
Ask HN: Why do we accept gore in movies/games but not nudity/sex in sitcoms? - undrcvr-lagggal
Violent movies are constantly full of gore, and I rarely hear complaints about this. It is accepted that you will see some blood, trauma, dismembered body parts, etc, if you&#x27;re watching an action movie or playing an action game (FPS games like Half Life or F.E.A.R in particular). Sitcoms on the other hand, largely have no nudity, yet they touch on mature topics like sexuality almost every episode, and occasionally, taboo. So why is it that sitcoms constantly talk about these topics but never portray them (i.e., fully uncensored nudity&#x2F;sexual acts)? I&#x27;ve thought of this for a long time now, and I can&#x27;t think of any particular reason other than that it would be &quot;weird&quot; because we&#x27;re not used to it. Thoughts?<p>EDIT: What I mean by uncensored nudity&#x2F;sexuality is showing actual genitalia or depictions of sexual acts, as in what you&#x27;d expect to see in pornography, except I wouldn&#x27;t call it pornography here - it would have the same &quot;realism&quot; effect as what is currently done on the violence fronts. As far as I know, no mainstream media has made such depictions so far.
======
DanBC
Because sitcoms are supposed to be family friendly and for some reason the
world explodes if you show female breasts or male buttocks. People do complain
about violent content on tv though. I don't think a show like A-Team would
work today, with all the people being pseudo-killed every week. Maybe they're
still being made and just not making it across the Atlantic?

One recent "sitcom" that has nudity, including some male nudity, is
"Togetherness" which does it well and is also v.funny.

In the UK we have breasts printed in a (well selling) daily newspaper but
we're a bit cautious about what gets shown at what times on TV. We have a
concept called "the watershed" (9.00PM) Programmes shown before that have to
be a bit careful about what they show; programmes shown after that can be more
relaxed about what they show. The fines for the Janet Jackson wardrobe
malfunction probably wouldn't happen over here.

------
AnimalMuppet
I'm going to take the other side of this one. My starting point is the Super
Bowl. During that game, advertisers spent $4M for one commercial. Are they
fools? Or can they, in 30 or 60 seconds, make a $4M+ change in peoples'
behavior?

I suspect that they know what they're doing. Because they are putting their
money where their mouth is. I trust them more than I trust all those who say
that all the sex and violence (hours and hours of it) doesn't matter, because
it doesn't change anybody's behavior. Follow the money, trust the money. The
money says what we see changes behavior. (Not everybody's, not 100%. But
enough to matter.)

So I take the position that neither the sex nor the violence is good for us as
a society. It causes actual changes in behavior.

~~~
yetanotheracc
Why do you assume people would have sex less often after watching depictions
of sexual acts?

------
jones1618
My theory is that the main difference between acceptance of sex and violence
in the media is the "corruption of youth" principle. Look at the history of
censorship in America and time and time again there have been crackdowns on
movies, pulp magazines, comic books and video games justified by "what about
the children?" arguments.

Why? Because while excessive violence might inspire violent acts in real life,
those acts are already regulated and punished by law. On the other hand,
sexual content and (consensual) sex acts depicted in a movie or video game
could (oh, my gosh) inspire "immoral" conduct by our youth with no law to hold
it in check. That's the fear.

The best example of this skewing of violence vs. sex is the teenage slasher
movie cliche where the horny couple sneaking off to do their thing is almost
guaranteed to be the next ones meeting the sharp end of a rusty implement.

Face it, we're a society that almost fetishizes innocence (moral, physical and
mental) and the protection of it. Look at adamant reactions to "free range"
kids, teaching of evolution or safe sex, and fear of vaccinations.

To be clear, as a parent I believe in protecting my kids' innocence as long as
possible. I also strive to protect them from ugly or gratuitous depictions of
any of the traditional sins including greed, gluttony, etc. But, when
inevitably reality intersects their growing ability to handle it, I may cringe
or cry a little but look forward to the day their innocence is no longer
imposed on them but is something they value and choose.

------
Matt333
It's obviously cultural. Europe doesn't have the same hang ups about the human
body. Puritan throwback that's still lurking in the national psyche maybe?

------
Mz
From what I gather, this is culturally specific and context matters. Different
countries "censor" different things. In the U.S., Will Smith's nude shower
scene was edited out of _I, Robot_ but left in for European audiences. This
was kind of a shame because it wasn't sexual at all and was a natural way to
show the audience his robotic arm, an important plot point that was hard to
properly introduce any other way. On the other hand, Linda Hamilton not only
beefed up for Terminator 2, she actually learned to pick locks for the movie,
something shown on-screen. Great Britain apparently had an issue with showing
live lock-picking and that was censored in some fashion in that country.

(Or so I understand it. I am not in a position to look up citations.)

------
stonemetal
The two aren't equivalent. Plenty of movies contain nudity\sex as well as
violence and gore. Movies have ratings and are somewhat protected( ticket
sales to R rated movies are restricted to 18+ in the US) therefore they have
greater latitude in what they are allowed to do. Also the FCC has a number of
decency rules that broadcast channels have to follow. That is why most TV
shows with any "stronger" content is on a cable channel, and all the shows
with movie levels of sex and violence end up on HBO, showtime, etc. HBO, etc.
doesn't do sitcoms therefore no overly sexual sitcoms. Though there is still
plenty of stuff on those channels like sex and the city.

