• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What's the deal with tribal nudity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deified Data

Banned
USA, to be specific. Censors don't mind showing topless "tribal" women on television in the middle of the day, but balk at even the tiniest nip slip if the woman is "western". They don't mind showing you a little scrote if the man's "tribal", but showing the same area of a "western" man is essentially the pinnacle of censored images, full-frontal male nudity.

What's up with this? I understand the tribal nudity is being shown in a non-sexualized way. Why is it impossible to depict "western" nudity in a non-sexualized way? Why do we in the states blur out the nipples during plastic surgery shows that no one in their right mind could possibly get off to? It's a double standard, without a doubt, but is it justified in any way? Or is there some form of prejudice or sense of cultural superiority at work? Is the depiction of tribal nudity, and the assertion that it is "non-sexual", de-humanizing in a way? As though there's no way anyone could find these people sexual or attractive?

I understand things are different in the UK, where non-sexualized nudity of just about any variety is fair game after about 9PM or so. What are your thoughts?
 
I've always wondered that in my head but have never really asked about it haha.

It is kinda odd that National Geographic will show topless women for an hour and no one is upset but Janet Jackson has a wardrobe malfunction for a second and everyone freaks out.
 
Deified Data said:
I understand things are different in the UK, where non-sexualized nudity of just about any variety is fair game after about 9PM or so. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
*Turns on telly, sees pockmarked old dude with a gut strutting about starkers.*

Yeah... Nobody wants to see nonsexual nudity.
 
Hartt951 said:
I've always wondered that in my head but have never really asked about it haha.

It is kinda odd that National Geographic will show topless women for an hour and no one is upset but Janet Jackson has a wardrobe malfunction for a second and everyone freaks out.
Click to expand...

Because more people watch the Super Bowl.
 
There is something racial about it, isn't it? It's like it's only ok if they are well and truly "other".
 
If nudity was allowed on American television, the quality of television programming on networks such as Fox, NBC, ABC, and what you, would be even shittier than it is now.

You guys want nudity? Watch a porno.

Tribal nudity isn't censored because (I'm assuming it's in a documentary) it's a part of tribal life.
 
BocoDragon said:
There is something racial about it, isn't it? It's like it's only ok if they are well and truly "other".
Click to expand...

Like...say a weirdo tribe of white people existed in the heart of Africa. There's no way in hell they'd show them nude on American television. I hesitate to call it racist, but it definitely has a racial bend to it.
 
Deified Data said:
Like...say a weirdo tribe of white people existed in the heart of Africa. There's no way in hell they'd show them nude on American television. I hesitate to call it racist, but it definitely has a racial bend to it.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking that.

Like if there was, say, some hippy nudist commune in South Africa or some Fijian island or something, and they were caucasian and spoke english. That would get censored.
 
They also had this white guy join a tribe of men who have these long bamboo sheathes on their penises, but only the white dude's junk was blurred out after he put on their traditional dress.
 
73081d_234012.jpg
 
Because America is racist.

"Tribal" women are brown, hence inherently unattractive.

A white breast, though, no force could contain the American Sexual Frustration.

/snark
 
The FCC has the right to regulate, and for network broadcasting, they've traditionally chose to regulate nudity that appeals to the prurient interests of the general consensus... Usually interpreted as sexualized nudity. Otherwise, it is usually okay. This isn't always the case, but the FCC has the right to regulate what they want and don't want, and many other television channels self-regulate based on advertisers.
 
I remember watching a PBS documentary about native tribal people in Africa

why were there boobs and cocks everywhere ? : /

I was like 12 this was in school
 
Deified Data said:
I've seen some beautiful women on these shows, while in the US we censor images I wouldn't have found attractive anyway (a large, old woman's crotch, for example). There's definitely a disconnect here.
Click to expand...

.

Definitely helps a lot during the old time of yore when internet porn wasn't as widespread during my teenhood.

That and Dutch Sears-like magazines on female underwear.
 
Deified Data said:
Is the depiction of tribal nudity, and the assertion that it is "non-sexual", de-humanizing in a way? As though there's no way anyone could find these people sexual or attractive?
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but I'm probably guilty of never finding a tribeswoman even slightly attractive. Maybe I've watched the wrong shows.

Being exposed to the elements takes its toll on the body. If I lived in the rainforest my whole life I'd look twice my age too. Couple that with dietary deficiencies, lack of dental and medical care, and Western standards of beauty about hair and clothing (skewed by cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, and photoshop) and the deck is completely stacked against them.
 
Mr_Zombie said:
Are you sure about that? ;)


And I've never understood America's censorship system. Brutality? Gore? Go for it! Nipple? OH MY GOD, think of the children!



So according to you nudity can't appear in movies other than porno?
Click to expand...

