I couldn't disagree with you more. I think that the {moral gaurdians} that demand the ratings for showing breasts are the ones making a mountain of a molehill, and you are one of those nasty people.
The exposure of breasts alone doesn't make it sexual. They are not genitals. They're main biological function is breastfeeding, which all those children watching TV have hopefully done before. Male breasts and female breasts are really the same things in different sizes.
The sight of breasts isn't harmful to children if it isn't in a bad context. The contrary was a belief started by the puritans, who believed that children would get sexual-minded at a young age if they saw female breasts. Now it is known that this isn't true (by a few people who know the facts). When a child sees a female nipple, they don't view it as a sexual thing unless if they were taught to. The reason that they are viewed so strongly sexual by adults in our society is because they are rarely seen outside a private or sexual context, along with society's unhealthy decision to sexualize them. Believe me, it's not the people who are exposed to nudity during childhood that commit sexual crime when they grow up.
There are some places in Europe where woman are topless on public beaches, just as men would be in that setting. Even more so in Africa, where there are villages where women spend most of their time topless. The children in these places aren't harmed, and the straight men are much more relaxed about it. Female nipples don't need to be private parts as genitals are, and men and women should have equal rights and opportunity at this point in time. I am a supporter of a movement called topfreedom, seeking to allow women to bare breasts in places where men can.
So I think it is terribly stupid to require people to be 17 years old (The requirement to watch R-rated films at theatres) to watch a movie that has bare breasts in it, especially when it is non-sexual. Male breasts are already allowed in G or PG movies, sometimes even in a sexual context. I believe that this is a ridiculous part of media censorship that really needs to change.
Hey, genius, women are not treated like men are. We are constantly objectified in media (the bigger the boobs, the more perverted people get). Also, welcome to the real world where SOME OF US really don't want/need a stranger's private parts on our screens.
wow, there's some epic Values Dissonance going on here between North American and European tropers. North America: "the world will end if a female nipple is exposed in public!" Europe =- "WTF?"
Male, early sixties, Cranky old fart, at least two decades behind. So you have been warned. Functionally illiterate in several languages.
The Master Of Fright & A Demon Of Light
Why is this even a thing in the first place? Doed the vast majority of men have mommy issues?
~ * Bleh * ~ (Looking for a russian-speaker to consult about names and words for a thing)
Skyhawk 431
This is probably the single most biased page on this entire website.
Hide / Show Replies
What do you mean, "biased"? Elaborate.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
I think Skyhawk431 is saying that the page is pretty much whining about how nipples can't be shown without getting a high rating. The article is pretty much telling the reader, "This should not be taboo! You should hate that it is!"
I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!
Especially the line about how seeing a nipple would damage a child's delicate psyche. Whoever said that? Lots of children have seen bare breasts in art or even watching a sibling breast feed. The problem with showing it on television (like the Janet Jackson brouhaha) or in movies is that in these contexts the frontal nudity is done for fanservice and objectifying the woman. And it is very damaging to teach children that women are there to be sex objects.
Move confidently in the direction of your dreams.
The sight of a female nipple would not teach objectification of women to children, unless if it is shown in a clearly sexual way. What will, is to teach children that female breasts are sexual parts, and that they must be kept private. Female breasts are really just larger versions of male breasts. I didn't see that Janet Jackson thing, but I don't think it was really too sexual, but certainly not nearly enough for what it deserved. Just societies mindset. I am an advocate for a movement called topfreedom, seeking to allow women to bare breasts wherever men can. Most of the movement hasn't gone into media censorship much, but I want to change that too.
Seeing this is not The Other Wiki I don't see how being biased is a problem.
The desire to see boobies on TV is quite strong in our young males, ironically belying the usual "they're just nipples!" arguments given on the subject.
I'm a woman who doesn't want to see others' freakin' boobs. Why tf can't people just cover themselves? & seeing as women have been objectified repeatedly in media, showing them in media IS morally damaging to a kid.
