs*
Coincidentally - Cleveland radio is playing a song about me.
I love Carly for writing that song, you know?

*hugs*
Coincidentally - Cleveland radio is playing a song about me.
I love Carly for writing that song, you know?

what's that then?

I'm trying to, But you keep talking about whitby and coffee and being grumpy.:( Cut me some slack, its late. :(


I am grumpy.

You have not defined your problem at all.


How young is too young for nudity on TV?
10 poll options.

You haven't even defined whether you mean 'for being nude', or 'for looking at nude'.

Your nick might refer to Japan, but your thinking does not seem to relate to the land that enjoys Kimigayo.

*SNIP the goodness*
The neurosis needs to be dismantled and people need to get over the whole nudity hang-up. It's only so tittilating because it's taboo. Stop making an issue out of it, let people be naked if they want, let people see naked people, and people will get used to it and stop acting so *crazy.*

Agreed completely. However, the neurotic cocktail of Puritan prudery and capitalistic promiscuity is difficult to counter. I applaud your appeal to sanity, but doubt that it will ever come to pass, at least in my lifetime.

Would that it could.

No, you utterly haven't.

You are asking: how much is 5 + unknown factor?
Followed by several options as a possible answer.
You haven't adressed the identity of your unknown factor.

So, forget your poll, and define the problem you wish to adress.



Why are you being so hard on me? :( I already asked a simple question, how young is to young to be allowed naked on TV. Not see it, but be portrayed as naked on TV. I gave some examples, like the disney channel. In what way is it ok and what way is not?

What else can I say?

what's that then?
http://www.carlysimon.com/vain/vain.htm

You had one eye in the mirror as you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner, and....

*hugs* we need a new music thread today

I am grumpy.

You have not defined your problem at all.


How young is too young for nudity on TV?
10 poll options.

You haven't even defined whether you mean 'for being nude', or 'for looking at nude'.

Your nick might refer to Japan, but your thinking does not seem to relate to the land that enjoys Kimigayo.

I have defined and answered that already. Look back a bit.


Not all japanese people think alike.

Why are you being so hard on me? :( I already asked a simple question, how young is to young to be allowed naked on TV. Not see it, but be portrayed as naked on TV. I gave some examples, like the disney channel. In what way is it ok and what way is not?

What else can I say?

Hey dont be sad.. Boggy is a die-hard debater, he likes his facts, defined and tangeable, he's a softie really... just let him have his morning wake up and he'll be fine ;)

the topic is slightly vauge, but I think you've clarified it more now.

Why are you being so hard on me? :( I already asked a simple question, how young is to young to be allowed naked on TV. Not see it, but be portrayed as naked on TV. I gave some examples, like the disney channel. In what way is it ok and what way is not?

What else can I say?
He's not being hard on you. You finally answered his question (and mine, incidentally). Thank you. The question polled is now:

WHAT IS THE AGE THRESHOLD FOR SOMEONE TO APPEAR NUDE ON TV?

Clear as crystal.

http://www.carlysimon.com/vain/vain.htm

You had one eye in the mirror as you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner, and....

*hugs* we need a new music thread today

Yeah we do... good call

*hugz*.. there there, it'll all be ok ... can someone get me some blood for this guy please????

Hey dont be sad.. Boggy is a die-hard debater, he likes his facts, defined and tangeable, he's a softie really... just let him have his morning wake up and he'll be fine ;)

the topic is slightly vauge, but I think you've clarified it more now.


I try so hard, But all I get is dung. :(

Why are you being so hard on me? :( I already asked a simple question, how young is to young to be allowed naked on TV. Not see it, but be portrayed as naked on TV. I gave some examples, like the disney channel. In what way is it ok and what way is not?

What else can I say?
Oh. Well, it depends on the situation. If it's just for a story, I'd say around 17. If it's depicting something serious, a historical event for example, I'd say any age is suitable as long as it is done in good taste.

I try so hard, But all I get is dung. :(

Well, what d'ya expect? It's a debate site - people are going get argumentative :)

Oh. Well, it depends on the situation. If it's just for a story, I'd say around 17. If it's depicting something serious, a historical event for example, I'd say any age is suitable as long as it is done in good taste.


