Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says

[Spot261]

None of which is the point here. The thread is specifically about the INCREASED freedoms the producers have and how they should use them, not some threat of imposed censorship that has recently come into play.

If the OP had been something along the lines of "Producers told they CANNOT include nudity or swearing despite being on subscription" then I would actually be up in arms about the restriction of freedom and completely agree with you. The principle DOES matter, the practical application is another question.

The truth is, however, that they have effectively been given increased freedoms not available to previous production teams and we are discussing how useful those freedoms might be and how best to use them.

So no, the issue here isn't censorship, it's about what is best for the franchise, the fanbase and the broader liberal mentality we largely represent. Your point that nudity (and by extension sex) well done could benefit the show is well taken, albeit I'm inclined to see the negatives outweighing the positives, specifically the dangers of sensationalism (intended or perceived) and the level of (often unintended) institutionalised exploitation I believe we are seeing being completely at odds with the ideals of trek. Specifically the idea that a freedom for the audience can creep into becoming an obligation for the performer.

We aren't living in an overly censorious society, in many ways we have some of the greatest media freedoms ever known. Just because we can do something (a situation I approve of) doesn't mean we should. We know we CAN put the sex and nudity in, there's nothing to challenge there, the question is whether it's actually a good idea.

 

[Christopher]

None of which is the point here. The thread is specifically about the INCREASED freedoms the producers have and how they should use them, not some threat of imposed censorship that has recently come into play.

Yes, that's exactly what we are talking about -- the fact that a Star Trek show on CBS All Access would be subject to less censorship than the previous Star Trek shows on network television. That was the explicit topic of the interview that this thread was created to discuss. Who was talking about censorship as something new? I sure wasn't. That would be insane, because censorship has been part of television since the beginning and has been far stricter in the past than it is today. I was comparing the potentially greater freedom the show will have now to the lesser freedom that Star Trek has had in the past or would continue to have if it were airing on network TV.

So no, the issue here isn't censorship, it's about what is best for the franchise, the fanbase and the broader liberal mentality we largely represent. Your point that nudity (and by extension sex) well done could benefit the show is well taken, albeit I'm inclined to see the negatives outweighing the positives, specifically the dangers of sensationalism (intended or perceived) and the level of (often unintended) institutionalised exploitation I believe we are seeing being completely at odds with the ideals of trek. Specifically the idea that a freedom for the audience can creep into becoming an obligation for the performer.

We aren't living in an overly censorious society, in many ways we have some of the greatest media freedoms ever known. Just because we can do something (a situation I approve of) doesn't mean we should. We know we CAN put the sex and nudity in, there's nothing to challenge there, the question is whether it's actually a good idea.

Okay, that clarifies things, but I still think you've diverged from the real topic by fixating so exclusively on sex and nudity. Again, the executive in the interview said nothing whatsoever about sex scenes, only nudity and profanity. So you're speculating beyond the evidence there. And those things, as I've been saying, are just one facet of the greater possibilities that come with the removal of network censorship. There are other potential freedoms that are not about cuss words or boobs.

 

[Tenacity]

For one thing, Star Trek was never intended to be a children's show,

It's commonly thought of as a "family show," suitable for all ages. Star Trek television wasn't preceded by warnings, and Star Trek movies don't get R ratings.

If a Star Trek movie did received a R rating, it would be cut.

 

[Spot261]

Yes, that's exactly what we are talking about -- the fact that a Star Trek show on CBS All Access would be subject to less censorship than the previous Star Trek shows on network television.

We might be saying the same thing here and misunderstanding each other. Your posts over the past few pages have seemed to some extent to indicate a protest position against overbearing censorship, which I accept exists but dispute meaningfully limits what we see on screen.

GoT, Black Sails (of which I'm a huge fan) and any number of historical dramas now seem to be perfectly able to produce virtual hardcore porn under the existing rules. Ok, actual penetration is not shown, but we aren't far off. I know I'm focusing on sex here, but the headline was explicitly (no pun intended) about nudity, which typically tends to be interrelated with sex in the media.

Clearly the link is implied with sensationalist overtones and pointing out (correctly) that the interviewer pushed in a given direction does not take into account that Lanzone is a highly experienced media professional who could hardly have failed to understand how any given response would be used. He could easily have opted for a less malleable response but chose not to.

