I saw a 2 hour series on National Geographic this morning about the evolution of man, from Australopitecus (sp?) to Homo Sapiens. The earliest humans, looking far more ape-ish than human, were depicted via computer animation, but later evolutions of humans used actors (I wonder how they cast people for these roles… ).
What I was rather puzzled about was that they blurred out the naughty bits. When did National Geographic start doing this?! Am I going to crack open a copy of National Geographic book version only to see big rectangular black boxes over the natives’ naughty bits? Is some primitive Neanderthal woman’s bear pelt of pubic hair shaking the very fabric of our moral lives?
You know how I could tell the little boys apart from the little girls? Because they blurred out the girls chests, even though there was nothing there in the first place! I found this rather puzzling- the whole point of the reinactment is to show what these people might of looked like, not what they look like from the viewpoint of a caveman who ate the funny mushrooms.
Also, for anyone who saw the show- Did you think that the Homo Sapiens depicted in the re-inactment looked like a bunch of KISS rejects hanging out in the woods? (they had white and black face paint ) And as the for the women’s attire…who knew the tube top and miniskirt was around for so long!
It isn’t just in caveman days. There was a commercial a few years ago for (I believe) Mr. Bubble bath suds that had two little kids in a bathtub full of bubbles: they (the kids, not the bubbles) were both probably about three or four years old, short black hair, identical in every appearance, gender completely indeterminable.
So how did you know which one was the girl?
She was wearing a tanktop swimsuit. Why, you ask? So do I.
This sounds a lot like TDC’s Walking with Cavemen. Was it narrated by Alec Baldwin? I don’t remember the blurred out boobies in TDC’s version about a year ago.
Because while there are many people who think covering up a two year old girl’s is pointless and silly, the broadcasters have to be more worried about the handful of people who will outraged if her chest is uncovered and will organize anti-child pornography campaigns.
They are probably a heck of a lot closer than we wish to think they are.
The Evangelical White House is making excellent strides in this direction, there is no reason to think we’re immune from controls and censorship. Lots of countries have Constitutions that guarantee Free Speech. Lots of them have “controls”.
This isn’t GD, but how about some facts to back your statement. I’d like to see one speck of evidence that the FCC and/or the WH has taken steps to prevent shows on evolution from appearing on TV. One speck.
I have to draw the line here. Children’s nudity in a documentary is one thing. Children’s nudity on TV, in a commercial for a $3.99 item, is creepy and I really don’t like it. This goes for girls and boys. I hate when they show the ads for the diapers and they always have to show some naked baby’s butt.
I swear that one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen on TV was on one of those plastic surgery shows on Discovery.
This women had developed a problem with one of her breast implants, in that it had broken free from the pocket it was supposed to be in inside her chest. They had to open it up to fix it, and they showed the surgery in progress, which was basically them making a GAPING hole in her chest. So, you’re there looking at this huge gaping maw and then rooting around inside, sewing things up to create a new pocket to put the implant into…but her nipple was blurred out.
Because clearly, gaping bloody holes in someone’s chest is totally OK, but a glimpse of nipple will totally ruin someone’s life. :rolleyes:
Showing a little girl topless may actually be illegal now. I know that a lot of stuff that was innocent years ago can now get you busted. I think I read about some musician or actor getting busted , in part, because a lot of old stuff he had was now illegal.
I think you’re thinking of Pete Townshend being busted for child pornography. If I remember correctly, he claimed it was for research on some book… but that’s very shakey at best.
Funny, considering that the first photos of breasts a lot of American boys see are from the National Geographic. Well, at least until the internet came around I guess.
Some comedian once said something like “I was fifteen before I knew when a woman got naked, she didn’t have to be holding a spear…”
Which only serves to remind me that when I watched The Godfather Uncut on non-premium cable TV, the 2 seconds of female frontal nudity in it was handled by blurring the actress’ chest area, but at least you could still see, in loving detail, Sonny get filled with bullets, Luca Brazzi get strangled to death and blood gushing from Moe Green’s eye. You know, 'cause boobies are disturbing.
I’m pretty sure I saw the exact same program you’re talking about just a couple of days ago. It was A Species Odyssey . And I was thinking the exact same thing, “why are they blurring out her boobs? They’re saggy cavewoman boobs.” But I caught a few glimpses where they weren’t blurred out. Weird.
The next species after that one the boys weenies were blurred out too.
Oh, I just saw your comment about the Homo Sapiens. I knew they looked familiar! KISS!
Yes, the miniskirt and tube top caught my attention as well. I can’t believe that bitch broke the Neanderthals bone flute!! All he wanted to do was mate with her and save his people
That’s right. The FCC just wants people to THINK that they have jurisdiction. It’s actually the sponsors who have jurisdiction. I remember when The Shield first came on the air, F/X was having a really hard time finding advertisers because most of their regular sponsors did not want to be associated with a show that involved nudity (I’m sure they were completely fine with all the graphic violence, language and “cop as the real bad guy” story angles…no joke)
The way the actual laws go, cable networks (premium or not), can broadcast whatever the hell they want. Most of them just don’t. Public access cable networks tend to have the rauchiest stuff out there (especially if you are in NYC) since they don’t have to worry about picking up sponsors
).
Am I going to crack open a copy of National Geographic book version only to see big rectangular black boxes over the natives’ naughty bits? Is some primitive Neanderthal woman’s bear pelt of pubic hair shaking the very fabric of our moral lives?