AgProv
Ref. comment about ITV's sudden decision to censor a film ("Carry on Camping") which since the middle 1970's has been screened in its entirety on British TV with no perceived need to edit anything out. Until now. in December 2013, a version was shown with some significant cuts.
the main page reads:
Similar revisionism on the part of the ITV network saw edits to the nudge-nudge double-entendre-laden movie Carry On Camping. The film opens with sex-starved leery Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw taking their girlfriends to the screening of one of those 1950's nudist movies. Their intent is to soften the girls up to visiting a nudist camp. For most of the period 1975 - 2010, TV screenings of this film shrugged and allowed the extracts from the nudist film to be broadcast uncensored, on the grounds that this is about as sexually arousing as a cup of cold tea. But in early 2014, ITV abruptly censored out these extracts, leaving the early part of the film somewhat lopsided. You see the character reaction, but not what they are reacting to. When approached to explain, ITV explained that as a family network, they had obligations to a family audience. They did not explain why previously they had let the scenes stand, and felt no such obligation then... (The scene where Barbara Windsor's bikini top flies off and a nipple is briefly exposed was allowed to stand, though).
I was interested enough to send the following email to ITV Viewer Services.
Hi!
Enjoying an indulgent morning of cheesey old "Carry On..." movies on ITV 3, thank you very much. This brings back good memories of times spent viewing them over the last thirty odd years.
The current one in the series is "Carry On Camping".
I note, with some amusement, you chose to screen an edited, or possibly censored, version. I also note that every time I have seen this film previously, at whatever time of day TV has screened it, it always opens with a scene in a cinema where Sid James and others are watching one of those 1950's nudist movies. Quite a few minutes of innocuous and tame footage from the nudist film was incorporated into the opening scene of Carry On Camping - non-sexualised nudity with all the erotic content of a cup of cold tea. If nothing else, the onscreen nudity gives a reason for Sid and Bernard's female companions in the cinema to express shock and revulsion.
I have seen this film two or three times before, once on the BBC and twice on Granada. On all occasions it was shown before the 9:00 watershed, and the opening establishing footage of the nudist camp was shown in all its dubious cheesey glory.
Yet ITV's screening of the film today censored this out - you showed an edited version where we could see the reactions of the characters to what was on screen, but not the previously shown on-screen material. This made the scene oddly lopsided. As this film has been shown unedited before the watershed in the past, it seems odd you should be censoring it now. Could I politely ask, out of curiosity, what the reason for the edit was? (The film is still running even as I type - it will be interesting to see if the famous scene where Barbara Windsor loses her bikini top, and a nipple is briefly visible, has also been censored out!)
With thanks!
Somebody called Sue from ITV replied in a bland anodyne way:
Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your recent email regarding Carry On Camping. I can confirm that your comments have been noted here at ITV Viewer Services. As a UK broadcaster, we are regulated by Ofcom, all programming must be compliant with the Broadcasting Code that is set by Ofcom - therefore this is the reason why content is sometimes edited for a UK audience. May I take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to contact us here at ITV Viewer Services. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, Sue ITV Viewer Services Officer
This still begs the question of why censorship was evidently not seen as necessary in earlier TV screenings. The only possibility is that, as OFCOM is a fairly recent regulatory body, censorship is now being forced on British TV channels by a government agency. Although I was hard-put to find a compelling reason for the cuts in OFCOM's statement of intent. So TV could be passing the buck... or else, like that episode of "Family Guy" where the American equivalent (the FCC?) forces Peter Griffin's TV channel off the air, British Tv is now getting more repressive?
Any ideas, troperland?
Edited by 89.242.221.199 Male, early sixties, Cranky old fart, at least two decades behind. So you have been warned. Functionally illiterate in several languages.