The shift to subscription TV represents a further decrease in censorship which I agree in principle is a good thing, what matters here is how those freedoms are used. I do feel that the saturation of sexual content in the media risks an industry of implicit exploitation, if we aren't there already. We seriously risk creating an industry which caters in abundance to minor freedoms by impinging on much more fundamental ones.

I do feel that attempts to push the envelope in trek could very easily overshadow more meaningful aspects of the show and that its existing enormous success based on a family friendly format should be an indicator of preferred future directions. There are very real dangers in the assumption that more is necessarily better.

Trek has become iconic based on a format that uses metaphor and (at its best) does so gently, often leaving you wondering if what you took from a given episode was intended at all. It leads you to ask questions, not beat you over the head with the answer.

 

[Christopher]

It's commonly thought of as a "family show," suitable for all ages. Star Trek television wasn't preceded by warnings, and Star Trek movies don't get R ratings.

In fact, TOS was rather risque and daring for its time, pushing the boundaries of censorship in its depiction of skin and sexual themes. Roddenberry initially tried to go even further with sexual content in TNG -- see "The Naked Now" and "Justice" -- but that got toned down once he was no longer in charge. But DS9 was a pretty sexy show, and the same-sex kiss in "Rejoined" was very controversial at the time -- not the first of its kind on TV, but one of the first few.

So there's always been a tension between the tendency to see ST as a "family" show and the tendency to push the boundaries. Star Trek: The Motion Picture got a G rating at studio insistence, but Roddenberry still put in the character of Ilia, from a species known for overpowering sexual allure, and gave her as much of a nude scene as he could get away with. Given his druthers, I'm sure he would've preferred it to have an R rating. The only other feature film he produced, after all, was Roger Vadim's Pretty Maids All in a Row, an R-rated dark sex comedy that was one of the first American films to take advantage of the R rating by including frontal female nudity.

We might be saying the same thing here and misunderstanding each other. Your posts over the past few pages have seemed to some extent to indicate a protest position against overbearing censorship, which I accept exists but dispute meaningfully limits what we see on screen.

No, my position is merely to point out the general principle that freedom from censorship can be used in positive ways, not just the negative ways that you seem preoccupied with. You're the one who's taken a position of protest; I'm trying to point out that there are positive potentials as well as negative, so it's premature to expect the worst. Especially given the records of the people who are actually behind Discovery, Bryan Fuller, Gretchen Berg, and Aaron Harberts. I mean, that's two gay men and a woman, so I don't think you have any reason to fear that young actresses are going to be exploited on the casting couch here.

 

[Spot261]

Probably little threat of the casting couch, certainly, but being part of a bigger picture across the industry wherein performers are under increasing pressure to conform due to the changing nature of the work, possibly.

At the risk of being overly personal here my view might well be somewhat coloured by personal experience of adult entertainment (having been a live performer - an experience that was anything but "empowering" or an expression of sexual freedom - and that's as a straight male) and I do get your point.

I'd just hate to see a situation where the lines between professional acting and the adult entertainment industry blur to the extent that success in one all but requires aspects of the other, a situation I can't help but suspect we are pretty close to already. If any show should avoid contributing to such a situation trek is the one.

People making a free choice to express themselves is one thing. Working in an ostensibly non exploitative industry but feeling that compromising on one's personal choices in order to stand a better chance of success is another.

Again, in no other field would we describe such a situation as anything other than exploitation and be rightly horrified.

I guess we just have slightly different views of what works for trek and what might work in the future and you might well be right, but I'm simply of the view that trek works fine the way it is and that the current format allows a great deal of scope for story telling, allegory and metaphor the way it is.

 

[Christopher]

I guess we just have slightly different views of what works for trek and what might work in the future and you might well be right, but I'm simply of the view that trek works fine the way it is and that the current format allows a great deal of scope for story telling, allegory and metaphor the way it is.

Nothing can endure if it stays "the way it is" forever. Once, "the way it is" meant only white male leads. It meant that women in Starfleet were relegated to conventional "pink collar" jobs like nurse, secretary, and switchboard operator. It meant no gay people acknowledged to exist in the entire universe. Heck, in TOS they couldn't even say "damn" as an expletive and could barely get away with "hell." Even aside from that, the shows and films have needed to evolve in their production techniques and in their acting, design, and editorial styles to stay current for new audiences. Many critics said that the reason Berman-era Trek seemed less relevant than the newer genre shows alongside it was that it was still using a stolid, conventional style of writing and camera work and editing and the like that seemed old-fashioned and limited.