Works for me. :) Sometimes you have to so you can tell a historical event right.

IMHO, I beleive any persons of any age may be shown on television sans clothes. Anatomy is a part of what we are. However, persons under that country/state/province/municipality's age of consent, should not be shown commiting sexual acts on television, based on it's illegality.

Well, what d'ya expect? It's a debate site - people are going get argumentative :)



I should have made cookies. Oh well. Back on topic.:D

Why are you being so hard on me? :( I already asked a simple question, how young is to young to be allowed naked on TV. Not see it, but be portrayed as naked on TV. I gave some examples, like the disney channel. In what way is it ok and what way is not?

What else can I say?

You might tell us how being portrayed as naked harms a body at all.
Does it? If so - why?
And if yes - how does it relate to an age-limit?
Why should a regulatory agency be involved?

*whistles* The Rule of our Emperor ( Kimigayo )

Young lady, if you were to hand me a paper displaying the level of ( lack of ) thinking you have displayed in your opening post ( And I have taught quite a number of undergraduate courses when I was a grad student ) I would give you an 'F' straight out of hand.

IMHO, I beleive any persons of any age may be shown on television sans clothes. Anatomy is a part of what we are. However, persons under that country/state/province/municipality's age of consent, should not be shown commiting sexual acts on television, based on it's illegality.


Sex and nudity are two completely different things. You can start are new thread on the sex part alone just to do it justice.

You might tell us how being portrayed as naked harms a body at all.
Does it? If so - why?
And if yes - how does it relate to an age-limit?
Why should a regulatory agency be involved?

*whistles* The Rule of our Emperor ( Kimigayo )

Young lady, if you were to hand me a paper displaying the level of ( lack of ) thinking you have displayed in your opening post ( And I have taught quite a number of undergraduate courses when I was a grad student ) I would give you an 'F' straight out of hand.

Damn you're hard core today.......

:fluffle: ... i think i like it ;)

You might tell us how being portrayed as naked harms a body at all.
Does it? If so - why?
And if yes - how does it relate to an age-limit?
Why should a regulatory agency be involved?

*whistles* The Rule of our Emperor ( Kimigayo )

Young lady, if you were to hand me a paper displaying the level of ( lack of ) thinking you have displayed in your opening post ( And I have taught quite a number of undergraduate courses when I was a grad student ) I would give you an 'F' straight out of hand.



*Sniff* :( Can you debate my question now? I asked you, I want to know what others think, I alreasy know what i think. :(

I'm thinking that as long as everyone involved does so by their own free will, there probably shouldn't be restrictions.

That being said, I think I would feel uncomfortable if they were clearly not yet out of puberty. So I would only watch it if there was a damn good reason for naked kids to be on screen.

Damn you're hard core today.......

:fluffle: ... i think i like it ;)


Can you make him stop?:(

*Sniff* :( Can you debate my question now? I asked you, I want to know what others think, I alreasy know what i think. :(


Then my answer would be that the age is utterly irrelevant - but that the act being portrayed might matter.

Can you make him stop?:(

umm .. yes but involves a tower, a tray of ice, and some cherries

never mind

.. and no.. once he gets going he's a bit of force of nature

I think what he's after is a bit more 'meat' to you question - what is it that motivated your post? Have seen something in particular that you disagree with? Are you concerned about exploitation? Are you concerned about people perving on young kids? etc etc

umm .. yes but involves a tower, a tray of ice, and some cherries

never mind

.. and no.. once he gets going he's a bit of force of nature

I think what he's after is a bit more 'meat' to you question - what is it that motivated your post? Have seen something in particular that you disagree with? Are you concerned about exploitation? Are you concerned about people perving on young kids? etc etc


What motivated me? Curiousity and all of the above you stated.

*Sniff* :( Can you debate my question now? I asked you, I want to know what others think, I alreasy know what i think. :(
If I may, the problem is that your question doesn't really leave room for debate. You ask in a poll what the age limit, if any, should be. We tell you by saying that there shouldn't be one and opening up the complexity of what you think is a black-and-white issue.

