How come breast aren't blurred out on National Geographic Channel?

[i am knowledge]

This is something I've always thought about. We all know that nudity is not acceptable on American public television.

Yet, when they show certain documentaries, and tribes of people across the world they don't bother to censor the hanging breast. It's as if they aretreating the people as animals or something.

I wonder if the breast would get blurred out if the women were white.

Now before I continue, I want you all to know that I'm not campaigning for the media to blur the breast of these women, but for the equal access of breastexposure.

Anyone ever thought about this?

 

[urbenyouth]

I think it has to do with the way to breasts are presented. If it's presented in a sexual way, they have to be blurred. But if its natural or medicalreasons (like True Life: I'm getting implants) then it doesn't have to be blurred.

 

[nktran001]

Cause, that's life.

 

[daydayz e36]

I remember in 7th grade we watched a tape on that kind of stuff. There was a saggy titty flopping every direction.

but anything televised will be censored.

 

[cherryred]

to remind girls why they need bras

no more bra burnings and such

were're not all equal.

 

[dmbrhs]

First of all, it's cable, so they can do whatever they want (the FCC only has control over broadcast signals). Second of all, it's not in a sexualmanner.

 

[jumpshot]

They should blur 'em out. Nobody wants to see those ******* anyways.

 

[Mactastic4167]

i always wondered the same thing.

 

[liquidcream]

when presented in a sexual nature then its blurred. we learned about the fcc and all that in film studies. pretty cool stuff

 

[jayhood23]

Those are the low end jawns

 

[mateen cleaves]

Originally Posted by Nktran001

Cause, that's life.

 

[lurkin2long]

I agree, them breast need to be blurred. Joints be lookin terrible, cats in those tribes have no idea what a nice set of new york boobs look like. They'dnever wanna go back home if so.

 

[aj232kb8]

 

[youngflykidchris]

Originally Posted by Mateen Cleaves

Originally Posted by Nktran001

Cause, that's life.

 

[jthagreat]

considered educational. they showed boobs on Mtv's life i want smaller/bigger *******. reall quick.

 

[itsgettinhot]

Cause National Geographic boobs are gross.

 

[kdawg]

Because National Geographic isn't run by pseudo-conservative hypocrites?

 

[damnthosejs]

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Cause National Geographic boobs are gross.

 

[importking]

Originally Posted by youngflykidchris

Originally Posted by Mateen Cleaves

Originally Posted by Nktran001

Cause, that's life.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by LiquidCREAM

when presented in a sexual nature then its blurred. we learned about the fcc and all that in film studies. pretty cool stuff

Except this isn't an FCC issue. Cable television is self-regulated, but is also at the mercy of advertising dollars. MTV could uncensoreverything and there would be no repercussions, except Viacom would lose every advertiser they have and never turn a profit. Movie channels, like HBO and such,don't have ad dollars, so they have high subscription fees to stay profitable (and to purchase airing rights to movies), and thus can show whatever theywant.

 

[mangudai954]

Originally Posted by lurkin2long

I agree, them breast need to be blurred. Joints be lookin terrible, cats in those tribes have no idea what a nice set of new york boobs look like. They'd never wanna go back home if so.

It doesn't work like that.

 

[boilermaker x]

Originally Posted by I AM KNOWLEDGE

This is something I've always thought about. We all know that nudity is not acceptable on American public television.

Yet, when they show certain documentaries, and tribes of people across the world they don't bother to censor the hanging breast. It's as if they are treating the people as animals or something.

I wonder if the breast would get blurred out if the women were white.

Actually, the old Nova television shows on PBS used to show far more than breasts, and lots of those women were white. However, I've also seen televisedsurgeries where breasts and genitals were blurred out, so go figure. I always found it interesting that when you watch Dances With Wolves they show KevinCostner's butt on network television - like, yeah, I get it, it's not intended to be provocative but it's also not particularly educational.

 

[cristobal]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by LiquidCREAM

when presented in a sexual nature then its blurred. we learned about the fcc and all that in film studies. pretty cool stuff

Except this isn't an FCC issue. Cable television is self-regulated, but is also at the mercy of advertising dollars. MTV could uncensor everything and there would be no repercussions, except Viacom would lose every advertiser they have and never turn a profit. Movie channels, like HBO and such, don't have ad dollars, so they have high subscription fees to stay profitable (and to purchase airing rights to movies), and thus can show whatever they want.

This man speaks the truth. The FCC can't regulate content on cable television, unless it serves the state's interests in a overwhelmingway. This regulation usually occurs in the form of cable pricing, competition, and other things that have no relation to content.

 

[kingofny04]

Originally Posted by damnTHOSEjs

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Cause National Geographic boobs are gross.

perfect answer.

 

[jiggaman414]

Originally Posted by UrbenYouth

I think it has to do with the way to breasts are presented. If it's presented in a sexual way, they have to be blurred. But if its natural or medical reasons (like True Life: I'm getting implants) then it doesn't have to be blurred.

I remember seeing that back in like middle school. I waslike "

MTV is actually showing ******* right now?!"