The whole reason Star Trek existed in the first place was because Gene Roddenberry wanted to change the way things were. The way things were in the 1960s was that the only adult-oriented science fiction on television was in anthologies, while SF shows with continuing casts were all children's shows. Roddenberry didn't accept that conventional approach and chose to innovate by creating a continuing SF series written to the same level of maturity as Gunsmoke or Naked City or Have Gun -- Will Travel. Both in-story and behind the scenes, Star Trek has always been about not settling for the way things are, and not being afraid to try new things. It's when it's gotten too conventional and complacent that it's fallen short of its potential. It's a franchise that should be on the cutting edge, whatever that may mean in a given era.

 

[Spot261]

The whole reason Star Trek existed in the first place was because Gene Roddenberry wanted to change the way things were

Not the narrative I see, it was more him wanting to make money and possibly get to bed young actresses, the whole "Gene's Vision" thing came significantly later.

Both in-story and behind the scenes, Star Trek has always been about not settling for the way things are, and not being afraid to try new things.

In many ways yes and I'd love to see some form of progress there, I'm just not on the same page that "progress" equates to "upping the sex content". There are hundreds of shows that have done that already, in many cases to the extreme, without in any way being a catalyst for change in society. This would hardly be trek breaking new ground.

As you say, no one has actually made any such statement but the implication seems to be there. Having an extremely well written gay lead would be much more meaningful. Risking perpetuating the porn industry's stereotyping of lesbian sex as male entertainment, even unintentionally, would be almost certainly detrimental here.

I'd argue that TNG in many cases was every bit as challenging on real world issues as TOS, especially with regard to much of the Cold War era interventionist policies of the US, but managed that without feeling the need to challenge the boundaries of TV making.

Later shows, Voyager and Ent in particular suffered as you say, but I'd suggest that was as much due to a general disinterest and lethargy in the overworked writing teams. It became pat and irrelevant, but adding 7 of 9 in her cat suit hardly moved things forward.

 

[Christopher]

Not the narrative I see, it was more him wanting to make money and possibly get to bed young actresses, the whole "Gene's Vision" thing came significantly later.

No, the part about the idealized future and perfected humanity came later. The part about doing an adult-oriented SFTV series with continuing characters is a separate subject from that altogether, and it was something that had never been done before in American television. The only previous adult-oriented SF had been anthologies -- The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, maybe Science Fiction Theater. SF with continuing characters had always been for children. But Roddenberry didn't come from children's TV. He cut his teeth on Dragnet and Have Gun -- Will Travel, and HGWT's Sam Rolfe taught him a lot about writing genre television with intelligence and sophistication. So that was the model he sought to emulate in his work. He didn't pitch his show as "Wagon Train to the stars" just because it was a space Western; after all, there were dozens of Westerns on TV at the time. The reason he compared the show to that particular Western was because it was a critically respected adult drama driven by anthology-like guest-star-of-the-week stories but with a regular core cast to tie them together, and that was the model he wanted to emulate. His initial series format document used adult dramas like Gunsmoke and Dr. Kildare as its referents, and both of the first two editions of the series writers' bible opened with lengthy tracts about the importance of writing science fiction with the same level of plausibility and care as any other genre, and railing against the tendency for people writing SFTV to set aside the fundamentals of good writing. Even at the time, Roddenberry lacked respect for shows like Lost in Space and was deliberately trying to do something smarter.

And yes, of course he was trying to make money, but making good television that stands out from the pack is how you do that. Just because he hadn't yet started taking his visionary image seriously, that doesn't mean he didn't have standards of professionalism as a producer and didn't want to make good television. As I said, those are two entirely unrelated issues. Indeed, he was a better producer before he started to see himself as a visionary, because he understood that realistic characterization and conflict were the key to good drama. That was something he lost sight of when he got too invested in being a philosopher.

As you say, no one has actually made any such statement but the implication seems to be there.