PaperMaster
Archived TRS topics:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1308210874004320100&page=1
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=4yenatp1im0a57beyt5yezwx&page=1
Adam
Okay, about the new image, I get why the old one was Canned, but the other reason was that there was another page with the same image and joke.
I think I speak for a lot of us when I say, "What other page!?"
Catch me where? See my profile!
Hey, how about for the picture we just use a classical art piece that involves a topless female? I don't think anyone would be offended by that. After all, the Male Frontal Nudity page did the same with a nude art piece.
Hide / Show Replies
I like this idea. However, someone should come up with a very witty caption. ;D
Not going into a discussion of the trope itself for once, Justifying Edits cut from the Video Games section:
- It was worse than a "minor controversy", ESRB actually raised the rating from T to M because of this.
- That's not the whole story; the nipples were a minor controversy that got the ESRB's attention to take another look at the game, and they noticed that a certain ex-Dark Brotherhood victim was revealed in clearer light to be more grisly than they had seen. The graphic violence made the nipples moot and sealed the M-rating.
- It was worse than a "minor controversy", ESRB actually raised the rating from T to M because of this.
What should we add on the topic of females who haven't developed the "offending subjects" but are still forbidden to be topless? Another troper added this recently;
In the case of prepubescent females, it could be seen as even more ridiculous, as a little girl's nipples aren't much different from a boy's until she starts developing, but if a girl over the age of 3 and under 18 has her nipples exposed it's considered child porn.
I feel like that should be rewritten.
TURN OFF THAT LIGHT!
Is this trope supposed to be about showing or not showing nipples? Because there are examples of both that claim to be this trope, with no mention of which is the straight use and which is the aversion. And the description isn't all that helpful either.
Regulated fun - the best kind! I don't make the rules, just enforce them with an iron fist.
Okay, WTF? What was wrong with the picture this time?
Hide / Show Replies
We don't need a picture. Like the note says, nobody is confused about what one might look like.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
The picture was never intended to show what a nipple looked like, it was intended to represent the trope. I as a fairly prudish, (American)right-wing individual on my first visit to this particular entry saw a female breast in profile with a black rectangle over the nipple and immediately thought "Oh, it's about censorship of female nipples." A picture really is worth a thousand words.
What's more, showing a diagram and then censoring the very thing the diagram is intended to show represents a fantastic piece of tongue-in-cheek humor. Whoever put the image together is a genius who deserves an entry in the Made of Win page.
Aw, shucks, I feel flattered. All the same, nobody argues with Fast Eddie. I just wanted an explanation.
Edited by SalFishFin
Okay, I've replaced the original picture, but put a black box over the offending part. Happy?
Hide / Show Replies
How about we have a male nipple?
It's not the exact point of this trope, but you get the idea.
How about we censor a picture of a shirtless guy? That would be excellent, no?
Now you're just being silly.
I think the picture is perfect as-is.
Edited by SomeGuy See you in the discussion pages.
I've currently been looking for the Arrested Development picture of Tobias and Kitty both flashing Michael and both have the Censor Cloud. That would probably get the point across better than anything we currently have. I remember seeing the episode, but don't remember which episode it was.
Sorry,but this trope sounds like many of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.In fact you sound more like pricks rather than being rational about this trope.Plus what's wrong with being a little iffy about sexual things.Sorry but this just a pet peeve trope for me because by the sound it you guys are taking this too far.By your logic lets show private parts fully on kids shows as well or even better you liberated people how about old people private parts.Does that sound good enough for you?Oh,didn't think so, this one trope is just plain stupid.Do you know why we have sexual taboos because then adultry,pedophilia,and other unseamly sexual things would be accepted.I think the reason why there is a taboo about breasts because they have a more sexual air to it.You guys most of all are pretty much saying that showing nipples in kids show shouldn't be taboo.And by the sound of it why does being less prudish worse than being an uncontrolable sex maniac.The sexual liberation isn't all that great you know:yes,we are sexual beings but we must have restraint in what we do.
Hide / Show Replies