I haven't seen a topic on TV Potluck on nudity on TV, both full and partial, so I decided to create one. At the very least I haven't seen a topic dealing exclusively with TV nudity.

I have two examples from the same TV show. On tonight's Nip/Tuck, one of the male characters was naked while taking a shower. Another example happened earlier in the show when the same character was bare-butted at least when riding a woman in his imagination.

Mariel Hemingway in Civil Wars way back then. This pre-dated NYPD Blue.

There really needs to be more to this topic than just a list of scenes with naked people. And there are already topics covering TV censorship and taboos so... I'm not sure if there's anything specific about nudity that wouldn't fit into those conversations. But this may go somewhere totally different, so I'm willing to see how it goes for a little while. Just things to bear in mind.

Something I find rather interesting is how relatively prudish Dexter is about nudity despite being on Showtime and dealing with incredibly graphic subject matter and depiction of murder victims. The love scenes, while fairly realistic in terms of the choreography, usually have the characters half-dressed throughout and showing no more skin than a primetime drama might. And the lead character's M.O. involves strapping victims down to a table naked with restraining cellophane, yet everything is shot and lit to preserve the actors' modesty. I wonder if there's concern on the showrunner's part about eroticizing violence—if not, it seems a very odd place to draw the line.

Interesting question. I don't watch Dexter because I don't want to sympathize with a serial killer, but I wonder if the showrunners worried early on that if Dexter's proclivities seemed in any way sexual, the audience would be too turned off to ever root for him.

Personally, whenever I see nudity on TV, I usually get pulled out of the scene because I start thinking of how the actors felt doing it. I remember when Kim Delany did a bare butt scene in NYPD Blue, and she looked self-conscious. Ever since then, I've wondered how the actors feel while doing it.

Tony Geary was the first and last to, inadvertently, appear nude in a soap opera.

He was in a scene with Emma Samms, his was in a sleeping bag and said he couldn't get the feel of the scene, so he took everything off. When he went to get out of the bag, as part of the scene...viola, there he was in all his glory, although only for a nano-second. LOL

TG is rather proud of that scene.

This is a subject that fascinates me -- not just, ahem, in its own right, but as evidence of changing standards and demands, and how much clout certain producers have. (I probably should say "had," as there's been a clampdown during primetime in the last few years.)

For instance, while he had the clout, Steven Bochco liked to demand extra leniency from his networks in the area of nudity. All the actors on NYPD Blue, for instance, had to be prepared to drop their clothes if asked, though in the end I don't think it ever amounted to more than an occasional briefly seen and carefully angled and lit bare butt.

In an earlier series, Bay City Blues (set around a minor-league baseball team), Bochco announced amid much fanfare that he wasn't going to flinch from showing what a sports lockerroom looked like if a scene invited it. And one could see him preparing for it by hiring actors like Barry Tubb and Jeff McCracken, already known for being unperturbed by film nudity. But in the end, with only 4 episodes shown (and another 4 burned off on Sunday latenight in some markets, not including mine, grrr), we don't know how far he would have pushed it.

In the end, a lot depends on the actors. Even on premium cable, where theoretically anything goes (cf. Oz), a majority of actors really would rather not put their private areas on display for the camera -- especially in this day and age, when we all know that even a nanosecond can be captured and reproduced online forever. Yes, there'll always be the few who just love the exposure, God bless 'em; but they're not the majority. And I suspect that's the real reason why Dexter and other such series don't go further: the human element.

And I have to concede the truth of something David Duchovny said a number of years ago: despite high-minded artistic statements, all screen nudity is gratuitous. It doesn't really have to be done that way. (That doesn't mean I don't want more of it!)

Unless you're showing a birth. Babies just don't come out dressed.

But they do come with little hats <g>

One place where nudity wouldn't be gratuitious is in the morgue. AFAIK, NCIS is the only show with any sort of accuracy of this type, although there's always a strategically placed instrument tray or a strong light on the relevent areas so nothing is actually seen.
By contrast, all the CSI shows have a sheet tucked around the body as if they're asleep in bed.

The same goes for ER based shows. A trauma victim comes in, it's a case of get the clothes out of the way so you can see the injuries, not just leave them there so the censors won't be offended.

I thought the nudity on Queer As Folk was shot pretty tastefully, as it was mostly rear ends, breasts, from the side, and some rare male full frontal. The sex scenes were also good and not pornographic as some people tend to describe them in criticisms and reviews I've read. I've also noticed a lot of nudity on Weeds, especially male nudity. I thought I died and went to heaven when Romany Malco (Conrad) pulled his pants down and had sex with Mary Louise Parker (Nancy). His body is so beautiful.

There are times when showing another culture nudity is allowed on television. For example, on National Geographic Channel's "Taboo", there were young men having their bodies sliced to make it feel and look like crocodile scales. The program showed their buttocks and sometimes their penises. That would rarely, if ever, be seen on broadcast or basic cable showing American culture.