The implication is there because the reporter wanted it to be there. He asked a deliberately leading question about nudity and swearing, and the CEO simply answered the question he was asked. That only proves what the reporter's focus was, not the CEO's -- and it doesn't suggest one single blessed thing about the intentions of the actual showrunners because they weren't being interviewed. The reporter brought up nudity and swearing because he wanted to create a narrative that would make his story more controversial and get more response from the audience. It's a standard trick of the media, and you totally fell for it. You should be more careful not to mistake the narrative a reporter is trying to manufacture for what the subject of the interview is actually saying. You certainly shouldn't mistake it for the intentions of people who aren't even participating in the interview.

I'd argue that TNG in many cases was every bit as challenging on real world issues as TOS, especially with regard to much of the Cold War era interventionist policies of the US, but managed that without feeling the need to challenge the boundaries of TV making.

TNG challenged the boundaries in a number of ways, at least in its early seasons. Heck, it was a pioneer in first-run syndicated drama. Like TOS, it was something that had never quite been done before and it set a precedent that many others have followed since. It was also on the cutting edge in visual effects for its day, at least until Babylon 5 came along. It challenged boundaries in casting a bald Englishman in the lead role -- something that was actually pretty controversial and that various executives had to be talked into. Its cast was fairly racially inclusive for its time (although they walked back the initial intention to cast an Asian or Pacific-Islander actor as Data), and featuring a lead character with a disability was unusual, as was having a female security chief. TNG tried to challenge the boundaries, and if anything it fell short in some ways after a while. But even though Michael Piller's TNG was more stolid and respectable than Roddenberry's TNG, it was innovative as well, in behind-the-scenes ways if nothing else, thanks to Piller's determination to cultivate new writers and directors. Quite a few of the leading names in television today owe their careers to Piller's unusually open approach to recruiting a creative staff.

It became pat and irrelevant, but adding 7 of 9 in her cat suit hardly moved things forward.

I think it's deeply sexist and superficial to dismiss Seven of Nine as a character just because of what she wore. Yes, her wardrobe was distracting, but she was a rich, well-written, superbly acted character. The reason she got so much story focus wasn't just because of her looks -- people forget that the Doctor got nearly as much story focus. (I did an article on this for Star Trek Magazine in the March 2009 issue, and my research showed that in the four seasons featuring her, Seven was the second-most heavily featured character after Janeway, with the Doctor in third place, but in season 7 the Doctor actually had more focus episodes than Seven.) The reason those two characters got so much focus is because they were the two richest, most complex characters, the ones with the most growing and self-exploration to do and the most potential for conflict. All the other characters had pretty much worked through their issues and settled into stasis by season 4, with the exception of the evolving Tom-B'Elanna romance. So you're absolutely wrong -- Seven's character journey, along with the Doctor's, was the main thing that did move Voyager forward in its final four years.

 

[Spot261]

I think it's deeply sexist and superficial to dismiss Seven of Nine as a character just because of what she wore. Yes, her wardrobe was distracting, but she was a rich, well-written, superbly acted character

I did not dismiss her, merely drew attention to the fact her attire was clearly presented with a certain view in mind. I actually said nothing about the character or how she was written at all, merely pointed out that the obviously provocative cat suit did nothing in itself to enhance the show, in fitting with my point that simply adding sexual elements does not in and of itself make a show more challenging.

Perhaps I worded that badly, but the point was about the cat suit, not the character wearing it.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps I worded that badly, but the point was about the cat suit, not the character wearing it.

Which is exactly the problem: That you chose to focus only on the sexualizing element and say nothing about the rest.

 

[Spot261]

Not really, I was talking in general terms about Voyager being pat and unchallenging, THEN how introducing a sexual element in no way moved it forward. Had I reduced 7 to being nothing more than the cat suit you would have a point. I didn't, I drew attention to the way using her body as a blatant marketing ploy did nothing to improve a weak show. (in my view)

 

[RJDiogenes]

They aren't now.

If they weren't, this thread wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be special-interest groups who oppose sexuality on TV and movies, and comics and in games, in theater and music, and in advertising and for people walking down the street. If they weren't, nudity wouldn't still be illegal in most places. If they weren't, there wouldn't be a bunch of people falling all over themselves trying to find excuses why beauty and sexuality, unlike just about everything else, does not belong in Star Trek.

No, its legacy was challenging peoples assumptions via metaphor and allegory, not shock value just because you can

Depends on how you define shocking. That interracial kiss was shocking enough to get them banned in some places.

