View Full Version : What does this say about our cousins

5th Feb 2004, 01:44
There is NO EARTHLY WAY that either "cxxt" or "fxxk" would be used on American terrestrial TV. The country is bizarre. You can't see nipples, you can't hear swearing (even "shit" is offensive) but you can see peoples' brains being blown out at close range, in cold blood.

5th Feb 2004, 01:57
Experienced one of the most bizarre examples of this in Florida.

Nipped across to the mall for a takeout pizza and a sixpack.
Turned on the hotel TV, as you do, and there was "Blazing
Saddles". Great ! Evening's entertainment sorted.

All was going fine until the "campfire" scene.

You know:
"More beans Mr Taggart?" ....
"I'd say you boys have had enough !" :ugh:

One by one the cowboys rose from their seats . . . only to be greeted with silence ! That's right - the "sound effects" had been blanked out !!!

I mean why :confused: How delicate or prudish would you need to be to be offended by a few noises ?

Way to spoil a great movie. I mean, without the "noises" it just made the whole scene look silly . . .

White Bear
5th Feb 2004, 03:44
Huge fuss in the U.S. this week over a Super Bowl half time entertainment show starring Janet Jackson. Seems 'something' went wrong and one of her [email protected] was uncovered during the live TV show. You cannot imagine the fuss that's being made.

I really enjoy living here, Americans are wonderful and generous people, it's the most technologically advanced society in the world, and I enjoy a lifestyle absolutely unobtainable in the U.K., but sometimes I have to stop and wonder. Here we have millions of people who tuned in the watch the best part of 80 young men beat each other senseless on a grass field for the audiences entertainment, and they complain at the sight of a [email protected]

Why do Americans think it's OK to broadcast a film such as 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' on national TV, where uncountable numbers of people are shown being dismembered, in graphic detail, by a chain saw wielding lunatic but, any mention of body parts on TV, never mind any visual's, would be cause for the immediate firing of TV executives, major sponsors of advertisements would withdraw their support, and cancel their adverts, for fear Mr/Mrs Average American would boycott their products. All this, and you can rent any amount of hard core porn in almost any video store on almost any street corner in almost any city in the U.S.! On top of that, millions more pay cable TV companies billions of dollars yearly to feed uncensored Hollywood movies, and soft porn, into their homes for their personal enjoyment! When this idiocy is pointed out to them, some laugh, but all too many simply don't get it. One does wonder where this hypocritical attitude comes from, but in truth it is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche, that any attempt to change it will result in almost rabid opposition, no matter how obvious the need. Changing the gun laws would easy in comparison.

They are such Calvinist's, heaven help them, one does what one can, but mostly with a quiet smile, I climb into my V8 powered 300 hp car and drive away using cheap petrol, and wonderful highways, courtesy of the very same American tax payer. I do wonder though, is it possible that starting in 1640's people all over Europe, having had enough of religious zealots and sexual prudery, starting loading their prudes and zealots onto boats and sending them all to America?

Four Seven Eleven
5th Feb 2004, 04:11
It's all about context.

Americans appear to have no problem with people being able to rent porn, have it fed into their homes via cable etc., provided they choose to do so.

By the same token, when Americans watch the Superbowl - perhaps with their children at their side - they expect certain standards. One of those standards would appear to be "no nudity".

Janet Jackson breached that standard and the implied compact she had with the viewers. For that she deserves to be censured.

Quite simply, it is not what she did, it is where and when. Under the circumstances it was wrong. That is not prudishness, just the public exercising their right to real and free choice.

Her actions may also have been a breach of the broadcasting laws which provide for ratings. I am assuming the Superbowl would carry a 'G' rating. Her actions went outside the 'G' classification. Once again, it was wrong.

I am sure that many Americans would have no problem with Janet Jackson doing what she did in the right place, at the right time and with the consent and knowledge of her target audience.

Well, at least it wasn't Michael, the other Jackson sister.........