Yep, known as the old National Geographic double standard. There's a reason why, in years past, young men hoarded old copies of the magazine and carried them off for private perusal, hoping for high-minded articles about "primitive cultures" with lots of photos. It had the market all to itself back then.

Then the internet had to go and screw all that up!

WWE was doing wardrobe malfunctions long before Janet Jackson; Raw airs live and as recently as 2004 some of the "Divas", as they're called, were forgetting that double-sided tape is your best friend in that business. They've done actual nudity on pay-per-view a few times, most egregiously in 1999 when a girl named Miss Kitty won the Women's Title in what was actually dubbed a Four Corners Swimming Pool Evening Gown Match. Her character was supposed to be kind of a crazy, free spirit type, so after the match she stripped off her dress and then her bra before being covered up. Allegedly, she was told that she wouldn't be facing the hard camera and that she would be shot from behind, but that's not how it went down.

Yeah, I remember watching a bikini contest between Sable and Jacqueline a few years back when wrestling was huge and on like 24/7, and Sable wore a bikini bottom (thong, maybe?) and strategically placed hands painted over her breasts before being covered with a coat and hustle off by Mr. McMahon. And I never paid for wrestling so it had to be during their regular programming.

I'm surprised they didn't hire his brother Phil as a body double.

I'll see myself out...

I have not watched that many Premium shows, but it seemed to me that both Deadwood and The Wire seemed more comfortable showing the penis than vagina. I do not remember many times that any of the women in any of the Deadwood whorehouses showed her full wares to the camera, but I do remember seeing one scene with some random Cornish men buck naked. Granted, these were extras and we probably never saw them again, but they were there.

As for The Wire, I remember seeing one genuine shot of a woman's crotch area, but she was far away and out of focus. There are shots of porno magazines, but they are also pretty brief. There are a several more scenes of penises, either live, or in pictures. There were not many of them, but they were more noticeable, at least. Sometimes, the camera angle or the manner of display makes it uncertain whether it is a character's actual penis or a prosthetic. I suppose that it would be more difficult to fake a vagina, even with that puppet on...was it Tyra's talk show?

I saw a Pampers baby wipe commerical (OK, so I saw it on the Internet but it's also shown on TV). The baby wasn't wearing any clothes while the mother was wiping his/her bottom. The commercial is one time when TV nudity is cute.

Another example of the "National Geographic double standard": the TV mini-series, Shaka Zulu. Naked boobs and butts EVERYWHERE. I don't know which network it originally aired on, but it aired in the late Nineties on a non-major network in the NY metro area. Blew my teenaged mind that they were airing it on regular TV!

Then there was that scene in Star Trek:TNG, where Picard was being tortured by the Cardassians. With the lighting/shadows, nothing explicit was shown, but I was still surprised they showed him nude.

In season 1 of Heroes (for a recent example), Claire was technically topless in an episode, but because her chest was splayed open, you can't see her breasts. (Spoilered for the squeamish.)

I watched a version of The Tempest last night that was produced by the BBC in 1979, but I remember watching it on PBS at about the same time. I was surprised to see Ariel and the other spirits wearing nothing but flesh-colored g-strings. Which technically isn't "nude," but I have a hard time calling the buttocks decorated with nothing more than dental floss "clothed," either. Yet, like I said, this aired on PBS stations. So I think there's a corollary to the "National Geographic double standard." It's the "Art with a capitol 'A' double standard." After all, it's Shakespeare! That means the nudity is Serious, not titilating!

Yes, and not just Shakespeare. For many Americans, the first unabashed nudity on their TV was in the British historical series (I think the real first was a scene in Elizabeth R between secondary characters, back around 1970) that PBS would import. And there was a PBS telecast based on the play Steambath, in which Valerie Perrine took a shower in one scene (half-turned away, but boobs and buttocks visible) and two men ran away naked in another. After all, it was theater, it was Art. Only high-class people watch this.

On Wednesday, November 28th, at 10 p.m. Eastern/Pacific time on the National Geographic Channel, the program "Taboo" is showing an episode called "Nudity". It will be repeated on Thursday, November 29, at 1 a.m. Eastern/Pacific time and on Saturday, December 1, at 3 p.m. Eastern/Pacific time.

"Make Me A Supermodel" has been showing skin from day 1. It has the contestants in very tiny, very tight clothing. Guys in thongs, people shaving other people's asses, sexy lingerie, etc. It's just a very naked show.

There was an A&E biography on Marilyn Monroe, and they didn't censor her Playboy pictorial. I guess because it's part of a documentary, the FCC allowed it.

The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over cable networks (yet -- they're trying to change that right now). It was A&E's own decision to take the risk that their viewers would find it acceptable.

Which is ironic coming from the guy who hosted Red Shoe Diaries for seven years.

I've heard him saying that, too, but I think he follows it up by saying he doesn't have anything against it; it's just not necessary. He just wants to call a spade a spade.