Sure it can, and it has. And it often doesn't contribute at all to the film. It's just there to attract audiences. I'm not against nudity for prudish reasons. I'm against it because I don't trust networks like Fox and NBC with that kind of responsibility.

As for your claim about the acceptance of brutality and gore, you're wrong. Gladiator is heavily edited on network/cable television. A lot of gore and brutality is removed from films.

Because as hilarious as it is for you to spout off a quote from a 15 year old episode of The Simpsons, like so many before you, somebody does think of the children.
 
Fong Ghoul said:
What about on GAF? Is it OK to post pictures of "tribal" nudity?

Quick, someone try and see if you get banned.
Click to expand...



Images

Images of a sexual or profane nature are discouraged. Images presenting exposed genitalia, bared buttocks, and/or female nipple/aureola are not allowed. Outside of this, common sense and a "safe-for-work" rule should be the primary considerations. Also, spamming the forum with the same image is not allowed and is subject to banning. Avatar images are restricted to a maximum of 100x120 pixels in size, and should not contain any questionable content.
Click to expand...

GAF seems to take a hardline stance, whether it's "sexual" or not.

ChiTownBuffalo said:
Because America is racist.

"Tribal" women are brown, hence inherently unattractive.

A white breast, though, no force could contain the American Sexual Frustration.

/snark
Click to expand...
I feel like you're partially right. That said, say we have 2 nubile, 19-year-old black girls, equally gorgeous, one western and one tribal. One will be censored to high heaven while the other remains totally uncensored. I believe it's partially racial, but it seems to be cultural, too. The primitive nature of their culture tends to be focused on quite a bit.
 
I would think that it's to do with the norms of their respective society. In western society, people are expected to wear clothes while tribal people aren't, and that makes tribal nudity less taboo and therefore more accepted.
 
Mr_Zombie said:
Are you sure about that? ;)


And I've never understood America's censorship system. Brutality? Gore? Go for it! Nipple? OH MY GOD, think of the children!
Click to expand...

This only applies to video games. Networks that allow gratuitous violence and gore generally allow nudity as well. Films with brutality and gore are usually filled to the brim with breasts.

Hell, I saw Pamela Anderson's breasts on Comedy Central, the same channel that censors the occasional "retard", "fuck", and "bitch".
 
The US actually seems to be much more open to bare boobies now, several years back it was almost unheard of seeing them in TV series.
 
What always gets me is you can pretty much see up to 2nd base in a pg13 film but show nudity and suddenly woah oh, R time. Except for Nell, I guess because the nudity is not inherently sexual. Still it boggles my mind and is an apparent double standard that nudity can garner an R rating or censorship before actual sexual activities.
 
Bombadil said:
Because as hilarious as it is for you to spout off a quote from a 15 year old episode of The Simpsons, like so many before you, somebody does think of the children.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what exact damage an image of Janet Jackson's nipple in a completely non-sexual context caused to the children? For me such prudish censorship does more damage. It's a nipple. Everyone has it, it's a natural part of our body. Making a taboo out of it is crazy. If it isn't used in a sexual context or to make the audience aroused, why can't it be shown?
 
If you are aroused when watching, thats bad. If you aren't, then thats good.

Arousal is a terrible thing and all children should be shielded from it. Seriously. The children

:|
 
Mr_Zombie said:
I'm sorry, but what exact damage an image of Janet Jackson's nipple in a completely non-sexual context caused to the children? For me such prudish censorship does more damage. It's a nipple. Everyone has it, it's a natural part of our body. Making a taboo out of it is crazy. If it isn't used in a sexual context or to make the audience aroused, why can't it be shown?
Click to expand...

Because we've made female nudity expressly sexual. And dicks. But man ass, not so much. It's all very confusing.
 
Mr_Zombie said:
I'm sorry, but what exact damage an image of Janet Jackson's nipple in a completely non-sexual context caused to the children? For me such prudish censorship does more damage. It's a nipple. Everyone has it, it's a natural part of our body. Making a taboo out of it is crazy. If it isn't used in a sexual context or to make the audience aroused, why can't it be shown?
Click to expand...

You are right. The "harm" done to children by nudity? A myth. A cultural tradition. Nothing more.

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Front-Children-Indecency-Censorship/dp/0813542219

Z0u8m.jpg
 
It tastes bad because the companies save millions of dollars every year, and it'd be a pointless loss of revenue for them to improve it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What's the deal with your avatar.
2 3
131
2K
Sand Dan Glokta replied
How to deal with high salary jumps?
2
89
1K
p_xavier replied
What's With This Whispering Trend In Movies?
28
249
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Has anyone ever had to deal with this?
9
496
Dr.Guru of Peru replied
MAPPA signs strategic partnership deal with Netflix
14
564
Paltheos replied
Top Bottom