Censored.. "Boobs" racist?

[MayheM]

I always found it odd how, for the most part, when boobs ar censored they really only block out the nipple. But men's nipples can be shown. It is really silly. This is definatly one toping I am very liberal on and I think therre should be far more boobs on TV...

[coder0xff]

Yes, it is acceptable for tribal communities to not cover their tops. However, we aren't broadcasting the travel channel to them. They, if they cared, would probably also wonder why we cover white breasts. The real difference is strictly in our perception. And our perception (in general) is racist. When you see black breasts in a tribal environment, you say, "Oh, that's their culture, that's what they do." However, when many people see white breasts they say, "Oh, that's explicit." Why? Because in our familiar situations, and not in tribes, the only time we see breasts it is typically considered pornographic. And with humans, if it's pornographic in one context, it's pornographic in all similar contexts. We incorrectly apply our most common perceptions to situations where they are not necessarily resonable, despite the intent.

Medically relevant images aren't censored - take a look at wikipedia (EDIT: actually I'll link it, cause the pic is quite nice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breasts). I assume primarily because censoring would defeat their purpose, but also because intelligence and objectivity is expected to be applied. Sadly, we cannot expect the same from the average American television viewer. Parents even "protect" their children from these strictly informative displays because it is taboo, as mentioned.

The most confounding example I've seen was on one of the plastic surgery shows. A man was in the process of becoming a women. Preoperative, the patients chest was uncensored as we view the hash marks and plans of the surgeon. Postoperative, those same nipples, despite belonging to a man, were blurred. I can understand why they did this of course. Everyone's just trying to cover their ass and protect themselves from the overly critical and instigating public.

Edit: It's kinda funny that the people who cry out for ethnic tolerance are probably the same people that would insist on blurring white breasts, but ignore the black ones.

[MayheM]

Has anyone even seen the ad that is at the top of this page? Shrinks Man Boobs!!! HA how freaking perfect is that...

[Zipfinator]

lol I just noticed that... Are the ads on random?

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Yet you cannot enter St. Peter's Basilica if you wear:
-shorts/skirts above the knees
-sleeveless shirts
-shirts exposing the navel
-shirts for women that expose cleavage.

This is just to maintain an atmosphere and show respect. After all, this is the Vatican.

And it has nothing to do with racism. There's a difference between a race and its culture. Making decisions based on one of those things is fair and does not constitute racism. And hey, naked black Americans really throw a wrench in all this, doesn't it? Maybe we should just settle for the cultural explanation.

[no00dylan]

In German television, boobs aren't censored.

God Bless Germany.



"In soviet Russia, boobs censor you!"

[Jangalomph]

Ah, thank's for moving my topic.
And, it's great to see the replies, now i understand mostly why its censored. But the thing was, there was a white lady with no top on the show and it was blurred.. she was trying to fit in but.. they blurred her. Any ways.. what's so bad about a boob any ways? are they gonna blurr out big butts soon too?

[BillyDa59]

In German television, boobs aren't censored.

God Bless Germany.



"In soviet Russia, boobs censor you!"

Ah. I remember being thirteen and enjoying German television in the hotel room, asking myself, "And what makes America home of the free again?" Lol.

I also went to Ireland a few years back and thought it was strange that they didn't censor penises on some reality TV show. I think America's soccer mom's would burn all the TVs in a crusade of fury if uncensored man-parts ended up on our TVs.

How Victorian, it makes me sick how protected children are in America. Then again, it makes me laugh how censorship is counter productive.

I've always wondered, "Why is it wrong and crude to show something natural, like fully bare body or the act of sex, yet, I can turn on any channel and witness a man being murdered in cold blood?" The western world has it's censorship mixed up.

[coder0xff]

But the thing was, there was a white lady with no top on the show and it was blurred.. she was trying to fit in but.. they blurred her.

Exactly why it can't be strictly a cultural difference. I think the most accurate explanation is probably a mixture of the two: ethnicity in general, including cultural and race. What we haven't mentioned, have you seen these tribal women? Hard to consider it pornographic when they, typically, don't come close to the western definition of beauty. It's quickly clear that breasts weren't evolved to be located on a vertical surface.

[Jangalomph]

True, their boobs are quite nasty looking

[dragonfliet]

Yes, it is acceptable for tribal communities to not cover their tops... in our familiar situations, and not in tribes, the only time we see breasts it is typically considered pornographic.

...

The most confounding example I've seen was on one of the plastic surgery shows. A man was in the process of becoming a women. Preoperative, the patients chest was uncensored as we view the hash marks and plans of the surgeon. Postoperative, those same nipples, despite belonging to a man, were blurred. I can understand why they did this of course. Everyone's just trying to cover their ass and protect themselves from the overly critical and instigating public.

Edit: It's kinda funny that the people who cry out for ethnic tolerance are probably the same people that would insist on blurring white breasts, but ignore the black ones.

You almost get it, but you keep going back to a black/white dichotomy which really makes sense. When travel programs show the topless peoples, it is a nonsexual depiction of a society that adheres to a separate set of values. Stripped of its sexual connotations (by the people themselves in their culture, and for the viewers by the presentation of the nudity), it isn't blurred and doesn't need to be. The fact that the tribes being featured are black does not mean that it has anything to do with race. If Vivica Fox joined them for a month, going topless, you can bet your ass she would be blurred. Why? Because since she is from our particular culture, the nudity of someone that we identify with as one of us would sexualize it.

Likewise with the sex change. Because a man's nipple hasn't been sexualized like a woman's, we're fine to see it but as soon as that very same person becomes a woman through surgical enhancement, those same body parts (merely deformed by silicone) have a sexual connotation.

So yes, it's a backwards and warped philosophy, but it does hold consistent. Oh, and hippies at nudist colonies don't count because they're just weird

~Jason

[YokaI]

You should know that over fifty percent of Americans are Protestant, while less than twenty-five are Catholic. Unless of course you were referring to the Americas in general.

It's so easy to blame religion, when this is so much bigger than it. Explain why many paintings and statues created during the Church's most powerful period contain much nudity. Just look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. You don't see bishops and cardinals scrambling to hide the nudity, do you? No, it's just how the dice added up as the culture progressed.

Well, I think it has more to do with protestants not catholics. Most of the art comes from the catholic origins, not protestant.

[MaK]

You guys bring up great points. Here's what I specifically like:

- sometimes only women's nipples are censored but men's nipples aren't
- how a man can get breast implants and then get censored
- having it backwards where sex is censored when murder is not

What are we really censoring these days? Where on TV they just erase women's nipples and the rest is fine. I see girls are wearing absolutely nothing but body paint on so it's allowed. Hell, they can show men's asses but not women's ass cracks. Censorship is screwed up in America, but nobody seems to really do anything about it.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Let's face it, there are a lot more important issues to rectify before we focus on fixing the hypocrisies of censorship. After all, not being able to see some things on TV doesn't quite abridge our rights or lessen the quality of our life.

[Enraged]

I'm pretty sure there must have been tribes that these documentaries have come across where the boob has been considered to be a sex object, and probably more so then we consider it to the extent they have like ancient sex rituals and other perculiar stuff that goes with it. The only reason children in the western world are affected by the idea/concept of sex is because up until they first hear of it they are taught it is something "bad" and something to be avoided until later in life. The effect is a result of the ideas of this; not the boobs.

Also you've got to remember however that most of these womens boobs are pretty damn nasty. It doesn't matter whether they're censored or not because no-ones pulling out their dongle for them. (Wii reference succesfully inserted.) Meanwhile the same is not true for any western boobs whether they're from a white/black/w.e skin color. Yay for superficiality!