5th Feb 2004, 04:18
The American dichotomy regarding matters of the body/sex/lust is a source of wonder for many non-Americans. :confused:
If we can manage to discuss this without falling into the all too common trap of USA bashing, this could be an informative thread.

Personally I am very interested in hearing what our American contributors think of this whole matter and perhaps they could even explain the reason for the outcry.
On another thread, an American PPRuNer made me understand their point of view on a related matter and their motives for it, and that understanding greatly increased my tolerance for his alien point of view.

5th Feb 2004, 04:23
Fully understand your stance 4-7-11 (and the JJ incident on Superbowl was unexpected and way out of line), but the many times I have seen this issue raised here and elsewhere, the topic of violence being freely broadcast is not readily addresed. We constantly hear from one part of the population violence on TV is responsible for attrocities and the perversion of youth.


5th Feb 2004, 04:34
Living in the states as a former "Euroland" inhabitant I believe it is the more religious-conservate majority that is obsessed with anti-nudity and sex in particular. Sex is still much more taboo than in Euroland or south of the border. Maybe it is still the influence of the long-gone Victorian age.

One thing I noticed about the religious education in the US is the (almost strict) emphasis on the bible and very little about ethics. Ethics and religion should be taught as a healthy balance. The conservatists seem to leave this out.

Violence seems to be part of the American life. The glorious Wild West has given way to the glorification of violence. Natural Born Killers says it all, I think.

DC Meatloaf
5th Feb 2004, 04:50
I don't have much to add to what Four Seven Eleven has already written. There is an expectation in this country that there are some things you just don't do on broadcast TV during the "dinner hour" -- ie, the time families are most likely to be sitting down together in front of the tube. But, I think what set some people off (I would hardly call it a furor, though the press seems to be having a blast with it) was not just the sight of Jackson's breast, but that the whole halftime show seemed to be geared to be "shocking" rather than entertaining. The Super Bowl is still a family event -- if not for the football, then for the commercials. Seems odd, I know, but because ad time is so precious during the event, the companies who decide to advertise generally go all out with funny or otherwise interesting ads. The halftime show is usually corny, or crassly commercial, or sometimes moving (I'll never forget U2s set in 2002 which featured them singing "Walk On" in front of a huge banner with the names of the victims of 9/11 projected on it). This year's was borderline offensive to family audiences -- from Kid Rock wearing an American flag in tatters with a hole cut for his head, to Nelly singing "It's getting hot in here so take off all your clothes" to a stripteasing bunch of "cheerleaders", to the whole S&M themed Janet Jackson spectacle.

Now, if that had all occurred in a different time slot, or during a different, more adult-themed event, I think all of it (even Jackson's boob, complete with nipple-sheathing piercing) would have been tolerable and probably not created any fuss. But the fact that it occurred during the "dinner hour" at an event assumed to have a large family audience is what raised all the concern.

That noted, I think getting the FCC involved is way over the top. Spending any taxpayer dollars trying to figure out whether the producers lied when they said it was an accident is a complete waste and making a mountain out of a, uh, saggy molehill. :)

Also, I'm not sure you'll see many brains blown apart on broadcast TV during the dinner hour either. Though you certainly will on cable or HBO. (The Sopranos!)

5th Feb 2004, 04:59
4-7-11 hit the nail on the head (ie-got it right in one). It is all about freedom of choice here in the USA.

Flaps - the same applies to "body/sex/lust" which are all alive and well here (well, my "body" excepted - but I have earned every pound of weight the 'ole fashioned way by hard effort)! There is no doubt in my mind that the USA is more prudish than many European cultures though regards these three words. Dunno why, but think that White Bear probably comes closest with a reason ----starting loading their prudes and zealots onto boats and sending them all to America?
And it was not, and is not now, just the Calvinists that should be held responsible. We have a group down here in the south of the USA called "Southern Baptists" that are just as culpable, though their roots may not go back to the "Mayflower"! :p

Flaps - have you ever had the chance to visit San Francisco, California? This city is perhaps the closest USA city to having a "Eropean" culture regards "body/sex/lust". Do try and take a holiday there!

