That's funny, I don't feel corrupted...

[capri0mni]

My local PBS station (WHRO CH. 15) has started airing the Monty Python episodes again, at 11 pm, Friday nights.

When I saw them the first time 'round, I must have been about 10 or so -- give or take a couple of years on either side (in the '70's). And I have the distinct memory of the shows being on in early primetime.

Now, as I watch the show, I'm stunned that there was ever a time when a respectable tv station would dare show the program if any person under the age of 15 could possibly be watching.

I vaguely remember, from back then, the cartoon bits with all the naked ladies in them. But they never registered as having any more particular interest than the giant hedgehogs and flying sheep. The "oo-er, naughty, sexy!" bit of the humor went so high over my head, I never even felt the whoosh of air.

I think that's what the tv programmers must have been assuming. And they were right.

So -- what's changed? Are this generations' kids really becoming sexually aware at an earlier and earlier age (and if so, I blame the hormones in our food supply)? Or are they just picking up on the adults' paranoia, and getting a lurid fascination with sex because it's a forbidden topic? Or would 10 year-olds today be just as oblivious to the naked ladies as I was, if they were given the chance?

Or was I just wierd not to notice the nakedness of those ladies, way back the first time?

Just wondering...

Comments

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

Are this generations' kids really becoming sexually aware at an earlier and earlier age...?

There's a difference between when a kid becomes sexually aware, and when adults acknowledge that it's okay for a kid to think about sex. You're in a culture that is definitely less uptight about such things now than it was in the '70s.

Today's ten-year-olds would probably not be as oblivious to the naked ladies as you were, but not because they're developing earlier. It would probably be because they've seen a lot more sexual content in the media -- at least enough to know that it's a grownup thing and is 'naughty'. They'd probably have a little giggly flip-out about it, which their parents might have had if they were fourteen the first time they saw cartoons of naked ladies.

I'm not sure if the hormones in the food supply are actually giving kids sexual thoughts earlier, anyways. They can make secondary sexual characteristics of the body (e.g. breasts) develop earlier. But a lot of people who are adults now describe having sexual feelings at very young ages. It's sort of a secret thing when you're that young, and our culture (rightfully so, this time) has laws that are supposed to protect kids from being taken advantage of sexually. But just because they're kids doesn't mean the feelings aren't there.

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

You're in a culture that is definitely less uptight about such things now than it was in the '70s.

Really? I'd say we're more uptight, now... Sure, there're more sexually-oriented punchlines in our sitcoms than there were back then, but that feels, to me, more like an obsessive fascination than any sort of mature, and relaxed, acceptance of sex as part of the human condition.

I'm old enough to remember the 70's, after all, and this generation certainly feels more uptight, to me. Then again, I was raised by a pair of liberal, relaxed parents.

As for sexual feelings -- I certainly felt pleasure exploring my own body at a very early age, but I didn't associate any of those feelings with other people (either in the flesh or in silly, naughty pictures) until after I reached puberty.

I'm just wondering if kids are hitting puberty earlier...

Or, I could have just been a slow bloomer...

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

I'd say we're more uptight, now...

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It's naughty fascination, not mature acceptance... but at the same time it's making its way into mainstream imagery more than it used to, and kids are more likely to start seeing it earlier.

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

I was probably in junior high the first time I saw/ heard Monty Python (I had a friend who had one of their albums). I'm sure most of the naughty bits went right over my head. I also remember watching Laugh-in during its original run, when I couldn't have been more than 8 or 9. Seeing it later, I was amazed my parents let me watch it, but I'm sure they knew I wouldn't 'get' most of the naughty humor.

[scarfman]

I was past puberty when I first saw Monty Python on PBS, but animated naked ladies aren't something I recall about it.

Nudity and near-nudity have been fascinating to me since I was little. I like to think it's my visual artist's appreciation for the simplicity and complexity of the human form. But - progression in the last three decades or not - enculturation in our society has been telling us nudity = sex for two millenia. Each is so wrapped up in the other in our own minds - unless we grew up naturists, or something unconventional like that - that they can't be extracted from each other, unless with difficulty.

[scarfman]

On the other hand, when I was fourteen and started watching M*A*S*H, it was a long time before I believed Frank and Hot Lips were doing what they were doing. The ambiguity that left me able to doubt will have been consequent of the network standards and practices of the times. That certainly has changed considerably.

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

Well, last night's episode was titled "Full Frontal Nudity," and the central Terry Jones cartoon featured a man who was trying to look at pictures of naked women in a book, but each time he turned the page, the pictures would come to life, and turn their backs on him, or cross their legs.

And last week's ep. featured a live action scene with a woman naked from the waist up (just for a cameo).

I guess one big difference is that nakedness from the waist up isn't as taboo in Britain, as it is here.

[trinalin.livejournal.com]

I saw The Meaning of Life when I was 12 and it never did me any harm. :-)