~~~
DanBC
The Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction - less than a sexond of onscreen
obscured nipple - resulted in heavy fines (although they were overturned
later); but violent content is often shown at similar times of day on similar
channels. People get shot and killed all the time on tv. Admittedly, they're
not gruesome murders and the fake blood -if any- is obvious, but it's still a
bit weird to see such a clear acceptance of violence and banning of any
nudity.

------
forgottenpass
_I can 't think of any particular reason other than that it would be "weird"
because we're not used to it._

Cultural standards are products of an evolutionary process. They can seem
arbitrary and contradictory because, well, they are once the evolutionary
purpose is gone. The american taboos around sex are largely driven by
religion. Just look at the current fights over gay marriage. As more people
lose their religion (or become "just christmas" Christians), the drivers of
those standards will be loosen up, but that doesn't make the taboo go away,
just introduce the possibility.

------
angersock
That's mainly with American media and games--in Germany, for example, there
are restrictions on gore and display of children.

For what it's worth, I think it goes back to latent Puritanism.

------
gamechangr
Because buying a movie or a game is much more intentional in the sense that it
appeals to a specific demographic that has opted in (my grandma would HATE
Half Life or any most rated R movies, but is way less offended by a sexual
reference in a sitcom).

Mainstream Media doesn't want it, enter Showtime and HBO.

I watch movies and play games that I wouldn't want my six year old to be
exposed to when he was flipping the channels? Like Leonidas in 300. My kid
would have nightmares for days!!!

~~~
undrcvr-lagggal
I expected a response like this but didn't cover it in the question due to
lack of space. However, even on Showtime and HBO there aren't uncensored
depictions of sexual acts or full nudity. Yet there is plenty of violence
intended to look realistic. I'd expect that if our society accepted uncensored
sexuality in movies, there'd be sitcoms with it too, since that's already one
of their main topics.

------
api
Our society accepts violence and gore over sexuality in most circumstances.
It's an attribute of a culture whose roots are fundamentally puritan and
warlike.

------
kweinber
It is because we live in a warrior culture that glorifies male domination.
Nudity and sex imply vulnerability and female power. (which is why nip-slips
at football halftime shows seem so threatening).

The interesting thing is that frontal male nudity is the greatest taboo
outside porn... It suggests male vulnerability, and opens up the idea of
objectification of men.

~~~
mrits
What does a warrior culture have to do with male domination? You know very
little of history if you think warrior culture is unique to the male.

~~~
kweinber
I never said that all warrior cultures are male dominated... just this one.

------
rosser
Because we've somehow as a culture made the decision that violence is to be
glorified, but sex and bodies are still shameful — except, apparently, when we
use them to sell things, and even then we can only be _suggestive_ , not
explicit.

~~~
byoung2
That reminds me of something that happened at the movie theater when I went to
see Hunger Games. There was a couple with a small child maybe 5 years old.
They asked what Hunger Games was about and the employee said it was about a
bunch of teenagers brutally killing each other for sport. The father, without
flinching, said "as long as there's no sex we'll take 2 adults and one child
ticket!"

------
informatimago
Because sex and nudity is reserved for advertisements.

------
Tycho
Cause then sitcoms would become basically soft porn.

------
devanti
there's a fair amount of nudity/sex in game of thrones and it's very
mainstream

