Comrades of the European Internet Forum,
enough is enough!
For decades, we have placed ourselves in the cultural shadows - well-behaved, conformist, as if we were the ill-educated child of the great American moral uncle, who must not be too loud, not too naked and certainly not too independent. While half-naked shoulders are censored at high school graduation ceremonies in the USA, heads are thrown around like bowling balls in TV series. All normal, all ‘entertainment’. But woe betide you if you see a nipple - then the censorship hammer screeches louder than a Trump on Truth Social.
I ask you: What has become of Europe?
We, the continent-born of the Enlightenment, the revolutions, the renaissance of nudity on canvas, in stone and on film - we have allowed a country that bottles cheese in cans, of all things, to tell us what is ‘moral’!
It’s not moral, it’s demurely stupid.
Why are depictions of violence in mass media allowed to flow freely like American fracking oil, but natural, aesthetic, tasteful nudity - which has been part of European art and culture for centuries - is algorithmically filtered out, demonetised and labelled with warnings as if it were uranium?
No more prudish double standards!
We need a cultural return to what we have to offer:
- Enlightenment instead of transfiguration.
- Pleasure instead of violence.
- Nudity as an expression of naturalness - not as a moral offence.
I call on you: Banish pixelated prudery! Let’s tear apart the corset of American moral dictatorship like a badly programmed DRM protection! Save the freedom of the breast - for Europe!
Stop aligning your films, games and series with a market that beeps ‘fuck’ five times but completely waves ‘shoot him in the face’ through.
We are not Hollywood’s post office box. We are Europe. We are culture. We are naked! - So, metaphorically. And sometimes literally. And that’s okay.
Thank you for your attention!
so… Why are we naked?
Because there is nothing wrong with it.
fair enough i suppose.
Because it’s artistic and natural.
I don’t know, but there’s very chilly weather here and my pee pee is shrinking. Maybe we could try again in the summer?
hmm, that’s unfortunate, have you considered putting clothes on? I hear that helps.
I didn’t take my dick out for Harambe, but I’ll do it for Europe
“A reliable way to incapacitate Americans” @GenosseFlosse
HELL YEAH!
light nsfw meme
It’s not gay if the balls don’t touch. So they tell me. :)
They also are probably wearing socks.
it’s not gay. Been there, can confirm
The nudity taboo is a conspiracy by the textile industry to sell more clothes.
Trust me, no one wants to see me take my clothes off.
I disagree, you were just taught to be ashamed of your body. Just as you shouldn’t be ashamed of your face or hair or height, you shouldn’t be ashamed of your nipples or butt or genitals.
Nudity is okay, your body is yours, and your nudity is not for others pleasure if you don’t want it to be. Just as I wouldn’t look at your face and be disgusted that you have a nose, i wouldn’t be disgusted that you have other body parts.
I for one welcome our bare, heaving and melonlike overlords.
Nice 😏
This is unironically great copywriting. Either that or chatGPT.
I wonder what OP does for a living.
Removed by mod
I assume that you haven’t watched any American TV shows for the past couple of decades. Nudity and gratuitous sex scenes are a staple of the American entertainment industry.
But note that that’s about nudity and sex being the same, and the sex is pornographic (that is, the intent in showing it is to arouse the viewer). The OP is about non-sexual nudity. In fact, OP doesn’t mention sex at all, but I feel like it’s reasonable to extend the argument to non-pornographic depictions of sex.
That’s also true. Actually, I think they’re (edit: sex and violence) both intended as pornographic in their own way.
I think, there is a strong difference between pornography and artistic nudity and those should not be viewed as the same.
From Wikipedia on Nude (Art):
Kenneth Clark noted that sexuality was part of the attraction to the nude as a subject of art, stating “no nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling, even though it be only the faintest shadow—and if it does not do so it is bad art and false morals”. According to Clark, the explicit temple sculptures of tenth-century India “are great works of art because their eroticism is part of their whole philosophy”. Great art can contain significant sexual content without being obscene.
Ah, to be clear, gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence are both pornographic in their own way. Sorry, my bad.
Funny, I was under the opposite impression: nudity has almost disappeared from US shows.
Eh. Violence is still way more prominent. If feels like the whole point of the first 5 minutes of every cable show is presenting in vivid on-screen detail a new and unheard of way a person can be horribly hurt. Nudity is unusual and worth remembering, though.
Bruh what’s your problem with depictions of violence on TV?
They rarely serve a plot purpose, and getting pulled into a woodchipper is in fact worse and less normal than having sex.
Violence often does serve a purpose. For example, in superhero movies it’s often how the heroes stop the bad guys. That teaches us important lessons about life, like that we should shoot health insurance CEOs.
I agree. The only people that can claim the violence doesn’t serve a purpose with any intellectual honesty are the tiny number of anarcho-pacifists.
However, a superhero punching out a bad guy, or even a realistic depiction of a recent-ish war like in the opening of Saving Private Ryan, is very different from the kind of gratuitous onscreen gore that’s all over the place now.
They’ll claim the woodchipper serial killer stuff establishes who the badguy is or whatever, of course, but I don’t buy it, and I definitely don’t believe the producer is paying out that much on special effects for the sake of artistic integrity.
The closest thing I can remember seeing in the last few years to that is in The Boys when A-Train liquefies Huey’s girlfriend. But I think giving us a sense of Huey’s shock and trauma is absolutely necessary in that scene, because it establishes why he doesn’t just take the settlement money and move on with his life. We need to believe this event has profoundly affected him and made it impossible for him to ignore the problems with superheroes.
Really? Just since I posted this, I saw Mikey Madison getting shot into a lit stove and catching on fire.
I guess if you seek out slasher flicks… I like science fiction and cartoons
I actually have no idea what it was in originally - it was just a clip shown in the intro to Saturday Night Live. Which goes to show how normalised that sort of thing is.
Hell yeah! But actually, what?
I have no idea what I just read, but it sounded like something I should agree with
he wants to look at boobs
Amen to that.
Ironically this comment implies there’s something morally wrong or depraved about that, or that wanting to look at boobs is an inherently sexual thing (to which only an immoral degenerate would succumb), which is exactly the kind of Puritan-derivative “sex bad” mindset that the post is rallying against.
thats deep
I took my clothes off I don’t know what else is going on but I’m having a good time thanks for inviting me I really appreciate it
Username checks out?
I can see your nutsack!
thanks
deleted by creator
The quality has also dropped dramatically since the emergence of American streaming services while creating entertainment has become more accessible with freeware and open source programs. The world lost it‘s appetite for Hollywood slop.