1) A pair of exposed breasts
2) The colloquial word for faeces
3) A vicious beating or a murder.
In which order would you place the above objects in relation to a child?
That is, which would you least like a child to encounter directly? The answer seems, fairly obviously, to be in reverse order; partial nudity is held to be the least harmless, whereas physical assault is the most dangerous and undesirable. Now consider the same child being exposed to these things on a television screen - the order is almost certainly inverted . It is far more likely (and seems to be considered more acceptable) for a child to vicariously experience violence via the media than for the same child to be exposed to the pernicious image of, er, female nipples. This is, to couch it in the most conservative terms, fucking insane and indicative of a sick, death-obsessed society. I do not want to have to live in a world where this is the case. Perhaps this can be conveniently be blamed on the Church - the all-pervading image of the crucifix providing a precedent for the glorification of violence and death- but whatever the cause, it remains that this is not the way a civilised society behaves. This is not a "think-of-the-children" rant proposing censorship of Tom and Jerry or any of that nonsense, however. I am fundamentally against censorship. I do agree that allowing vulnerable* people to choose whether or not they are exposed to violent or otherwise disturbing imagery is a good idea. However, I do not consider a large amount of what would be considered "sexual imagery" (by which I mean specifically nudity) to be disturbing. Furthermore, the methods employed by the BBFC and their foul spawn seem fundamentally hypocritical. Why is it that (for example) a man's bare chest can be shown, but a woman's can not? The only argument I can think of that isn't inherently sexist is that female chests are secondary sexual characteristics and therefore more "sexually charged" than their XY counterparts. Which is crap, because unless we start worrying about intersex examples on television to the exclusion of all else, it seems to follow that in the majority of cases, any bare chest is either male or female, and therefore, a man's lack of breasts is equally sexually significant as a woman's possession of the aforesaid attributes. For the record, I think both are good. If anyone can come up with a logical argument for the censorship of nudity (especially over and above violence) in the media, then I'd like to see it, please. Now.
Otherwise, I call for a sane and non-death-exalting way of structuring and advising about content, in order that future generations aren't quite so fucked in the head.
*This is not necessarily dictated by age, and could indeed be a matter of personal preference.