5th Feb 2004, 05:06
The USA habit of censoring everything besides graphic violence would be rather amusing if it were not so ironic. Could not believe my ears as I watched 'Top Gun' peppered with "baloney" instead of "bulls---", "tish" instead of "s--t" and all manner of other ludicrious substitutes at 11pm whilst on the other channel was a reality show featuring an autopsy of a murder victim. :hmm:

Apparently a mere 88 people phoned into ITV last night to complain at Lydon's 'Bill Grundy MKII' outburst. Nice to know that out of about 8 million people there are only 88 muppets. The outcome of having a "notorious" punk rocker famous for swearing on live TV featured as showpiece in a live reality show is pretty obvious. Like the ITV bosses never saw it coming! :rolleyes:

What I don't understand and what annoys me slightly is ITV have easily managed to censor the so-called "live" camera footage on ITV2 so what happened last night? It is pretty obvious the whole affair was a set up and ITV should face disciplinary action. I am no prude nor new comer to foul language and the fact he let slip a couple of norty words and upset a few grannies bothers me not a jot. The issue is the television company being totally reckless and wanton in breaking the regulations, something which happens alot these days. Basically, they incited it and should be held accountable.

Television has an awful lot to answer for these days along with the tabloid press, music and entertainment industries. We can't turn back the clock but a line must be drawn now. At this rate we'll have live celebrity porn on at 9pm twenty years down the line complete with an ageing Liam Gallagher swearing like a trooper for charity. Not the best example of standards to set our children. :D


surely not
5th Feb 2004, 05:48
Could the reason that violence is so much more readily tolerated in America be because violence and religion have always gone hand in hand?

5th Feb 2004, 06:38
Like so many astute posters have already said, there is nothing shocking about seeing graphic Sex and Violence on American TV. I have over 500 channels to catch it if I so choose.

What was so shocking about this though is that it was in "prime-time" or "family-time" TV. Not only do CBS / MTV risk getting fined, but any CBS station (500+) who showed the game also risk the same fine. It was just pure bad taste by Janet Jackson, a fading star who by pure chance has a new album coming out on February 23rd.

In Janet's case, I think her motives were purely driven my money and the realization her career is on the downside. She should probably have picked a better forum to show off her obviously surgically enhanced body because it did absolutely nothing for me. Imagine getting that metal sun caught in your teeth....Owww!!


Onan the Clumsy
5th Feb 2004, 07:42
DCM Gotta disagree with you when you sayAlso, I'm not sure you'll see many brains blown apart on broadcast TV during the dinner hour either. Turn on the six o'clock news and you can almost see the presenters rubbing their hands with glee when there's been a tripple shooting, or a car chase, or a fire. If it bleeds, it leads. I think it's discgusting when they interview the family of the slain teenager in their home because you know they couldn't give a sh1t about them, they're just using them. :mad: :mad: :yuk: Makes me angry it does.

surely not Excellent comment. Oddly I hadn't seen quite that connection before, but I feel it rings true.

Whitebear I heard a similar explanation years ago and thought it was probably fairly accurate. Albeit that all types of people founded this country, I think those with extreme religious views were the majority in the beginning.

DC Meatloaf
5th Feb 2004, 07:56
DCM Gotta disagree with you when you say
Also, I'm not sure you'll see many brains blown apart on broadcast TV during the dinner hour either.
Turn on the six o'clock news and you can almost see the presenters rubbing their hands with glee when there's been a tripple shooting, or a car chase, or a fire. If it bleeds, it leads. I think it's discgusting when they interview the family of the slain teenager in their home because you know they couldn't give a sh1t about them, they're just using them. Makes me angry it does.I agree the newscasters -- local newscasts especially -- relish the latest triple-homicide because of the spectacle, but I don't think you'll find many corpses on display. Rather, the violence is usually breathlessly described, then cut to a shot of a body covered in a sheet behind miles of yellow police tape. Follow that with one or two insensitive interviews and 15 seconds with the local sherrif's dept spokesman and you've got the typical "Action4 News" report.