This is neither, there is no threat of censorship of any kind. You just keep throwing that word around as though it has some relevance.

It does have relevance. The reason this thread exists is that Discovery will have less censorship on the streaming service-- and some people want it to carry the network censorship with it.

Which should lead you to question whether you really are representing the views of real world liberals here.

No, it would lead me to question whether Left Wingers still embrace liberalism. Well, not really question it, because they haven't for at least twenty years, and it seems to be getting continually worse.

And putting yet another naked person on screen, regardless of whether it actually makes the show better, does that how? We have a media inundated with sex already and a right wing president elect who owns a beauty pageant.

Because to do otherwise would be to send the wrong message. There are plenty of Gays on mainstream shows these days-- what message would it send to have no Gays in the 23rd century?

I'm not sure how you could possibly not get it. We don't have a culture of curtailed freedoms and overbearing censorship. We have a culture wherein people's sexuality is routinely used by others to make money.

As is their acting talent, their writing talent, their SFX talent, their musical talent, their general appearance, their personality quirks and charm, their work ethic, their family and business contacts, their personal experience, their random skills and hobbies, and anything else you can name. You're again making the assumption that beauty and sexuality are not part of the normal human experience and have an entirely different set of rules-- which is pure religion.

That is exactly the opposite of true liberalism, you keep mistaking the right to sexual freedom (which is about SELF expression) with ever increasing sex in the media, which in many ways is exactly the opposite of freedom if it curtails performers freedom to choose. Tell me by all means those performers are exercising a right to self expression, as opposed to simply doing what they are told is expected of them.

They have a job that they applied for and got. Jobs have qualifications. Trying to keep nudity and/or sexuality out of Trek by likening it to a social crusade to save people from themselves is another big stretch.

We have the right to show nudity and sex already, that doesn't mean we have to do so at every opportunity.

"The line must be drawn HERE!"

But you aren't being open minded, you are assuming that any suggestion that additional sex is not warranted is right wing conservative censorship. You aren't open to the idea that it might simply not be a good idea.

Of course I'm open to the idea. I just disagree, and think it is a good idea.

It's commonly thought of as a "family show," suitable for all ages. Star Trek television wasn't preceded by warnings, and Star Trek movies don't get R ratings.

No, it was never intended as a family show-- not TOS, anyway. And it shouldn't be a family show, at least not in the sense of diluted, generic entertainment.

 

[Spot261]

There wouldn't be special-interest groups who oppose sexuality on TV and movies,

Exactly, special interest groups, fringe elements. There are special interest groups that insist on the Earth being flat. That's hardly evidence of an overbearing authority censoring the media unreasonably.

We have almost unheard of freedoms in the media, yet you seem determined to fight a strawman rather than address real issues that are actually threatening people and causing suffering.

If they weren't, there wouldn't be a bunch of people falling all over themselves trying to find excuses why beauty and sexuality, unlike just about everything else, does not belong in Star Trek.

Who? Has it not occurred to you that people might simply feel that additional sex in trek simply doesn't fit?

That the show almost consistently works better without?

That almost every instance of incorporating it has been detrimental to the show?

This isn't censorship, it's an opinion on what would make a better show and how best to use the artistic freedoms given.

You keep insisting on fighting a battle against an imaginary enemy when there are real ones you are determined to ignore.

I know from other posts you're not a teenager, but you seem to have this very juvenile and frankly silly attitude that more is automatically better and any suggestion otherwise is the voice of a religious moral authority stifling your freedom of speech.

Depends on how you define shocking. That interracial kiss was shocking enough to get them banned in some places.

True, I'll give you that one. I'll also praise Teri Farrell for how enthusiastically she embraced the same sex kiss in "Rejoined", not because she had to, but because she could see the good it could do in the world.

Such examples are, however, the exception not the norm within a franchise which claims to support women's rights.

some people want it to carry the network censorship with it.

Again, who? Freely and voluntarily opting not to include something is not censorship. Censorship is being or feeling disallowed from doing so. Again, you are misusing the word and that's an insult to people who have suffered under regimes with no freedom of speech.

We have freedom of speech, that doesn't mean we have to shout non stop just because we can.

whether Left Wingers still embrace liberalism

Or whether you truly understand the concept the way they do. You keep defining political and moral concepts primarily in terms of the arts, not the reality they reflect. It's superficial and misses the point, like defining good health in terms of smooth skin.

