Travel Channel Show
 

I was flipping past the Travel Channel this past Sunday night at about 9pm, and paused to watch a show about an indigenous tribe in Africa. Soon enough there were naked boobies bouncing around on TV! Not only that, one of the topless females was a soon-to-be-married 15 year old. I was surprised to see breasts on what amounts to basic cable, but isn't a topless fifteen year old illegal? Do I have to cut out my eyeballs?

Yeah, I've always found the "they're tribal, so it's okay" argument to be a little weird. If they were white people who lived in a nudist colony in remote Europe, it would still be cultural, but you couldn't show it on TV. I've always felt that the secret underlying justification is, "they're not attractive, so it's okay."

Honestly, I think the implication goes so far as to (horrifically) suggest that they're really a different species, and it's totally in line with the type of arguments that stirred up this whole debate. But that's just my take on it.

What, you never saw Steambath on PBS, way before anybody heard of cable?

The way tribal women dress in a tribal situation is viewed by the tribe as normal.

People walking around naked even in a nudist colony are not viewed as normal by the vast majority of 'the great white tribe'.

That's how I've always viewed it.

but they're viewed as normal within their tribe/colony, just not outside of it ...on either count.

OK, well let's say there's one big African tribe, and one big British tribe. It would be acceptable within the African tribe to get your boobies out, but not so much in British. For goodness sake, a woman can't even breast feed in public without some ninny saying she should be ashamed. It's stupid.

wait what? British wouldn't have a problem with either programme

and yes you can breastfeed in public in the UK.

Well I'm not uptight, I can honestly say I have never told a woman to cover them up.:cool:

But what is normal in the society shown not the point. If it's not OK to look at underage tits in the "western" world, then there shouldn't be an exemption for foreign underage tits, even if it's OK there. If you want to see them, go there. Otherwise the law is an ass.

Yup, the law is an ass.

Nor here.

It's not illegal here, but there are those who think you shouldn't.

OK, here's an example for you. The legal drinking age in the US is 21. Over here it's 18, so someone from the US can come here and drink till they pass out and have it filmed even and aired on national TV in the US, and there's nothing anyone can do it about as long as the person is over 18 even if they are under 21.

In Africa, the recognised age of adulthood is quite considerably lower than in most western cultures, so in effect, if we're going to use the argument that at 15 the girl is a minor, then that wont work because in the eyes of the law of the land in Africa, she's not a minor regardless of what her status might be elsewhere. I don't know this for a fact, but I think that'd be a good argument if some do gooder decided to sue someone over 15 year old African boobs on telly.

She was soon to be married, so I guess she's an adult there.

Sure, but the television puts her in another country, in effect. No one in the Western world is going to demand that she cover herself up over there in Africa, the question is about those viewing her here in the Western world. It's the viewers who might be breaking the law, not the African girl herself. Taking it to a more extreme example, posessing child pornography in Australia would still be illegal, no matter how many times you told the judge that the photos were taken in Thailand where it was legal.

True, but I have naked photos of my kids taken right here in Australia but I don't think anyone's going to arrest me for them. Of course they're the usual kids in the bath type pics, and quite cute.

I think the difference is that pictures taken of kids for the purposes of pornography are purposely sexualized where as an nubile young african woman is just doing her thing and is not being sexual.

It's the perspective of the viewer I guess, but I'd just don't believe it's any different to seeing any kids in their natural state. It's the perverts that make it sexual.

There was a case here in the US not to long ago, where a guy was arrested when he went to pick up his photo prints, because he had taken pictures of his kids in a kiddie pool naked.:rolleyes:

Yeah I'd believe it because people are quick to think the worst of others.

We live in a society that is so blinded by fear that we judge others negatively 'just in case', when the truth is that the majority of us are reasonable, honest and trustworthy people.

It saddens me when I think of the lengths we all go to in order to protect our children because there are a few people out there who would have been better off being drowned at birth.

I wish we could live in a world where we didn't have to be fearful of every stranger we see walking down the street.

I wish we didn't live in a world where we teach our children not to trust people they don't know.

I wish to god I could go to sleep at night knowing there's no psycho out there thinking about the lascivious thing he or she could do to the next child who crosses their path, but I know that's not reality.

It makes me sad.

Sure, what she is doing is legal where she is, but the people watching her in the US are looking at boobs. If that's OK, then all boobs should be ok. If they're not, then that shouldn't be either.

You may walk topless down any street in New York City, if you dare, so New Yorkers are off the hook.

Of all the places I might choose to walk topless, NYC would be the last of them.

Even New Yorkers are not that blase`.

But Boulder, CO, just passed a law against public nudity.:(

Eight months of the year they shouldn't have to worry about that at all.

That would probably cover public indoors, also.

I do find the technological change interesting ... you used to have to subscribe to National Geographic for this stuff. Now National Geographic Channel is part of basic cable.