It isn't like that, it's grey all over the place. You can't have a monolateral debate on something so complex and full of emotional and legal responses as public nudity. AND you add TV to the mix, which opens up a can of worms with regard to the FCC and the fact that an appointed (unelected) body controls what we see on TV in the US.

The one-pointed question grows many more points almost instantly. You simply cannot chide people for not staying on topic when the topic itself is vague and slippery.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A BAD PERSON, and nobody should make you feel that way. Oversimplification has a way of bringing out the debaters here in NS General, that's all. Relax and let the debate flow, you'll enjoy it more than if you try to steer it -- the exception being a full-on thread hijack, of course.

If I may, the problem is that your question doesn't really leave room for debate. You ask in a poll what the age limit, if any, should be. We tell you by saying that there shouldn't be one and opening up the complexity of what you think is a black-and-white issue.

It isn't like that, it's grey all over the place. You can't have a monolateral debate on something so complex and full of emotional and legal responses as public nudity. AND you add TV to the mix, which opens up a can of worms with regard to the FCC and the fact that an appointed (unelected) body controls what we see on TV in the US.

The one-pointed question grows many more points almost instantly. You simply cannot chide people for not staying on topic when the topic itself is vague and slippery.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A BAD PERSON, and nobody should make you feel that way. Oversimplification has a way of bringing out the debaters here in NS General, that's all. Relax and let the debate flow, you'll enjoy it more than if you try to steer it -- the exception being a full-on thread hijack, of course.


I have tried to define it the best I can. Examples and all. For the first time I will take your advice and let the debate flow and branch out, trying to control it will only lead to flaming and I want to avoid that at all costs.

Then my answer would be that the age is utterly irrelevant - but that the act being portrayed might matter.

Though one could now start arguing about consent. Can a 5 year old really make an informed decision on the consequences of his/her appearing nude on tv, and the possibilities for storing those images forever ?
Or should we argue that since nudity shouldn't matter we should not concern ourselves with that ?

1st, a few pages ago it was said that cig vending machines are illegal in the US, thats incorrect, I in fact bought cigs out of a vending machine just yesterday.

On the the actual question.

I put 15 and below is too young, but I didn't think about what the context would be when I answered.

Something national geographic-esque, nudity at any age would be ok. Some people or cultures wear little to no clothing and you would just have to understand that people are naked. Same in a show that would portray a birth or something of that nature.

However, any kind of sexual scene, or a scene of gratuitious nudity, there should be a restriction on. There is, but lets be serious here 18 (in the US) is a bit high. 16 is old enough for someone on screen to know what they are doing, and deciede if they are comfortable with it, I think anything under that there is a good chance that they are being forced/tricked/coerced into the scene by the director/parents/R Kelly. Similarily, people with diseases or syndoms which impair their thinking skills/IQ shouldn't be allowed to be portrayed nude on TV until at least 18, if ever (depending on the severity of their problem).

I know that not everybody is a perv but lets face it, you have to watch out for those people. Most people could see nude children on tv and not think of it one way or the other but what about the small percentage of people who are sick in the head.

One last thing, I said 16 because I also think that should be the age of consent instead of 18.

Though one could now start arguing about consent. Can a 5 year old really make an informed decision on the consequences of his/her appearing nude on tv, and the possibilities for storing those images forever ?
Or should we argue that since nudity shouldn't matter we should not concern ourselves with that ?
Wasn't Brooke Shields something like 11 when she filmed, and appeared nude in, Pretty Baby (a film about New Orleans prostitutes in 1917. Here's a review from IMDB:


Very disturbing reality break. Child prostitution was prevalent in North America well into the early 20th century. This gives a good insight into demise of many children during this period. We were totally devoid of child protection agencies. Although many narrow minded artistically challenged people will label this movie as child pornography it is not. There is no suggestion of condoning or promoting of such. Louis Malle used a combination of shock and graphically disturbing scenes to get his message across. To have censored this movie would have been a throw back to the dark ages for artistic freedom. Although the acting leaves something to be desired it is a must watch for those wanting to see a dramatization of the hopelessness of the lives of children in the early Southern States.

