Awhile back i was watching a national geographic show about hunters and gatherers in Africa that still walk around in their little hut towns and the woman go topless...completely natural and part of their culture. The tv show did not censor the womens breasts as it usually isn't when airing this type of material.
Now...when the white american female host decided she wanted to go topless and join in on the culture and festivites in order to gain a better understanding of the people....she was censored!!
Why would a white american be censored but not a black african lady??
2006-08-08 06:26:34 · 6 answers · asked by JJ C 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
VERY interesting question!
I think the TV station would say that it's an engrained part of the African culture. And therefore a valid part of an educational program. But when the host did it, it meant something else because it was a different culture involved. Toplessness is deemed sexual in our culture, and sexual images are deemed controversial.
Why either of the two premises are true in our culture (as they undoubtedly are) is open to debate. I guess people could protest and ask for change is they wanted to.
Similarly, educational television shows have broadcast the birth of a baby many times, but generally do not show a woman's sex organs in any other context.
"CUSTOM" is the answer.
2006-08-08 06:29:44 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The context was different, but, really, a breast is a breast.
It's like: I was watching Eddie Izzard on BBC America the other night. They bleeped out the F word but not the SH word, if you get my meaning. Now, why? Which, actually, is a more disgusting thing to do? F'ing or sh*t'ing? This country is full of hypocrites who don't even take time to think about what they want to censor and why they want to censor it. It's OK for Bugs Bunny to shoot at and blow up stuff, but you never see him getting it on with a girl bunny, do ya? Which is the more harmful activity?
2006-08-08 06:34:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our media already has a undesirable sufficient photograph globally, without allowing plenty greater idiots to spew their insanity all day. Censorship is reliable, to a level, pertaining to to public television. what number could desire to be infringed upon if there have been no longer any regulations in place? So, for breakfast, toddlers can watch bill Mahar call one greater conservative female a "c*nt?" Oh, that's amazing. you recognize there are ecu categorized classified ads, basically undemanding categorized classified ads, that have each and each male and woman finished-frontal nudity? you do no longer desire to work out censored television, get cable.
2016-12-11 09:45:09 · answer #3 · answered by rothe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because she wasn't doing it as part of her culture.
2006-08-08 06:30:10 · answer #4 · answered by Brian L 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because it is natural for them . not for the tv host.
2006-08-08 06:32:26 · answer #5 · answered by satishkumar j 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good one
2006-08-08 06:34:27 · answer #6 · answered by EL Big Ed 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