Brave Nude World: Pay TV Pushing Boundaries

Sex On TV Featured
Photo by Craig Cutler

COVER STORY: Networks are pushing sexual boundaries on their shows to stand out from the crowd, but there’s a fine line between provocative programming and prurience

Asked about the trend toward “reprehensible protagonists” — a la “Breaking Bad’s” Walter White, “Boardwalk Empire’s” Nucky Thompson or “Dexter’s” serial killer — Showtime Entertainment chief David Nevins offered a surprisingly frank answer.

“It’s license,” he told reporters at the TV Critics Assn. tour in July. “Pay cable, you take license. Your licenses are sex, violence and bad behavior.”

Nevins omitted the other obvious one — salty language, and those few words (thank you, George Carlin) that still can’t be uttered on most of TV — but otherwise, he was right. There are several less-ostentatious attributes that differentiate pay cable in particular and to some extent basic’s raciest hours from broadcast TV, including the expanded running time of episodes, and nonexistent (or diminished) advertiser scrutiny. But it’s sex, for better or worse, that frequently generates headlines or provokes controversy.

Granted, part of that may have to do with sex and nudity providing a clearer point of distinction from less liberated alternatives, as broadcast networks brave more explicit violence in programs like Fox’s “The Following” or NBC’s “Hannibal.” By contrast, the U.S.’ perceived puritanical streak relative to Europe has always made explorations of sexuality dicier, unless of course the material is being wielded as a sitcom punchline.

Another incentive to flaunt some skin may be that frontiers regarding violence have been shoved, some would suggest, about as far as they can go. After the “Red Wedding” on “Game of Thrones” or the artful blood splatters of “Spartacus” (which, to be fair, knew its way around a Roman orgy, too), it’s less a question of topping what’s been done than simply finding creative ways to push the same buttons.

Historically, violence seldom triggers the level of outrage from the usual suspects that sexuality does. The exception would be when entertainment collides with real-life events like last year’s horrific Newtown school shooting, which inevitably produces fleeting hand-wringing but little concrete action from the entertainment biz and others about contributing to societal violence.

Chasing the boundaries of TV sex involves something of a moving target; seldom does a season go by without some newcomer braving uncharted territory, or at least finding a way to put old wine in a new bottle. HBO’s “Girls,” certainly, has drawn attention with its blunt portrayal of awkward sexual encounters among twentysomethings, including a sequence last season in which a male character ejaculates on his new girlfriend after she specifically asked that he not. (An HBO spokeswoman had to explain to nosy media outlets that the sequence was “nothing more than a use of props.”)

SEE ALSO: Cinemax Has Become Uncomfortable in Its Skin

Showtime has tackled the topic head on with “Masters of Sex,” a just-launched dramatic look at the career of real-life sex researchers William Masters and Virginia Johnson. The nature of those studies are depicted in graphic detail, with more nudity and simulated orgasms than you can shake a stress-test-wired dildo at.

“It was an irresistible topic for a premium television series,” Nevins says.

License also helps account for why cable programs regularly push sexual bounds even in shows where the situations may be less than organic or central to the premise — precisely because sex is something that can poke at overstimulated nerve endings and arouse a response.

This casual inclusion of sex and nudity — almost in a “because we can” manner — hasn’t gone unnoticed. Los Angeles Times critic Mary McNamara, for example, chided esteemed dramas like “Game of Thrones” and “Boardwalk Empire” a few years ago for their habit of setting scenes in brothels, deeming it a gratuitous practice for the sole purpose of showing female flesh. “Maybe it’s time to tone down the tits,” she wrote.

On the other hand, a series like Showtime’s “Homeland” has featured sexual encounters but also gone weeks at a time without them, the fundamental matter of thwarting terrorism trumping such dalliances and offering little time to pause for them. (The new season does include a liaison involving the central character’s teenage daughter, another provocative area.) And full-frontal male nudity is definitely a more common sight in pay TV shows than it was just a few years ago.

Tellingly, some of these graphic depictions of sexuality are being overseen by women, including “Girls” creator Lena Dunham and Michelle Ashford, the showrunner on “Masters of Sex,” which is based on a book by Thomas Maier.

