So I was flipping through the channels on Tuesday night, needing something to glance up to every now and then while I read one of RA Salvatore’s fine fantasy novels. Just after the run of news channels, I settle upon Discovery Channel, which, at 9pm in the evening (maybe it was 10pm. I don’t remember), is showing a program by the name of <i>Going Tribal</i>. Remember those old National Geographics you might have read under the cover of darkness because they had photos of the oddball naked indiginous peoples of the world in them (even though it was the only decent magazine the household had a subscription to, and it was all you were left with after reading the stuff that came with your brother’s Scholastic Book club baggie…well, enough of that)? Going Tribal is a live-action visit to those tribes, wherein some crazy white guy goes and tries to befriend a tribe and assimilate into their culture to learn about them. Now, as far as I’m concerned, that’s awesome, because it shows you that any one of these guys living without any modern technology in a jungle somewhere is as human and intelligent as any one of us sitting here at a computer.
Anyway, getting back to the main point of the thread, this guy brings a camera crew with him, and as such the program features naked people everywhere. Given the American hubbub over one exposed nipple during a certain overblown sporting event not long ago, I’m not quite sure how Discovery can devote a full hour to many wonderful naked people and not get a bit of public outcry about it. There are children in these programs, I must mention, children of all ages. As I understood the issue, the very idea of a child being naked at some time somewhere was anathema to a great number of people in the USA, and that actually having visual depictions of such might trigger a divine rain of fire and brimstone.
The mocking of prudes aside, the question I seek to discuss is: "Why is the visual depiction of nudity of some peoples (the natives of whereever) inoffensive enough
to be shown on a common channel at a time of night when young children and teenagers might see it, and why is the visual depiction of all others considered offensive and perhaps illegal?
The answer I myself have to this question is a disturbing one, one which disgusts me and I do not wish to be true, and for that reason I ask for alternate theories. My answer is this: The tribal people are considered primitives, somehow LESS than the civilized people of the world, even if they are considered human.
I think the only people who make an issue of it are the puritanical people here in the states. Nobody else really gives a rat’s ass. >_>
Edit: Case in point, back when I was going to a Fundie school in 6th grade, I saw one kid point out that there was some nude photos of tribal people in Africa in an issue of National Geographic, to which the librarian promptly confiscated.
I had always just thought because that’s science and the other stuff is entertainment. When dealing with science anything is ok to be seen. But I guess that doesn’t make much sense to me now.
That is weird though, weird like when I saw a movie that was rated PG, but had a ton of blood, and gore, and nudity. o-0 Come to think of it, the nudity was of people in remote tribe type places, so maybe it ‘didn’t count’ CoughStupidCough. T_T
anyway back on topic usauly they sensor out nudity on there programs( you know that fuzzy effect they use all the time) maybe they didn’t this time cause there was to much to sensor.Was there at least a warning at the beginning of the show to tell you about the nudity?
:moogle: yeah then they can’t be held responsible because they warned you ahead of time.
First off is that it’s science. Second off is that it’s not meant to be sexual in any way, because they never wear clothes. Whereas a “civilized” person baring her breast is always taken to be raunchy.
You guys want to know why Discovery can get away with that? They’re cable.
The Super Bowl was on network TV which is regulated by the FCC. Hence the overboard reaction to Janet Jackson’s saggy old tit.
Cable is a pay service. They can show whatever they want. The channels have their own censors and censor themselves. Thats why there’s no swearing on MTV. But even that is getting more lax. Look at the FX channel. They swear in all their shows now. And they show some nudity. (And not in a scientific way.)
Basically, the FCC has no jurisdiction over cable.
In our society, nudity is considered wrong because it causes sexual arousal, which a lot of people (in power) consider a BAD thing.
The irony being, nudity is arousing ONLY because it is a forbidden thing. If everybody were naked all the time, nobody would care. The tribesmen certainly don’t.
Dave has a point that they wouldn’t get away with something like that on Network TV. The assumption is that on Cable, you decide what you get to see, so if you are easily offended, or have minors in your household, it’s YOUR responsibility what you (or they) see. With Network channels you’re stuck with what they air, and when it’s UNANNOUNCED nudity (like the Janet thing) it is ‘forced’ on you.
Yes, this is all hypocrisy. But that’s humanity for you.
The FCC is allowed to regulate broadcast channels because the FCC has jurisdiction over civilian use of electromagnetic signals. They have absolutely no control over cable because cable is not broadcast.
Eric Idle once got fined by the FCC for saying “fuck.” In response, he wrote a song called “Fuck You Very Much” which says “fuck” at least once per line.
What movie were you watching?