Ask HN: Why do we accept gore in movies/games but not nudity/sex in sitcoms?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!"

Because sex and nudity is reserved for advertisements.

Cause then sitcoms would become basically soft porn.

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