Wasn't Brooke Shields something like 11 when she filmed, and appeared nude in, Pretty Baby (a film about New Orleans prostitutes in 1917. Here's a review from IMDB:



I saw pretty baby, it was alright and I didn't have any issues with as long as they aired it at the right time.

Though one could now start arguing about consent. Can a 5 year old really make an informed decision on the consequences of his/her appearing nude on tv, and the possibilities for storing those images forever ?
Or should we argue that since nudity shouldn't matter we should not concern ourselves with that ?


I might point out that I am not an avid fan of the 'consent' philosophy.
This relates also also alos to several million gay-rights-to-marry thread.

'consent' does not by itself make an action legal.

I refer you to the case of the 2 german mutually consenting cannibals.
Consent has no bearing on criminal law - consent is a doctrine with ( limited ) applications in the field of contractual law.

I saw pretty baby, it was alright and I didn't have any issues with as long as they aired it at the right time.
See, now that's a good post. It clarifies part of how you think and shows us part of your own parameters for answering the question. It was a historical depiction, and you feel that it's okay if it's aired after kids are in bed.

Now what about those kids who aren't in bed?

See, now that's a good post. It clarifies part of how you think and shows us part of your own parameters for answering the question. It was a historical depiction, and you feel that it's okay if it's aired after kids are in bed.

Now what about those kids who aren't in bed?



I say at the right time because I think it's to mature for people under 13. I don't personally think they should be allowed to see, But I guess it's up to the parents to decide. But movies like that should be held until 10pm or later, but thats just me.

'consent' does not by itself make an action legal.

I refer you to the case of the 2 german mutually consenting cannibals.

While I do not know the specific case, I personally have no problem with someone eating someone else if the food has indicated to have no objections over a prolonged period of time and is an adult.

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.I'd say it depend a lot on the sort of nudity. I mean, children playing on the beach in the heat of summer, they can walk around naked untill they're 6-ish or so before anyone cares, or at least that used to be the case.. To portray that as such on TV (i.e focussing on children playing at the beach, rather than being naked at the beach) therefore shouldn't be a problem either.
And consider a documentary on the devellopment of the human body. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with people being shown in their birthday suit at any age in that context, since it's functional. Context is very important.
Of course it also matters what sort of nudity you're talking about. Full frontal nudity is more problematic than a hind view. And there's always the option of strategically placing objects to obstruct a full view.

I suppose what it comes down to is that, certainly it's a sensitive subject in our culture, but it's not offlimits a priori. Still, because it's so sensitive it's best avoided unless there's very good reason not to avoid it.

While I do not know the specific case, I personally have no problem with someone eating someone else if the food has indicated to have no objections over a prolonged period of time and is an adult.


How about a contract to kill a willing victim, someone who wants to commit suicide but wants help for it?
Doctor Kevorkian?

While I do not know the specific case, I personally have no problem with someone eating someone else if the food has indicated to have no objections over a prolonged period of time and is an adult.


Um. Nevermind. I just can't understand that...


Its 3am and I am off.

This age is individual, and can't be set by voting or researches. Parents should decide about that, because they know their children best.

I say at the right time because I think it's to mature for people under 13. I don't personally think they should be allowed to see, But I guess it's up to the parents to decide. But movies like that should be held until 10pm or later, but thats just me.
Agreed, but 10pm is no guarantee that kids won't see it.

How about a contract to kill a willing victim, someone who wants to commit suicide but wants help for it?
Doctor Kevorkian?
No problem with that either. I respect peoples "right to die" and do not believe in an "obligation to remain alive against ones will", even though I often disapprove of the motives and methods of people that kill themselves. But it is their life, not mine.

What does maturity have to do with naked people on TV???

Nudity is ok for all ages. Or did your parents were dressed around you at all times when you were small?
Sexual images are different, though. I'd say around 12-14 would be the appropriate age for that.

No problem with that either. I respect peoples "right to die" and do not believe in an "obligation to remain alive against ones will", even though I often disapprove of the motives and methods of people that kill themselves. But it is their life, not mine.