SEE ALSO: TV Sex Studies Sparse in Recent Years

Yet the fact that explorations of sexuality aren’t limited to a male perspective isn’t universally hailed as progress.

“I think women can objectify women just as easily as men can, unfortunately,” says Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State U., who has studied TV employment for women — both in front of and behind the camera — since the late 1990s. “Quite a bit of (that objectification) is coming from the indie film world and seeping over into television.”

Indie film, of course, continues to explore sexual themes. But the license exercised in pay cable — closer to the feature arthouse than the broadcast networks, certainly, but still a relatively mainstream medium — comes at a time when studios frequently soften sex in major releases, feeling the heat to avoid R ratings and thus expand the box office potential of their major releases.

In addition, some critics point to a double standard at the ratings board, saying sexual content is more likely to push a movie into a more restrictive tier, whereas wholesale violence and mayhem can still earn a PG-13 designation.

SEE ALSO: Smut Glut in Movies and on TV Is a Real Turn-Off (Opinion)

Dunham cut her teeth in independent film with her breakthrough movie “Tiny Furniture” before bringing “Girls” to TV. And while the show has generated intense media scrutiny, it’s actual ratings remain relatively small — offering a reminder that attempts to probe sexuality haven’t always been met with open arms by viewers.

“Tell Me You Love Me,” a 2007 drama that delved into the romantic lives of various couples, is one of the rare HBO series that didn’t survive into a second season. Creator Cynthia Mort opted not to do more episodes after changes were sought when management shifted at the network.

“It was a polarizing show,” Mort explains. “The honesty I needed to portray sex, as it related to intimacy, made everyone uncomfortable.”

Mort adds that she still sees a troubling double standard in terms of sex and violence, contending the way some shows incorporate sex simply to feel “edgy” is akin to another form of violence. “I still find it hard to believe,” she says. “Everything’s acceptable when it comes to violence.”

For her part, Ashford described herself as “oddly sort of prudish” about showing nudity on her new Showtime series, suggesting that the underlying goal on “Masters of Sex” was to approach the subject in an honest, non-glamorized way, while acknowledging some of the baggage that such a depiction entails.

“I found it very daunting because of the tropes that have built up surrounding sex through all the years of watching movies and television,” Ashford says, citing the sex scene in the movie “Don’t Look Now” — considered shocking for its rawness 40 years ago — as a touchstone.

“I decided no matter what we did, we had to have the story pulling through every sex scene. … We don’t present a really glossy, idealized version of sex, either.”

The expansion of outlets producing original programming for a premium audience has only heightened both the pressure and opportunities to deal in “various forms of transgression,” as Nevins puts it. In regard to sex, they range from Starz’s “Da Vinci’s Demons” and “The White Queen” (two bodice-ripping period pieces) to DirecTV’s “Hit & Miss,” which starred Chloe Sevigny as a transgender assassin, equipped with a prosthetic penis.

HBO, meanwhile, plans to shoot a pilot titled “Open” co-written by Ryan Murphy, who took basic-cable sex to the edge a decade ago with FX’s “Nip/Tuck.” An advance description from HBO has promised the new show will offer a “provocative exploration of modern sexuality,” as filtered through a handful of characters.

More frank and graphic sexuality can raise concerns for some actors, and in the case of pay cable — which other than a proscription against erect male genitalia, operates largely without clearly delineated parameters — leaves producers to go by their gut instincts. It’s a long way back to “NYPD Blue,” when producer Steven Bochco and then-ABC Entertainment chief Robert Iger (now Disney’s CEO) found themselves drawing naked people on a sketch pad, trying to determine how precisely far their camera angles could venture.

“Masters’ ” Ashford says the show has shied away from frontal male nudity simply because it’s shown so rarely that to include it “feels like it’s making a statement,” and thus risks taking viewers out of the drama.

In terms of performers, Ashford notes that Allison Janney, who plays a recurring role as the provost’s unhappy wife, originally didn’t want to do nudity — and even included contractual language to that effect, with Ashford saying, “That’s fine; we’re not hiring you for that.” But later she changed her mind, the producer says, because she knew it was not salacious. “We try to be very respectful. You don’t want people to be uncomfortable in any way. … I can’t imagine pushing nudity for its own sake.”