But the violence is rarely actually shown, especially on the six pm broadcast. Then again, that's also not really what we're talking about here....

Onan the Clumsy
5th Feb 2004, 08:10
True, but in the end, what's the difference?

What WERE we talking about? :confused:


edited: Actually, that's a great parallel, because, you're right, the violence isn't displayed graphically, but the giddy way it's relished (and normally, the lack of any real necessity of mentioning it it at all) shows that it's an acceptable thing for prime time television (aka The Eye Of Satan).

The parallel I draw is that perhaps the people who don't want the see nudity or sex on the small screen are the same ones that love to talk about it and who savour their anger when something like this happens. They like the thought of the nudity, not the actual nudity itself.

5th Feb 2004, 08:18
Unbelievable. Just saw on the 1100 news here in Sydney footage of a banner being towed across the skies in LA saying "CBS MTV Janet Justin - imorral show"
I love the place but this sort of atTITude simply astounds me. :ooh:

White Bear
5th Feb 2004, 09:04
For those of you in 'Old Europe' who enjoy this kind of expose' of American prudery, all based on a very conservative Christian religious interpretation of the Bible, and think that those of you who remain in 'Old Europe' therefore have superior culture's, superior culinary gift's, etc, etc, and therefore live a 'better' lifestyle, please read on. The following is of course all IMHO, but backed up by years of experience in both parts of the world.

Yes, America can be a violent place. I've lived in the U.S. for almost 25 years, and traveled extensively within it's borders, but I have never, ever, seen a policeman, or anyone else for that matter, with a gun in their hand, outside of a firing range. I feel safer here than I did when traveling in most parts of Africa, the Far East, the Middle East, and many European countries. I'm an old Essex boy, no better, no worse than those I grew up with in my home town. I know how they live, I've been back and seen it. I know how I live in the U.S. I also know that the differences cannot be spoken of without raising a resentful anger in most people 'back home'.

Nowhere else in the world offers the opportunity to succeed like America. For those willing to work hard, and accept the foibles of American culture (and that's what any emigrant should expect to do, if you emigrate to new country, be good enough to leave the old one behind. And Oh yes, America has a strong and vibrant culture, it's just different than some 'Europeans' think it should be) the rewards are there. America is a true meritocracy, probably the only one in the world. For those with a heart big enough, a back strong enough, and a brain bright enough, and who want to live well, really well, this is the place to be. No where else in the world will reward you for your hard work and commitment, better than the U.S.A.
You do have bite your tongue every so often though......

Onan the Clumsy
5th Feb 2004, 10:25
whitebear Again, I'd have to, by and large, agree with you.

Though I am not, and never will be, from essex :ok:

5th Feb 2004, 11:13
I think it's discgusting when they interview the family of the slain teenager in their home

It's interesting that I see that sort of situation in a different light: I consider it disgusting that families of slain teenagers will choose to be interviewed in their homes in order to get their 15 minutes of fame.

surely not
5th Feb 2004, 19:16
Wonderworld - what is really disgusting about that banner is the spelling!!!

Whitebear - Is it not just possible that you would have succeeded over here in UK and had a better standard of living than your pals? That you took the plunge and went to the US shows you have a different attitude to them.

There are places in the US where the standard of living is poor, where the local economy hasn't recovered from a major industry such as mining failing. Parts of Southern Ohio spring to mind. There are also poor areas in the major cities and towns.

Back onto topic, it's been suggested that it was the time and the place that has caused the furore over JJ showing her nipple ring and breast, so does that mean that it would have been tolerated/allowed on television at a later time and at a pop concert?

Would viewers in UK have been as upset if the F and C words had been spoken in the well educated and very plummy voice of Lord Brocket? Is it the word or the manner of its delivery that causes upset?

5th Feb 2004, 21:02
That wasn't the banner surely not, it was me!