Let's assume that you are a 17 year old girl.
You're ill ( cancer ) and you wish to leave a good inheritance to your 12 year old baby-sister who has a similar-but-curable-tumor.

You and I make a contract, according to which I will snuff your life out, in gory detail, on video - for a huge load of money, to be paid to your baby sister.

Do you think our contract should be honoured by society?

Let's assume that you are a 17 year old girl.
You're ill ( cancer ) and you wish to leave a good inheritance to your 12 year old baby-sister who has a similar-but-curable-tumor.

You and I make a contract, according to which I will snuff your life out, in gory detail, on video - for a huge load of money, to be paid to your baby sister.

Do you think our contract should be honoured by society?
Seeing as how 12 and 17 are too young to enter into legal contracts, my answer would be no.

Seeing as how 12 and 17 are too young to enter into legal contracts, my answer would be no.


And now you are 18. Same question.

Coincidentally, your assertion that a 17 year old cannot enter a contractual agreement is incorrect. If it were true, no 17 year old could hold a job, or even agree to the TOS of this forum.

Let's assume that you are a 17 year old girl.
You're ill ( cancer ) and you wish to leave a good inheritance to your 12 year old baby-sister who has a similar-but-curable-tumor.

You and I make a contract, according to which I will snuff your life out, in gory detail, on video - for a huge load of money, to be paid to your baby sister.

Do you think our contract should be honoured by society?

I somewhat disagree with the 17-year old part - but make it 21, and I say yes.
Sidenote: should we do this in a a seperate thread ?

I somewhat disagree with the 17-year old part - but make it 21, and I say yes.
Sidenote: should we do this in a a seperate thread ?

I doubt we should make it a sidenote, it wont mater.

I've had ample opportunity to observe that most NSians will abandon principle for the sake of issue.
Few will even know how principle and issue differ.
Being pro or anti gay rights is not a principle, but it is an issue.
Ditto for paedophilia.
Or theft for that matter.

As I have indicated before, I think that what is portrayed ( the object of the contract ) matters a darned lot more than the age of the portrayer. Which is such a terrible give-away in the context of this thread.

Coincidentally, your assertion that a 17 year old cannot enter a contractual agreement is incorrect. If it were true, no 17 year old could hold a job, or even agree to the TOS of this forum.I think parental consent (implicit or explicit) is necessary for the contract to be legal.
TOS is an entirely dubious matter even aside from that. There's no real evidence any agreement exists, no signature or anything of the kind. And it's a point of great contention afaik. Even my 2 year old nephew could 'agree' to the TOS of this forum. True, he'd need a ghostwriter as he's not literate yet, but who's to know?

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*
I don't think it's acceptable for anyone under the age of 18 to appear naked on television. The simple reason is why do they need to be? It seems to be a recipe for exploitation.

Any age is ok. Nudity isnt harming anyone.

The poll is a bit ambiguous. do you mean how young is too young to be naked on tv, or to see naked people on tv? No one under 16 should be naked on the telly, (or 18 in the US I suppose), but I dont think there is any harm in kids seeing nudity on tv, its only an issue because we make it one, theres nothing intrinsically dirty about a naked person and if we didnt make such a fuss it would be better.

I don't think it's acceptable for anyone under the age of 18 to appear naked on television. The simple reason is why do they need to be? It seems to be a recipe for exploitation.Why does anything need to be on TV, really..
It can be functional in certain contexts. As has been mentioned, certain documentaries, e.g. about foreign 'less civilized' cultures where children naturally run around naked up to a certain age. Or documentaries on the devellopment of the human body. Historically factual portrayal of events migth call for it, be it as documentary of historical drama.
etc.

Any age for simple nudity, but for sexual situations, I would say that sixteen is my limit, which is why I voted sixteen, because I imagine that's what's implied in this topic.

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*
depends entirely on how it's done. nudity that is employed to sexualise the individual is obviously wrong for someone below the age of consent but nudity doesn't have to be sexual. whether it's necessary or not is another matter - the only scenario i can think of where nudity wouldn't seem out of place or unnecessary is maybe a beach scene seeing as little kids frequently run about nude on the beach.

And now you are 18. Same question.