At the end of the day, the "beauty" you keep referring to is not just an artistic concept, it's human beings who are doing anything BUT expressing themselves or their freedom when they portray sex on screen. They are simply doing what they are told they should do to succeed in a career, commonly uncomfortably so.

That is not liberalism and if you believe it is you really need to re assess how you look at the concept

Because to do otherwise would be to send the wrong message. There are plenty of Gays on mainstream shows these days-- what message would it send to have no Gays in the 23rd century?

Yes, where did anyone suggest there shouldn't be any gay people?

You're again making the assumption that beauty and sexuality are not part of the normal human experience and have an entirely different set of rules-- which is pure religion.

Another concept you need seem to define strangely.

Yes beauty and sexuality are part of the human experience, quite specifically the human on screen. A real human, not an object or an abstract concept.

It's THEIR beauty to use and express, not YOURS to consume.

You keep repeating this as though you have some inherent right to other people's bodies as a form of entertainment and that somehow is the essence of liberalism. It is not.

Where sexual portrayals are so commonplace that an acting career largely hinges on willingness to perform in them, an on screen act is NOT a freedom or an expression of beauty, it's exploiting someone who may not feel they have much choice. That IS exploitation and the precise opposite of everything women fought for for years.

As I mentioned earlier, I do in fact have related experience here and my experience was exactly the opposite of empowering or liberating. The audience may feel freer, the actual person they are watching is a different matter.

You may watch people having sex on TV and feel liberated, I see it and wonder to what extent they REALLY want to be there or are simply going along with it because it's their job and thus a perceived obligation.

It's often about having the performer's power taken away from them, about limiting their freedom and choices in favour of a paying publics. You are paying, they are being paid, thus your choices matter more than theirs.

In any given case the performer has the capacity not to consent, but their living depends on finding work. When an increasing percentage of that work relies on willingness then their choices become increasingly stifled. All so you can look at beauty and feel you are somehow helping the world by doing so.

 

[BillJ]

Might be best to wait and judge Discovery on its own merits. It has been twelve years since Trek was on TV (still clinging to the 1960's), things have changed quite a bit and the show has to compete on the current playing field.

 

[Cake]

I recently watched the first two seasons of Outlander. Sex and nudity had most of the time a story purpose. Of course there were also some gratuitous scenes, but it was equal opportunity between male and female characters, so I was ok with it. I just hate it, when only or mainly the female characters are used this way.

So I wouldn't have a problem, if DIS is like Outlander in this regard, but I really doubt they will go so far. I think they also want to aim DIS at a younger audience and this means for a US series, that even a bare breast is taboo, sex scenes are at most alluded to and couples always lay clothed in bed. Sometimes I find this a bit ridiculous, but overall I am ok with this prudish depiction, too. Star Trek has other things to offer.

(On a side note I will never understand why many people in the USA seem to be fine with letting their little kids see series and movies with violent deaths, blood, murder and other gruesome things in it, but have a problem with a little nude skin and swearing. Wrong priorities in my opinion!)

I just wish DIS won't follow its precursors, which used mainly the female characters for sex appeal. When it came to showing skin, wearing skimpy outfits or outfits, which were so tight like a second skin, female characters were mainly chosen. Considering that there were always clearly more male characters than female characters in the past series, it was even more blatant. Overall Star Trek was so far sexist. They should finally stop with it. Equal amount of female characters and when it comes to sex and showing skin, treat them the same as the male characters.

And as this thread was also about swearing, I don't see the problem with it. Everyone swears here and there. It is perfectly normal and I really don't understand, why US TV has such a problem with it.

 

[Mudd]

"Captain's Log - unless Scotty can get the mains back on line in three minutes, we are fucked."

 

[The Wormhole]

Might be best to wait and judge Discovery on its own merits.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[stardream]

I will never understand why many people in the USA seem to be fine with letting their little kids see series and movies with violent deaths, blood, murder and other gruesome things in it, but have a problem with a little nude skin and swearing.

The good news is, you don't have to.

 

[BillJ]

The good news is, you don't have to.

Being a parent, and living in the US, I've never understood our open acceptance of violence but squeamishness of sex and nudity either.