indigenous nudity warning

[thatguywhojuggles]

So this new reality show comes on the channel I am watching today. It apparently is about this guy who goes and tries to live with indigenous tribes and learn their ways.

At the top of the show they flashed a viewer discretion warning that there would be indigenous nudity in the show. And as the show began you immediately noticed the full frontal nudity. These tibal men had dark skin and large penises flopping around.

I must say I find it interesting thought that despite the viewer discretion warning we are able to show full frontal nudity of men on tv as long as they are indigenous people. Even television stations brave enough to run a documentary about primarily caucasian nudists, would blur out the man's penis.

Does this particular characteristic of our media world seem to say:

1. Indigenous people are are lesser creatures than the rest of humanity therefore it's okay to show their genitals. You wouldn't blur out mating animals in a wildlife documentary. It's a standard by National Graphic.

or

2. By showing indigenous nudity we are aknowleging the fact that these people are comfortable with nudity, even though we aren't (as a general rule.) It's a standard by National Graphic

 

[Mycroft]

I say the first one, but I'd say it has less to do with the indiginous person than it does a person without wealth. You can see the same phenominon on the evening news, where the camera is far more likely to show the pain and humiliation of a poor person suffering a tragedy than a wealthy one.

 

[Underemployed]

These sorts of things puzzle me too; there are many conflicting standards for displaying all sorts of nudity/violence etc on TV depending on the channel, the context and so on. For instance, the BBC aired French film Manon Des Sources as a matinee a few years ago, leaving IN the naked Manon dancing about - admittedly the film would make little sense without this crucial flash of skin but it's still a naked white woman dancing about in a semi-sexual context, even if it did only last two seconds (bah).

I'm guessing the broadcasters know their audiences much better than we think they do. They know full well no fundamental religionists are going to be watching any shows about indigenous tribesmen or foreign films with subtitles.

Or maybe the warning at the start of the show was cheaper than hiring the guy who puts fuzzies over the free-swinging johnsons.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

I say the first one, but I'd say it has less to do with the indiginous person than it does a person without wealth. You can see the same phenominon on the evening news, where the camera is far more likely to show the pain and humiliation of a poor person suffering a tragedy than a wealthy one.

Like the show "COPS"?

 

[Mycroft]

Like the show "COPS"?

Yeah, good example.

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmm.

I wonder why we censor the human body at all.
Haven't we all seen and/or have these parts? So what's the big deal?

I don't get it.



On a more on-topic note, yes, I think it has more to do with the mindset of the folks watching.

 

[Manny]

Does this particular characteristic of our media world seem to say:

1. Indigenous people are are lesser creatures than the rest of humanity therefore it's okay to show their genitals. You wouldn't blur out mating animals in a wildlife documentary. It's a standard by National Graphic.

or

2. By showing indigenous nudity we are aknowleging the fact that these people are comfortable with nudity, even though we aren't (as a general rule.) It's a standard by National Graphic

I'm going to say a dollop of 1. and a full dose of 2. combined with a heaping helping of

3. Some lawyer or "standards and practices" person somewhere said, "well, you have to say something so we can respond to complaints" and "indigenous nudity" is what came out of about ten interminable committee meetings.


And in fairness to COPS, watching people get arrested for insider trading is boring unless the guy cries, which he usually doesn't.

 

[billydkid]

So this new reality show comes on the channel I am watching today. It apparently is about this guy who goes and tries to live with indigenous tribes and learn their ways.

At the top of the show they flashed a viewer discretion warning that there would be indigenous nudity in the show. And as the show began you immediately noticed the full frontal nudity. These tibal men had dark skin and large penises flopping around.

I must say I find it interesting thought that despite the viewer discretion warning we are able to show full frontal nudity of men on tv as long as they are indigenous people. Even television stations brave enough to run a documentary about primarily caucasian nudists, would blur out the man's penis.

Does this particular characteristic of our media world seem to say:

1. Indigenous people are are lesser creatures than the rest of humanity therefore it's okay to show their genitals. You wouldn't blur out mating animals in a wildlife documentary. It's a standard by National Graphic.

or

2. By showing indigenous nudity we are aknowleging the fact that these people are comfortable with nudity, even though we aren't (as a general rule.) It's a standard by National Graphic

Yes, I always felt there was a measure of racism involved in willingness to display "native" nakedness, but not "civilized" nakedness. Or maybe "cultural discrimination" would be more accurate. At any rate, the hysteria over nudity marks us as idiots and backward.