5th Feb 2004, 21:06
Johnny has now walked after a "talk" with the producers.
No doubt he was told to cool the language and revolted.
The new constructed tease seems to be the arrival of Jordons boyfriend to break into camp and beat up the so called young buck singer....

6th Feb 2004, 00:44
DC/AA SLF et al,

You are aware that your TV comes with an off button I take it?



DC Meatloaf
6th Feb 2004, 02:16

What in my posts leads you to believe you need to direct that snippy question at me?

6th Feb 2004, 03:48
Dear Flaps, sorry about being so late in responding to your question, however occasionally I really do have to fly, that’s what I get paid for (Well not really, I do that for free, I get paid for doing all that crappy paperwork one must do as Chief Pilot.), but I digress.

Point one that I don’t believe anyone has brought up. It’s a major national election year. Everybody and anybody that wants to influence the election (politicians, church leaders [especially Baptist]. EVERYBODY in the media) will use any possible event (a media event is of course most popular) to receive and extend their 15 minutes of fame. Therefore the Janet Jackson boob incident was a heaven sent (no pun intended) opportunity for these attention-starved idiots. A perfect example of the last being all of the politicians (most of who are running for election this year) that were on TV the next day demanding a Federal investigation. Talk about making a federal case out of nothing.

I was at a neighbor’s house watching the game. Now as a general rule I never watch the half-time show, but at half time the game was so boring we were looking at anything that might become remotely entertaining. I was sitting at the bar in the media room with some very attractive young ladies watching the TV behind bar, these young ladies were very much into the music and dancing. Me, being the curious type, was interested in seeing what excited the said young ladies so much, just trying to broaden my knowledge about the unknown you understand. Suddenly there it was, the boob that was heard round the world. There were probably 50-60 people in the room that had been talking rather loudly over the sound of the music, but after the boob there was total silence. Then all at once all of us said, “Did I see what I thought I saw?”

Mrs. C-P wanders in from the game room (trusting sole she is) and asked, “Did you see what I think I saw?” I responded that I thought I saw what she saw, but was not really sure. At this point I was tempted ask one the young ladies present (who’s attire could, without much effort) show me an example of what we thought we had seen. However, decorum and Mrs. C-P’s wicked left cross dissuaded me from pursuing any such investigative action, no matter how justified it seemed at the time.

The bottom line being that the people at my neighbor’s house laughed about the incident and nobody thought it was any big thing (again no pun intended, well maybe just a little, ok, ok I’ll stop).

This is a country of freedoms and rights. We have the right to enjoy about any type of activity anyone could ever imagine, as long as children are not endangered or corrupted and no one else’s rights are infringed upon. Some basic examples are that one has the right to own a vehicle, if they can afford to, however one does not have the right to operate said vehicle, that is a privilege granted to those who pass the necessary test to obtain a drivers licenses and remain within the laws governing the operations of operating a motor vehicle. One has the right to drink alcoholic beverages if one is of proper age, however one cannot operate a vehicle while drinking alcoholic beverages or while under the influence of any type controlled substance.

Sex and nudity is a very controversial subject in any society. Some countries what some people could consider hard-core porn is shown on regular broadcast TV, some countries women without a veil are not allowed to be shown on TV. In the United States, as poorly stated above, it is the right for one to chose if they want to see something that could be offence to someone else. It is the right of a person that does find something, like nudity, offensive not to be exposed to that they find offensive.

There are disclaimers on all television shows in the United States that could possibly be offensive due to sexual context, language or for violence shown before and many times during the broadcast to warn anyone to pay heed that the show may not appropriate for everyone. The “Super Bowl” had no such disclaimer. There was not supposed to be any nudity during the show.

This is not a question of who is right or wrong. It is a statement of basic rights guaranteed to all the citizens and residents (legal or illegal) of the United States.

(What the most fascinating thing is about the ‘Super Bowl’ program is that nobody has said a single thing about Mark Robinson (I think that’s the guy’s name), the English chap that streaked at the end of half time. Just a boob of a different type I suppose.)

BHR, does the term closing the gate after the horses have ran off mean anything to you?