Of course, the assumption that “sex sells” is by no means a slam dunk. While Showtime went with the name “Masters of Sex” in what Ashford calls “an obvious ploy to get people in the door,” initial ratings on Sept. 29 were modest (admittedly on a very tough night, with “Breaking Bad” concluding its run), despite overwhelmingly positive reviews.

Although “Masters of Sex” can boast a high degree of authenticity, more-informed viewers may notice the conspicuous lack of physical resemblance between star Michael Sheen and William Masters, who was bald and not terribly attractive. Sheen contemplated shaving his head, Ashford, notes, but the idea was quickly vetoed.

“We’re trying to do the real deal here,” she says, “but this is still television.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 25

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. more social psychology domains.

  2. Tim says:

    I find it interesting that these so called film makers and executives of companies believe they are pushing the boundaries but they are not. What they have developed is a huge double standard where the showing of male genitals is constant and female frontal nudity is almost nonexistent. It appears to be a continued unspoken double standard. Do they realized how many heterosexual males they have alienated from seeing their programs? As for me, I am tired of being treated like crap by these filmmakers and will not pay for any of the cable stations until they are willing to equally include female frontal nudity. As far as pushing the envelope, how about the shock of actually showing the labia. They don’t seem to mind exposing males all the time and in all different ways. It is time for filmmakers to man up and treat frontal nudity equally and time for males to speak up about this unacceptable double standard !!!!!!!!!

  3. Doran says:

    It seems to me that there were several moments of full frontal male nudity in the series “Rome” and “Spartacus”. While the actors are shown not too close to the camera, they remain statue-like, not moving, their penis engorged, but not flag-pole erect, either. Other actors move about in the scene, saying more about the ancients’ matter-of-fact attitude regarding nudity. At one point in the series “Spartacus”, the gladiatorial school owner rewards his prize fighter by adding his image to the in-house gallery of past top champions. Alongside some ten other statues of past gladiators, a sculpture of his bust rests atop a normal, human-height column to the front of which his genitalia are shown with full erection, just as on the past gallery inductees. Again, another instance of what was normal in the ancient world.

  4. Randall Compton says:

    Americans and their hand-wringing over sex are amazing. They are quite comfortable showing hacked up, blown away, bodies, and incredible mental and physical violence, but show a naked body (something we all have by the way), and the sky is falling. Show people having sex? (remember our parents all had sex for us to be here), and it is even worse.

    Seriously, grow up – it’s not grade two anymore


    • jedi77 says:

      It has very little if anything to do with that. I am Danish, 40 years of age, and watch the occasional bit of porn. But I hate sex on tv and in movies, because it is deadly boring.

  5. It’s simply imitating the darkest sides of real life.

  6. Julienne says:

    Being conservative, I appreciate the fact that strong sexual content and violence is viewed on Premium channels and not on Network TV…and if the sex & violence isn’t gratuitous and fits the storyline scene, I appreciate that too. Two of my favorite shows on TV are “Boardwalk Empire” & “Game of Thrones.”

  7. jedi77 says:

    Sexscenes often make me change the channel for 30 seconds. Not because of any puritanical streak (I’m Danish, not American btw) but simply because it’s boring.
    When the sex scene begins, half the time you are guaranteed that nothing of any consequense whatsoever will happen for at least the next 30 seconds. And that bores me, throws me out of the experience of watching what I’m watching, and I start filipping channels.
    I never understood the fascination with “passionate sexscenes”. I find them boring. I would much rather have sex than watch it.

  8. Jacques Strappe says:

    More sex please and much less violence, unless, of course it’s consensual violent love making.

  9. Jeff says:

    This article is garbage. Sheltering has gotten out of hand. My wife said she saw a woman nearly climax while reading 50 Shades of Grey while at a public library; she was watching her kids. This goes almost unnoticed while some blame events that is completely controllable such as watching TV or keeping your kids from murdering people because of a TV show. Give me a break. Change the channel and stop being a $hitty parent.

  10. lakawak says:

    Why is this being talked about now? It has been almost a decade since the premium channels starting filling their original programming with as much sex as possible, usually to cover up bad writing.

  11. Daryle Gardner-Bonneau says:

    I have no objection to sex on television, but dispassionate, “scratching the itch” sorts of depictions are pretty boring, actually. Passionate love-making scenes are far more memorable and enjoyable. Tyrion’s scenes with Shae, in Game of Thrones, for example, are much more satisfying than most of the other sex scenes in that show, in my book. Without passion, it’s all pretty mundane.

  12. I love sex. I love stories about sex. Sex is humanity.

  13. Cathy M. says:

    To me, using sex is lazy. If you can keep audiences engaged with a well written script, that speaks volumes about the writers. Sex is overrated, it’s everywhere, and it gets boring after a while.

    • Bill A. says:

      Cathy, it may be ‘lazy’, however it’s as common as everything else in life.. if you’re not showing sex, you’re intentionally leaving out a part of the characters lives for no other reason than heeding a puritanical impulse. Why should it be off limits?

      • jedi77 says:

        It shouldn’t be off limits, but is is boring.
        When I watch tv or a movie, I expect a script. The script keeps things going, either through words or actions (I prefer words, but action is nice too). So far so good, but then comes the obligatory sex scene, hot and steamy with almost a breast showing. But its pointless.
        “Sex is natural” is the argument. Yes, it is, but in furthering a storyline it is almost always pointless.
        Fiction is not reality tv. Urinating is also as common as everything else in life, even more common when you think about it, but again, it usually doesn’t further the storyline.
        We know what people do when they leave the room, you don’t have to show it. That goes for sex as well as urinating.

  14. bcf1206 says:

    I think male actors fear they will be judged on the size or shape of their penises instead of their acting abilities.

    • mac84 says:

      are women not similarly judged by the size or shape of their breasts?

      • Frank W says:

        I agree with BCF but have to disagree with you. Men are judged harshly for being small. Size is still used as a cruel joke in movies to insult a man’s ability to satisfy his partner. The movie Hall Pass has for example the scene in the sauna with the large black man with the large penis and the pale white man with the small one. Only when erect would the small penis actually extend to about 4 to 5 times it’s length and this can’t be shown. Dennis Hopper showed himself off as not being particularly well endowed in Carried Away but who is ever going to tease him and expect to live?

      • Not similarly at all. Yes they ‘can’ be judged on that but it is not defining and does not compare at all.

  15. fyngyrz says:

    Sex is as natural as eating; I invite the retrotards that want to keep it off the tube, and/or otherwise repress it to go home, put on blinders, bury their heads in a pillow, and leave the rest of the population the heck alone. We’re doing fine, and we’ll do better without your continued interference. Every person you manage to convince that sexuality is some magical thing is damaged by your crazy ideas. It’s not. It’s fun, it’s useful, it’s interesting, and it’s a worthy subject of general interest.

    Your religion-infected, woman-controlling world is nearly dead; accept it and start worrying about things that matter, like the fact that the US job market has been exported overseas, or our continuous engagement in useless military violence, or the idiots in congress and the judiciary stomping all over the constitution, or the fact that *dying* people can’t get drugs that might save them because the FDA thinks it might put them “at risk”, or the war on recreational drugs that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of the prison-LEO complex… Surely the fact that some body parts are up on screen or rented out for a few minutes of pleasure is of no matter whatsoever.

    • jsa says:

      @fyngyrz, you say “We’re doing fine, and we’ll do better without your continued interference.”

      Based upon thousands of years (or much much longer) of civilization, upon what standards do you make your claim?
      1- How do you judge whether you’re “doing fine” or not? Where is your starting point? To what are you comparing yourself?
      2- What exactly do you mean by “better”; what values do you establish as better than others?

    • Director R says:

      @ fyngyrz: Well said, on point, bravo. Sex can be used in a lazy or gratuitous manner, however, the use of sex can, should and will continue to be a powerful aspect of a writer’s arsenal. Nudity is sometimes lumped in with the use of sex in general and while sometimes being naked for naked sake is boring and intrusive on a plot line, I’d much rather gratuitous nudity than gratuitous violence.

More Biz News from Variety