 

[epepke]

It may not be all that nefarious. Arguments against indecency and pornography have traditionally been couched in terms of a depiction not having redeeming scientific or artistic value. It seems to me that the scientific value of an anthropology show is a pretty easy case to make, so they're probably counting on this as a plausible justification.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical about the media, but I think that they would show penes 24 hours a day if they could, especially during Sweeps Week.

 

[Beerina]

SNL made a good joke about it years ago.

"You can show these..." and they show an African woman dancing with boobs flopping around

"...but you can't show these..." and they show a still torso Playboy-like shot, with a black bar across the nipples.

Oh, man I was dyin' to start spouting sarcastic rhetoric about how the one was an inferior savage race and the other the refined, civilized one.

And then I would have followed up with the camera on the dancing African pulling back with a white woman standing, topless, dancing right next to her, then challenge the government to declare it illegal.

 

[The idea]

This suggests a way to settle the dispute over Kashmir. Photojournalists should go to Kashmir and start filming. Every naked Indian caught on film (carrying a small flag of India for easy identification) will count towards the conclusion that Indians are indigenous to Kashmir. Every naked Pakistani caught on film (carrying a small flag of Pakistan for easy identification) will count towards the conclusion that Pakistanis are indigenous to Kashmir.

 

[Skeptic]

Every naked Indian caught on film (carrying a small flag of India for easy identification)

...and I think I know exactly WHERE that flag is going to be carried...

 

[Rob Lister]

SNL made a good joke about it years ago.

"You can show these..." and they show an African woman dancing with boobs flopping around

"...but you can't show these..." and they show a still torso Playboy-like shot, with a black bar across the nipples.

Oh, man I was dyin' to start spouting sarcastic rhetoric about how the one was an inferior savage race and the other the refined, civilized one.

And then I would have followed up with the camera on the dancing African pulling back with a white woman standing, topless, dancing right next to her, then challenge the government to declare it illegal.

According to the FCC, it has to do with the educational content (?another term/phrase but close to that). SNL was lucky they didn't get fined big time (or rather, every broadcaster that carried that eposode).

Ref: opera v stern

 

[RandFan]

It may not be all that nefarious. Arguments against indecency and pornography have traditionally been couched in terms of a depiction not having redeeming scientific or artistic value. It seems to me that the scientific value of an anthropology show is a pretty easy case to make, so they're probably counting on this as a plausible justification.

I think this makes sense. Which is why the only porn I was allowed as a young Mormon boy was National Geographic.

 

[LostAngeles]

It's not as if you have to go to the counter and ask for National Geographic. And it's probably the magazine we had the most free access to through out my school career. In fact, I remember using it for many art projects.

As to why? I always figured that NG was showing us how these people lived. Some of them lived in states of partial or total nudity.

Keep in mind also, David, (the Impressionist who painted the dancing upperclass woman with the farmer and a lot of voluptous naked chicks. Begins with an R), and Venus figurines are perfectly ok to show without a warning also.

 

[Skeptic]

Does this particular characteristic of our media world seem to say:

1. Indigenous people are are lesser creatures than the rest of humanity

Not likely. You could also show, say, a Titian painting, or the Venus of Milo, and I doubt anybody would censor it or consider Titian's (lily-white, usually) naked women to be examples of "lesser creatures than the rest of humanity".

 

[slingblade]

So this new reality show comes on the channel I am watching today. It apparently is about this guy who goes and tries to live with indigenous tribes and learn their ways.

At the top of the show they flashed a viewer discretion warning that there would be indigenous nudity in the show.

The twisted aspect of my sense of humor wonders if, when showing Hollywood-style films to these people, there is a disclaimer for them that says "Warning: Indigenous Clothing! These people wear clothing most of the time; many of them even wear clothes when they sleep, swim, or have sex."

Does this particular characteristic of our media world seem to say:

1. Indigenous people are are lesser creatures than the rest of humanity therefore it's okay to show their genitals. You wouldn't blur out mating animals in a wildlife documentary. It's a standard by National Graphic.

or

2. By showing indigenous nudity we are aknowleging the fact that these people are comfortable with nudity, even though we aren't (as a general rule.) It's a standard by National Graphic

I'd say something of both, really. Hard to quantify.