Hmm.. personally I would prefer it if the person in question has already left school and has had some opportunities to make their own decisions (which includes going to university). But that is a personal preference.

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*
It horrifies me that this is even a question, and that I live in a society that is so deeply sick that the human body is considered something that must be hidden from children.

In a healthy, sane world, a bared bum wouldn't be any more shocking than a bared arm. Seeing a set of genitals wouldn't freak people out any more than seeing an exposed nose. The female breast would not shock and terrify millions, any more than the male breast does.

But it's a crazy, fucked up, prudish world out there.

It horrifies me that this is even a question, and that I live in a society that is so deeply sick that the human body is considered something that must be hidden from children.

In a healthy, sane world, a bared bum wouldn't be any more shocking than a bared arm. Seeing a set of genitals wouldn't freak people out any more than seeing an exposed nose. The female breast would not shock and terrify millions, any more than the male breast does.

But it's a crazy, fucked up, prudish world out there.
Even without hte Prudishness it is 'fucked up' some would feel the prudishenns is needed to keep the crazies from 'getting off'.

Even without hte Prudishness it is 'fucked up' some would feel the prudishenns is needed to keep the crazies from 'getting off'.
There are crazies who masturbate to shoe commercials. Crazy people who want to get off are going to find ways to get off, and I don't see any reason why we should imposed fucked up and shame-based sexual beliefs on our children in some misguided effort to stop crazy people from getting off.

It horrifies me that this is even a question, and that I live in a society that is so deeply sick that the human body is considered something that must be hidden from children.The question was more when kids could be shown naked on TV, not when they can see nudity on TV.

Most 14 year olds can deal with it. Some can't.
FWIW in The Man In The Moon, pretty solid movie, perhaps notable for introducing Reese Witherspoon, there's a swimming hole scene where the impression of nudity is conveyed. (I would assume her being something like 14 she would be wearing one of those skin colored suits for just such an emergency.) I think that's PG which is almost certainly related other circumstances in the movie.

The question was more when kids could be shown naked on TV, not when they can see nudity on TV.
My answer is no different. It is a sign of how deeply sick and twisted our society is, that the nude human body is sexualized even when the human in question is a child. Deeply goddam disturbing.

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*


There is little nudity available on network TV in the US. I doubt strongly that a flash of buttock is going to destroy a young person's mind, and this is about all that is allowed on network TV in the US, and usually later (10 o'clock timeslot).

I doubt whether there would ever be nudity of 13 year olds shown on the Disney channel.

Cable -- you gets what you pays for. If you're watching HBO or other movie channels, you'll come across it. If you're watching the Sopranos or made for cbale shows, you'll find it. If you don't want to see it, don't buy it. If you don't want your kids to see it, block those channels and/or supervise them.

I would venture to guess most kids by age nine have discovered National Geographic or anatomy books in their library; seeing a nude body is not the end of the world. There is, however, a VERY good reason for rating systems and for the prohibition of seeing porn before you're an adult -- I would not want my kids to see a woman lying with her crotch spread open for the world to see -- there is context as well as content in that situation.

There are crazies who masturbate to shoe commercials. Crazy people who want to get off are going to find ways to get off, and I don't see any reason why we should imposed fucked up and shame-based sexual beliefs on our children in some misguided effort to stop crazy people from getting off.
Lol, shoe chemicals really? nifty.
I guess we can only hope/pray/do something about it then, too bad the largest organisations with the numbers to do something about it are religious.

US also doesn't allow prostitution

One word: NEVADA.

This is what I get for being too vauge. Lets see. How young is to young to protray nudity on TV? Not when a kid can see it because that is up to the parents, but what age can they be naked on TV?

Like if the Disney Channel had Miley Cyrus nude on her show would that be going far? She is 13. How far is too far anyway?

Minors should not be nude on TV. There's no need for it.

To me yes. Still a very young child, as long as it wasn't on a family or childrens show.

Why would you object to a nude two year old being taught to swim?

Do you object to nude two year olds getting their diapers changed?

Do you object to nude two year olds running around the house naked?

