The Full Monty
April 21, 2000 6:12 AM   Subscribe

The Full Monty was broadcast on Fox last night with copious warnings about nudity. When the final scene arrived, they block-blurred the butt cracks, except for the very last still which was on screen for several seconds. Question: why is it OK to show still tushies, but not moving tushies?
posted by plinth (14 comments total)
Lewdness. Gyrations are considered more provocative than still-frame images -- that's why you can buy hard-core porn mags at your local newsstand but you can't find below-the-belt explicitness on pay television.

I think my next few Metafilter posts have to be really G-rated now that I've shared this knowledge (and the fact that I knew it offhand).
posted by werty at 6:35 AM on April 21, 2000

This whole topic seems a bit absurd to me. The US is so quick to black out nudity but makes no attempt to hide violent acts with guns, abuse, etc. I would trade all the "Real TV" episodes for just a few moments of nudity on television. But that's probably more hormones than heroic. :)
posted by mc_barron at 7:22 AM on April 21, 2000

Apparently someone thinks it's better for citizens to become desensitized to violence than nudity. The politics are: "Embrace war, abhor sex."
posted by madglee at 7:53 AM on April 21, 2000

Perhaps in terms of the censors I'll say that there is a discrepency between regulating nudity/sex versus violence.
But I don't know of anyone who stands up and says that there is too much sex on tv will also say that the amount of violence on tv, on the otherhand, is ok as is.

Do you?
posted by jamescblack at 9:00 AM on April 21, 2000

I don't get it, though. Why don't they stand up and say there is too much violence? The MPAA is obviously not of that opinion. They've got no problem with violence.
posted by owen at 10:31 AM on April 21, 2000

you wanted to see those guys' asses?

this is not even a male/female gay/straight thing. i mean, look at those guys.

um, as to the larger social issues and all that ... this is just that whole american thing.

blockbuster video won't rent Happiness but it does rent all four Texas Chainsaw Massacre flicks, plus one called Buried Alive, where a guy pulls out a woman's fingernails one by one before smashing her head with a hammer and cooking her alive in a pot of boiling water.

similarly, blockbuster censors its films, usually removing the sex only. for instance, in blockbuster's version of bad lieutenant, harvey keitel does not masturbate. but he does chase the dragon. so if the idea is to protect children, the message is, "smoke heroin but don't touch yourself."

long-standing american idiocy.

didn't know about the gyrations policy. thanks, werty.

posted by Zeldman at 10:39 AM on April 21, 2000

oops. unclosed bold tag somewhere. damn, metafilter needs a PREVIEW function for idiots like me.
posted by Zeldman at 10:40 AM on April 21, 2000

I'm a woman. I wanted to see their asses. And I did see their asses. Thanks, CITY-TV. Every now and then the CRTC's policies on requiring the Canadian channel's feed to override any simultaneous U.S. feed actually works out just fine.
posted by maudlin at 11:45 AM on April 21, 2000

The issue is cause and effect - influence and behavior.

When in college taking communicatins classes, I saw study after study that showed that test groups exposed to nudity and violence were not negatively effected. From adults to children, they were not influenced, nor did thier behavior mimic what they saw.

This issue is so old, it's not funny. I can remember seeing government produced shorts from the 40's that claimed comic books caused youth violence. In one scene, a young man was slavering over a comic book wild eyed, then in the next scene he was stabbing a pocket knife into a tree like a maniac. It was later debunked and Superman lived on...

European and asian theater's cash boxes are fat with evidence of thier propensity for the consumption violence on film. So stop making this a US issue... it's really not.

The real sad truth is this: How is the US free if it's media is still spoon fed to it?
posted by Dean_Paxton at 12:02 PM on April 21, 2000

I'm inserting a </b> as a public service.
posted by wendell at 12:08 PM on April 21, 2000

Or, considering the topic, a "pubic" service?
posted by wendell at 12:09 PM on April 21, 2000


America is *such* a sex-negative culture that we'd rather our kids see someone kill someone else than make love to someone else.

But what do you expect? Afterall, it was the *Puritans* who came over here in the first place, no?
posted by baylink at 12:24 PM on April 21, 2000

Blah. "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" provides a better commentary on US censorship policy than I could manage. But in the UK, "The Full Monty" was given a "15" certificate, and will probably be shown on TV at around 8/9pm, because we can cope with seeing men's arses at that time.

The schizoid nature of US culture is on full display in Atlanta: you can't say "shit" on network TV (or even most cable channels), but you can neon-light your dildo shop and run a bus service to your strip joint. Bizarre.
posted by holgate at 4:46 PM on April 21, 2000

It all boils down to American puritanism. It's OK to kill, butcher and slaughter on TV, but not to be naked. What I find strange is that you can show a naked baby's bottom on broadcast TV, but not an adult's. Aren't they worried about encouraging pedophilia? ;P
posted by alienation at 11:18 AM on April 23, 2000

« Older I'm posting this at 1:11.   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments