Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

FCC and Cable TV. A Proposal.

Feb 8, 2004 1:39AM PST

I propose;


1. That the FCC regulate standard packages for Cable TV and enforce decency standards
on them.

2. That anything which violates such standards must be on a premium pay.

3. That any premium pay channel can be temporarily suspended by the occupants either
with a coded access on the set or cable access box, or by a coded phone access so they
may quickly and easily suspend those premium channels when children would be in the
house.

4. That homes with such premium access other than the standard package, be responsible
for and be fined if children unrelated to them are allowed to view, without their parent's written
permission, the content on such channels while in their home.

5. That anyone on probation (maybe restricted to those convicted of violent and sex crimes)
not be allowed to access such premium channels.

6. That no one on their state's registration as a sex offender be allowed to purchase those
premium channels.

Add to this as befits deceny;

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Uhhh Charlie, there is such a thing as teenagers and hormones. No,
Feb 10, 2004 1:51PM PST

it would not be appropriate.

- Collapse -
NT - Still waiting for Roger's answer...
Feb 10, 2004 4:28PM PST

`?

- Collapse -
Re:NT - Still waiting for Roger's answer...Just read your post, working midnights again
Feb 10, 2004 8:03PM PST

It would be less offensive than the halftime show debacle, but I still think there should be some avoidance of nudity in early evening and day time shows.

Would you really want nude people interacting tv in your living room with preteenage kids watching? And even if you think everyone should go nude all the time, there are many that don't.

Do we really need to encourage questions at 8, 9, 10 years old about nudity and sex? I'm not saying parents shouldn't talk to their kids when questions start. But even then, I suspect the detail of the answer should be tailored to the kids age and development.

It's not that nudity is necessarily so wrong Charlie, as it is that if someone doesn't want their kids exposed to such early in life, they shouldn't have to deny the kids all the other stuff on tv, even on cable, to avoid any chance of it.

Don't know how many here watch the Scifi Channel. They're pushing an new cartoon that seems to be definately on the adult or older teen material side. That's fine, but the ads, with a woman (I think) talking about big bangs and then screaming oh yes oh god etc are showing at all hours, even in the after school and after supper slots. Do you think that is appropriate? I don't. The ads, as the show, should be outside the normal hours you would reasonable expect a preteen to be watching tv, perhaps even with their parents.

roger

- Collapse -
Why do you involve my person?
Feb 10, 2004 8:49PM PST

First off, I wonder where I have said that I think everyone should go nude all the time. That is something that one of the members here stated; I wanted to make love in public at coffee shops etc, he wrote. Those are not my words. And even IF I liked to walk around nude, it has nothing to do with the subject.

Let me just ask you one thing. When is it OK for a youngster, no matter the age, to see a nude body on TV?

- Collapse -
Re:Why do you involve my person?
Feb 10, 2004 11:06PM PST

" wanted to make love in public at coffee shops etc, he wrote"

LOL, not quite Charlie, that was a sarcastic comment in one of my post replying to you, and think it was asking if we all should make love in the cafeteria. Hard to be sure with no search.

Involve your person? you mean asking if you want nude people on tv in your living room? Hmmm, ok, just stopped and went back. I had word interacting, but was referring to on tv if that makes any difference.

You were asking was there anything wrong with nudity on tv during the time kids might be watching. I asked would you really want it in your living room while preteen children were watching. You seemed to be advocating it, so I asked if you'd want kids to see it in your house to be sure.

Sigh, it isn't just seeing a nude body Charlie. It's pushing them to think in terms of sexuality before they're ready. Or in teenage years, it's enticing them before they learn to deal with all their new and pretty intense urges. I doubt you'll ever understand it from your apparent position that all nudity is just displaying the art of God.

roger

- Collapse -
All nudity?
Feb 11, 2004 1:54AM PST

Well it depends what you mean with "all" nudity... If you include pornography in that, then my comment to it is no! I am not talking about pornography. I am simply talking about the most normal nudity. And I don't see why we would call nudity, sexuality. They are two different things, although sexuality usually involves nudity. However nudity doesn't necessarily involves sexuality unless we are tought to think about it that way.

- Collapse -
Sigh, I see there's little point in continuing.
Feb 11, 2004 2:20AM PST

Nudity and sexuality may be separate, but they're damn sure linked together.

And I bet you'd have a hell of a time finding many 13 to 20 year old males who can separate them.

But I realize that doesn't fit your point of view or agenda so can't be understood.

Have fun Charlie, I see little point in continuing to dance around a tree. At least since there seems to have been an effort to stick to a civil discussion that is. But even if civil, I see no hope that there will even be an understanding why some object to nudity for their preteens and early teens since you obviously feel it would be better for them to be exposed some. I'm guessing but it sounds like you agree that "repression" in the USA contributes to something wrong with our views on nudity, sexuality, and sophistication.

Shrug, so we're not European enough in our views or morality. One more strike against us according to some I guess.

roger


anyone but the pick of the ABB crowd

- Collapse -
What about them?
Feb 10, 2004 4:34PM PST

What about teenagers' hormones? What does that have to do with nudity on TV?

- Collapse -
You don't remember teenager hormones and appetites?
Feb 10, 2004 8:07PM PST

Or was there so much around you in nudity that you became sated much too early.

Most teenage (and I think boys are still worse about this than girls, even today) are going to get very excited, agitated, and even stupid when nudity is involved. That can even be with just pictures. Video and live nudity will rattle them even more. They can make some very foolish decisions under such influence. It may not be irresistable for the teenager, but it's going to be just about as influential as peer pressure. And I think we all know peer pressure can make teens (and adults for that matter) say and do some pretty stupid things. So can appealing to their new and strange and almost overpowering sex urges.

roger

- Collapse -
No need for you to involve me...
Feb 10, 2004 8:44PM PST

First off there is no need to involve my personal experiences or lack of these. Discuss my opinions, other's opinions and not the persons, unless it has to do with their person.

Then I would like to see any scientific study that shows what you claim, that nudity will rattle them even more. Maybe they do get stupid and rattled when they see it simply because they are not used to it...

- Collapse -
Re: No need for you to involve me... Opinions are based on experience (NT)
Feb 10, 2004 10:24PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:No need for you to involve me...
Feb 10, 2004 11:10PM PST

Ok, maybe the first line was a bit much, even if meant to be sarcastic.

But asking you don't you remember teenage hormones and appetites is a perfectly response since you seem to feel there is nothing unusual about the teenage years and sexuality.

Maybe me and everyone around me was different than your friends and neighbors growing up, but nudity (back then it was normally still pictures only) was edgy and exciting and prevocative.

Of course, many advocating more of such would say it was because it was denied it was so. And anything a little 'naughty' is always a bit more exciting isn't it?

I'm sure you'll disagree with the first part and claim the second only proves how repressing everything makes us so much less advanced than the Europeans.

roger

Anyone but who the ABB crowd picks

- Collapse -
Any scientific proof of your claims?
Feb 11, 2004 1:58AM PST

Do you have any scientific proof of your claims that nudity will rattle teens and that the boys will get stupid by seeing a naked body?

- Collapse -
(NT) as noted other post, there seems little use in continuing.
Feb 11, 2004 2:23AM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT)HWG, ask the females here if nudity makes boys (of any age) get stupid.
Feb 11, 2004 2:42AM PST

.

- Collapse -
How about keeping the clothes on? What have you got against being clothed?
Feb 10, 2004 6:36PM PST

WE know people take showers. There is no more need to see them doing it on TV, than watching them take a whiz or a crap. There are things that need not be portrayed, and it's called "decency".

- Collapse -
No need...
Feb 10, 2004 7:32PM PST

How and why would it damage anybody at any age watching a couple walking around nude before they go to bed? I am not talking about need, but WHY would it be horrifying to some people if a nude couple was shown on regular TV? If a director decides to include a nude couple, why wouldn't that be appropriate for some people to watch?

- Collapse -
Because it is nudity devoid of the proper relationship. (nt)
Feb 10, 2004 7:38PM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) Could you expound your thoughts please... (nt)
Feb 10, 2004 8:56PM PST
- Collapse -
I did. Don't be obtuse. Think on it. Every truth need not be a paragraph long to understand. (nt)
Feb 11, 2004 3:23AM PST
Devil
- Collapse -
Why is there any need to show this.
Feb 12, 2004 11:25PM PST

Voyeurism?

Why should they be clothed?

For the same reason that you and your wife probably put clothes on to answer your door.

For the same reason that parents close their bedroom doors.

For the same reason that even in homes where family may walk around in varying degrees of undress they don't do so when they have company.

For those reasons, when actors and actresses come into our homes, they should be wearing clothes.