DVRs like TiVO or streaming video from online sources is what I think he may mean. Though there may yet be many VCRs in childrens' rooms across this fading republic.

Just for general info: V.C.R. = video cassette recorder.

Minors should not be nude on TV. There's no need for it.
A just born baby with pants on looks funny.
Someone stepping out of a bathtub or under a shower fully dressed looks funny.
Small children (< 5) sometimes walk around naked. Why avoid showing that if it is fitting to the storyline ?

A just born baby with pants on looks funny.
Someone stepping out of a bathtub or under a shower fully dressed looks funny.
Small children (< 5) sometimes walk around naked. Why avoid showing that if it is fitting to the storyline ?
Seriously. People are naked all the damn time, so what's with the freak-out? The only reason nudity is such a big stink is because nobody ever shows nakedness in non-sexual contexts, so people come to believe that "naked person" equates to "adult situations." Fuck that noise.

looking at the ages from 9 - 18
from 9 to 14 is acceptable to view nudity.
from 15 to 18, not so sure... Them youngun's are too hormonal...


honestly though, who cares! its a naked body. If its treated matter of factly, and TV does not only show "hollywood" bodies, but people of all ages and all builds, then its fine by me.

What a ridiculous thread/poll. At least if you're going to run a thread with such ludicrous content, put some thought into it.

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*
if it's against the law for them to consent to sex, it's probably too young.

I have a problem though with the naked baby commercials, babies are running around naked without thier consent. :( I keep wondering when the line is for "child porn" if I see a 3 year old on TV naked, but a 4 year old is not okay, what's the deal?

I don't have any of the "naked baby pictures" of my girls though either, I figure if they want naked pics of themselves around they can go to playboy as college freshmen like normal people. ;)

if it's against the law for them to consent to sex, it's probably too young.

I have a problem though with the naked baby commercials, babies are running around naked without thier consent. :( I keep wondering when the line is for "child porn" if I see a 3 year old on TV naked, but a 4 year old is not okay, what's the deal?

I don't have any of the "naked baby pictures" of my girls though either, I figure if they want naked pics of themselves around they can go to playboy as college freshmen like normal people. ;)

I think there's a significant difference between naken babies on tele in a general context - like a nappy add, or a baby lotion add or something - they're not depicted in a sexual nature, and the parents would have had to consent on their behalf.

I see your point, but I think you're safe from the child porn police

Holy Christ, it's a body.
Not to sound like a tree-hugger but;
You people have been mindlessly brainwashed by social propaganda.

There is nothing wrong with nudity.
What is so wrong with it?
Oh wow, a person is naked, get over it, we wear clothes for social and health reasons - that doesn't mean clothes are a part of our bodies.

Sex is a whole different story.
But just nudity?
I would say under thirteen only because by that age most people should know how to react if their parents are wrongfully forcing them into situations for their own greed.

If an infant can feed on boobies, he/she can watch it on TV.

There is nothing wrong with nudity.
What is so wrong with it?

It seems that you and I both have not eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, since I do not know either.

Which raises the question: why are we not in paradise ?

If an infant can feed on boobies, he/she can watch it on TV.


People can suckle loooong before they can use their eyes.

People can suckle loooong before they can use their eyes.

...........................................................

It seems that you and I both have not eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, since I do not know either.

Which raises the question: why are we not in paradise ?

Because animals have this terrible thing called self-esteem.

People can suckle loooong before they can use their eyes.

and they grow out of either!

I think there's a significant difference between naken babies on tele in a general context - like a nappy add, or a baby lotion add or something - they're not depicted in a sexual nature, and the parents would have had to consent on their behalf.

I see your point, but I think you're safe from the child porn police
there is a law here though that a child can not be naked in film or on the internet or in printed pictures that are distributed, whether the subject of the media is sexual in nature or not. If someone had a picture of a naked 6 year old, passing it around, they would get arrested, but we have commercials on TV here (local ones) with a 3 year old running around butt naked, and that's okay, I hear from a police officer friend that if the child in the commercial was 6 months older it would be a felony.

