Full frontal nudity on public television – before 9 p.m.?
Well, if it’s in the name of art, it’s fine with the BBC. This summer, BBC 4 will be running a five-part series called Life Class: Today’s Nude and will absolutely feature full female and male frontal nudity starting at 6 p.m. The show is an attempt to encourage a return to traditional art study (and it’ll no doubt inspire at least a few teenage boys to take an interest in art), and will, in addition to the nude of the night, feature an expert doling out advice. Evidently, nude figure drawing has declined in recent years in Britain, as many students have opted to stay away from classical training in favor of more technical and graphical based art skills.
The naked before 9 p.m. aspect of the show caused a bit of a stir – but not nearly as much as you’d think. BBC 4, for example, had no problem deciding to air the program because the nudity was “non-sexualized” and “educational.” As most people in America probably know, Britain’s rules regarding nudity on television (and in most other media) are a bit more lax than in the States. But what exactly are those rules?
According to the BBC’s editorial guidelines, nudity before the “watershed” hour of 9 p.m. at night – the time after which programming geared towards adults may be aired – must be justified by context. And representations of sex are not allowed, unless there is a serious educational purpose, when broadcast before the watershed. Post-watershed, the program must be able to justify the “frank and realistic portrayal of sex” and the discussion of themes around it.
But What About Profanity? Drug Use? Rock-Climbing?
The BBC’s guidelines also dictate how their programs handle: Offensive language (not allowed in preschool programming, and only under special circumstances for children’s programming); rock-climbing and other extreme sports (with a disclaimer); alcohol and drug use (don’t glamorize it, unless warranted); hypnotism (according to the 1952 Hypnotism Act, hypnotism must be licensed); and exorcism, the occult and the paranormal (entertainment programs about these subjects “should not normally contain advice about health, finance, employment or relationships which could encourage people to make life changing decisions”).
Not Anything Goes
Just because the BBC’s guidelines are a bit more lax than say, the FCC’s, doesn’t mean the Brits aren’t OK with everything. After Saturday night’s airing of Britain’s Got Talent, the ITV show that catapulted 47-year-old church volunteer Susan Boyle and her glorious voice into fame, watchdog group OfCom received 39 calls of complaint about another contestant, a burlesque dancer. Fabia Cerra, a 35-year-old former Disco champion and ex-drug addict whose routine featured her breasts, after she stripped down to a black teddy and red-sequined pasties, was given the go ahead to pass on to the next round of judging.
Comments (11)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
I know this isn’t the main topic of this post, but since you brought her up, I must say that Susan Boyle is AWESOME. I watched the youtube video of her performance on Britain’s got Talent three times this morning. Each time I got all teary when that plain little woman opened her mouth and transformed into an angel in front of my eyes.
posted by Vickey on 4-16-2009 at 5:03 pm
Vickey, I just have to say — me too. I got choked up watching her, then I felt embarrassed, you know, because who cries at “Britain’s Got Talent”? So I drank a lot of water to try to stop myself from crying. Then I made my husband watch the YouTube video, during which time I found other things to occupy my time, like, oh, hey, the dishwasher needs emptying.
But it was absolutely inspiring and amazing and wonderful.
posted by linda on 4-16-2009 at 6:17 pm
I love it. There isn’t anything wrong with the naked body. At least our cousins across the pond can deal with the human form in a reasonable way.
No child is going to be scarred for live by seeing a nude model.
posted by Tina Kubala on 4-16-2009 at 8:49 pm
Ditto ditto Vickey/Linda -
I have to admit a usual adversion to Le Miz (being more of the Sondheim persuasion) but she now has the song in my head!
Linda – interesting columns. As you’re in England, can you maybe do something on Sweeney Todd?
posted by Amy on 4-16-2009 at 11:34 pm
I’m not fond of the watershed/safe harbor rules on television in the first place. They’re the sole reason watchdog puritanical wackadoos like the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association continue with their hate-filled tirades and a strange compulsion to make every program squeaky clean in their eyes.
The reason a lot of ABC affiliates got fined is because of the lateness of the safe harbor here in this country. In most countries where such a law exist, watershed begins at 9 PM. In the US, it’s at 10 PM. Considering Fox doesn’t program at 10 PM, and in the Central Time Zone, it’s 9 PM rather than 10 as it is on the East Coast. That minor technicality recently got ABC fined.
It’s moronic and insulting to the intelligence of the viewers, not to mention being such an antiquated rule.
posted by Jeff Harris on 4-17-2009 at 1:30 am
I love the fact that British TV doesn’t care much about mudity as long as its not vulgar. There’s a show called “how to look good naked” (it started here) that parades all shapes of women around topless and being proud of their every-shaped boobs.
I think an art lesson in the human form is awesome.
posted by Tricia on 4-17-2009 at 3:57 am
That would be nudity, not mudity.
posted by Tricia on 4-17-2009 at 3:59 am
As with most things there is a good and bad to all of it. Tasteful nudity is just that.. tasteful. We are not talking hustler or penthouse. Women and men should be portrayed in true to life fashion and not airbrushed or photoshopped into unreal proportions. I am ultra-conservative and have no problem with it. Much less of a problem than with some of the offensive language on the air. With all of the bleeps I just change the channel (as anyone offended should). One does not have to watch, it is not geared toward children and sounds as if it will be tastfully done. I say put a disclaimer on it and let it go.
posted by Kev in Ga on 4-17-2009 at 8:29 am
Nudity during a life drawing session is the least sexual thing ever. Really, underwear catalogs are more erotic. For the artist, the model is nothing but a series of lines and tones; for the non-artist, it’s just someone sitting (albeit naked) extremely still for often long periods of time.
posted by Katie on 4-17-2009 at 11:37 am
There’s a recent series on IFC about sex in movies. What surprised me was two of the episodes briefly review the advent of internet porn, complete with stills of uncensored hardcore acts. Granted, these scenes tended to air past 10pm on a cable channel, but still, the barrier’s disappearing.
posted by erak on 4-17-2009 at 12:11 pm
erak: IFC is kind of a premium cable channel, and they pride themselves on showing everything uncut and uncensored. They’re basically a hipster’s Turner Classic Movies.
My opinion: Canada’s had looser restrictions than the US for at least twenty years. (A TV movie about teenagers had swearing and nudity in the 80′s.) The UK has looser restrictions. It frequently seems like just about every democratic nation has looser restrictions on sex and profanity (as well as, presumably, drugs, violence and other objectionable content) than the US does.
At this point, it just seems so backwards to claim that sex and profanity are harmful to our children, even late at night when most kids are asleep. When practically every other nation has less restrictive content than we do, we just look silly and prudish.
posted by Sillstaw on 4-20-2009 at 12:28 pm