Or so says the new November issue of American Family Association Journal (AFA)–with alarm bells clanging. Well, I was excited until I read the specifics. They quote the Parent Television Council (PTC) who reports that broadcast television, including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CW, showed at least one “incident of blurred or pixilated [AFA spelling] full-frontal nudity during 2010-2011, while there were 64 such scenes in 2011-2012.”
Big letdown. So we’re concerned about nudity that is blurred out or pixelated so that you can’t actually see any naughty parts? And there were only 64 scenes in a 2 year period? Oh my, television is turning into boring porno!
They quote a therapist named Dr. Nancy Irwin who says that simulated or blurred nudity can be just as titillating as real nudity. In this way, AFA equates blurred nudity with actual nudity. As if the male population (and, quite honestly, a growing female interest) pays an adult site to show them blurred nudity. I can equate blurred nudity with a Catholic school girl outfit–both are titillating. I can equate blurred nudity with a bikini–again both titillating. I can equate blurred nudity with form-fitting jeans–still a turn-on. I mean some guys are turned on by exposed feet.
The article goes on to continue with Dr. Nancy Irwin who says this: “If something is missing–as in pixilation [AFA spelling]– the brain will fill in the blanks from the existing storehouse of knowledge. Indeed, it will work harder to do so than if the real image were there.” …Did AFA understand they made a good argument for just allowing nudity? If our brains are going to work harder to imagine nudity (to lust) than why not just show it? The author thought this would be an argument against titillation, but again, titillation–or what is sexually arousing– is subjective and as for imagination, the more clothes the harder we work at sinning. Just take it off!
If only AFA would use their brains when they write such articles. The issue is not nudity, the issue is the context in which nudity appears. What AFA is really concerned about is sexually gratifying nudity. If we would allow for television to show nudity in general we would get a variety of nude situations. There would be the hot models stripping down, but there would also be nudity that was not so flattering. Getting out of bed and walking bare-assed to the bathroom to pee. Breast feeding a kid while looking tired from staying up all night with a crying baby. Nudity of a woman in her forties trying to cope with getting older and staring in the mirror at her weight-gain.
We’re assuming that all televised nudity would be the same. It wouldn’t. Maybe in the beginning it would be all about what’s sexy, but people get bored–including the writers and actors. They would branch out into comedic nudity and realistic nudity and metaphorical nudity. The reason nudity is so sexualized in the United States is because we ban it on commercial TV as if all nude scenes are the same.
Maybe the real solution for AFA is dress women head to toe in black cloth to avoid any potential for titillation…oh wait, that would be another religion.