I wonder why the line is drawn there, he says "a 4 year old can not consent to the photos" but a 3 year old can?:confused:

whether or not "naked baby pictures" are against the law or not, I still would not take them of my children. I would not want naked pictures of me taken without my consent and so I don't do that to my kids.

and they grow out of either!

*licks lips* sure?

*licks lips* sure?

i meant the 'dont'... never mind.. typo

i meant the 'dont'... never mind.. typo

:fluffle:

:fluffle:
:fluffle:

:fluffle:
:fluffle:
superior gamer! :eek:

:fluffle:
superior gamer! :eek!

hehe.. i've been upgraded...

hehe.. i've been upgraded...

I am now a Spamqueen Advisor! YaY

I am now a Spamqueen Advisor! YaY

I'm surprised that people who debate about homosexuality dont go nuts when they're a bloke with 'spamqueen' or 'cabbage patch girl' on their handle

They're always so passionet about being straight and being perceived in a certain way.. i giggle

I think it depends on the nature of the show, etc. 12 year olds shouldnt be walking around naked on the disney channel unless there is some point to it. And what could be the point? A brief image of a 10 or 12 year old taking off their clothes to go skinny dipping - well, assuming it relates to the plot, why not. Now if they focus on the kid naked, well thats just creepy.

I voted age 15 cuz the most logical reason for someone to be naked in TV or a movie is because there is a sex scene. And while it is indisputable that 12 year olds do have sex, I wouldnt wanna see the kind of movie or show that would glorify it.

I'm surprised that people who debate about homosexuality dont go nuts when they're a bloke with 'spamqueen' or 'cabbage patch girl' on their handle

They're always so passionet about being straight and being perceived in a certain way.. i giggle


I want to be a muppet-owner, and watch the PETA-freaks go ballistic.
:fluffle:

I want to be a muppet-owner, and watch the PETA-freaks go ballistic.
:fluffle:
I want to queen of the posts.. I'm a queen in my nation, so why not
:fluffle:

17 is too young IMO; when people reach 18 they are expected to be able to make choices (even if those choices are likely to turn out harmful) and take responsability for their consequences, so I think that's the minimum age to allow someone to make such a choice.

The real problem here is that people assume that nudity = sexual. Without that assumption, any worry about who is or is not nude on TV simply falls apart. There is no age at which a child is necessarily going to be harmed by seeing nudity or by being seen nude. There is nothing inherently wrong with the human body. You certainly don't need gratuitious nudity, but if it fits the plot, what's the problem?

I find it absolutely hilarious that no one has a problem with a 12 year old acting in a movie where people are being blown up, shot at, etc., but if there's a naked person in the movie for whatever reason, the rating shoots up and people get all up in arms.

Meanwhile, if we were to simply look at societal trends, there would be more of a biphasic distribution. Generally, it is seen as being perfectly acceptable for infants and toddlers to run around naked. As they get older, it somehow gets "dirty" and they are supposed to cover up. Then, they can be nude in art again. Seriously people, does any of this actually make sense without the idiotic assumption that nudity = sex?

How young is too young for people to be naked on TV and when is nudity ok or not on TV? Is it Ok to have 13 year olds naked on the Disney Channel or is that going too far? I am honestly curious.


*Poll Coming*
I was ready for it when I was 8.

The real problem here is that people assume that nudity = sexual. Without that assumption, any worry about who is or is not nude on TV simply falls apart. There is no age at which a child is necessarily going to be harmed by seeing nudity or by being seen nude. There is nothing inherently wrong with the human body. You certainly don't need gratuitious nudity, but if it fits the plot, what's the problem?

I find it absolutely hilarious that no one has a problem with a 12 year old acting in a movie where people are being blown up, shot at, etc., but if there's a naked person in the movie for whatever reason, the rating shoots up and people get all up in arms.

Meanwhile, if we were to simply look at societal trends, there would be more of a biphasic distribution. Generally, it is seen as being perfectly acceptable for infants and toddlers to run around naked. As they get older, it somehow gets "dirty" and they are supposed to cover up. Then, they can be nude in art again. Seriously people, does any of this actually make sense without the idiotic assumption that nudity = sex?

Agreed.

If we're just talking about nudity, why need there be any age restriction at all?