If he is talking about sex scenes, post-sex scenes, or shower scenes, then I would agree for the most part. Unless these scenes themselves are truly important to the story or characters, they can be trimmed. If he includes scenes in morgues, hospitals, concentration camps, or nudist colonies, then I am a little iffy. There is only so much strategic placing that one can do before it starts to look stupid.

Yeah, but remember the Simpsons movie? After a whole bunch of strategic placement, they did exactly the opposite and it looked even stupider.

There is such a thing as avoiding a display of flesh in a way that hurts the story through sheer ridiculousness, too. Sarah Jessica Parker not taking off her underwear in her love scenes is a prime example. And on the guys' side, Joe Flanigan is apparently so determined not to appear shirtless these days that his character was defibrilated through his belly on an episode of Stargate Atlantis last year. You'd think if writers know they're dealing with leads who won't show skin even in circumstances where it would be natural to, they'd write around those circumstances. Or the directors could shoot the scenes from an angle that doesn't show anything—it would certainly be better than implying that someone has intangible underwear, or a heart located beneath his stomach.

I thought this was one of the funnier gags in the movie. I laughed aloud when the gap in the fence reversed the whole strategic placement thing.

I didn't until you brought it up.

That is one of those comedic gags which rest upon nudity or the avoidance of it, making the subject itself nudity, and it is played for laughs. The Austin Powers movies make a (stupid) joke at the expense of strategic placement, while Judd Apatow seems obsessed with the penis. I think that the only Apatow movie that I have actually seen was Walk Hard, and most of the nudity there was completely unnecessary in my opinion, especially since the leads did not seem to partake in it. I thought that the Austin Powers movies were just horrible, so the not-nudity scenes were unnecessary by default.

When it comes to dramas, especially those where there are scenes where nudity would be commonplace in real-life, strategic placement goes only so far. Unrealistic use of clothing or sheets is...unrealistic.

Or they can undermine the scenes with stunt-bodies.

I am rarely thrown by nudity on TV. I guess I watched too much Oz, although the scene of many swinging penises that opened one episode did take it over the top. But I am almost always thrown by non-nudity when there should be nudity. On Rescue Me there was a steamy if ridiculously fast sex scene in which Janet never took off her underwear. When she rolls off of Tommy, she didn't even need to adjust anything. I know it was a quicky, but she would have at least needed to pull it to the side. It just made the whole scene seem off.

I'm right there with you, Muffyn - I have much more of a problem with what I call "gratuitous coverups" rather than "gratuitous nudity." Nobody gets out of bed already wearing their underwear after having sex (that I've met, anyway). I also roll my eyes at lockerroom scenes in which nobody actually takes off their clothes, and at shower scenes in which the shower-er manages to remain covered up. European television and films seem to have a much less of that "keep everything covered up" attitude, which seems more natural to me.

Aw... I kinda find Hollywood's famous L-shaped blanket charming.

Don't forget the "strip" clubs where guys pay big bucks to see chicks grind against poles dressed in two piece costumes.

I much prefer scenes where someone shrugs into a robe, or attempts to dress under/behind the covers after doin' it. Much less ridiculous than hopping out of bed with intact undies or dragging the whole comforter with you to the bathroom.

I actually owe tv one for that. See, I was a young(ish) one when I saw Flashdance (although embarassingly too old for this anecdote). When Jennifer Beals was dancing in that club with the fancy dancing, elaborate staging and not actually taking her clothes off, I figured that that must be what people meant when they talked about "exotic dancers", you know, vs. strippers who actually took their clothes off.

It wasn't until later when I saw the faux strip clubs in, well, every cop show ever post-1995 or so, and the strippers still had clothes on, that it finally clicked for me that exotic dancer is just a euphemism. Duh. Thanks, low-minded cop show producers for sleazing it up (within the bounds of the FCC). I've got it. You can stop now.

I thought it was clever when Drawn Together would have blurred images or black boxes to censor nudity like a real reality show. Then I bought the DVDs. When the box says that the DVDs are uncensored, they MEAN it! It was just astounding, because it's animated . . . no real bodies involved, they had to create everything from thin air. And it's not flattering, sexy nudity either. It's pretty stupid and gross most of the time, especially when it involves overweight 20's cartoon sex symbol Toot. I just kept wondering if the animators liked drawing that.

Comedy Central recently aired the uncensored version of some Drawn Together episodes. It was late at night and I didn't realize it was uncensored until I saw Captain Hero completely naked. It caught me by surprise but it was equally hilarious. They did however keep some scenes censored. Foxxy's masturbation scene, for example, remained censored with a flashing "DVD Only" black bar flashing over the censored parts.

The Boondocks DVDs also have the uncensored cartoon nudity. One particularly "memorable" scene had a character having a nightmare about going to jail and meeting a very well hung (like two and a half feet) inmate in the showers.

Which episode? I HAVE to see that.

Episode 5-1. It's not actually the opening. The parade o' penises takes place during one of Hill's snorologues about half way through the episode. This is one Hill moment I never fast forward through.