It was a usual weekend night of frittering time away in front of the obsequious television set. One of those short moments inclusive of enlightenment and semi-meditation prior to slumber time. I was glued to this highly interesting documentary featuring South Africa on a major local channel which was fairly illuminative as it revealed how most of the country is at the peak of civilization with spawning commercial sites, booming industries, and a remarkably modern culture. All the while we thought a great percentage of these folks are still donning grass skirts and spears.
30 minutes into the program, African tribal women appeared on screen, giddily dancing in ethnic fashion and half naked. Not that there's anything wrong with them being topless. The scene just got me wondering if our principles in television programming are somewhat biased or confused. Naturally, the demi-nude African women can come out on TV without the network blurring out their breasts because: 1.) There's definitely nothing wrong with the reality that prancing around shirtless is a way of life in South Africa, and 2.) It's indubitably not pornography.
But then why did Janet Jackson receive such negative flack from the FCC after she accidentally exposed her private part on the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004? How come Lil' Kim showed up at MTV Video Music Awards in 1999 wearing a purple outfit with her left breast unconcealed but managed to survive unscathed by the press? Why aren't fictional mermaids allowed to show their bosom on national TV? In my dictionary, the aforementioned appearances and personalities certainly don't fall under erotica (oftentimes, it isn't until the media implies so), though they all seem to be objects of double standards.
Is the state of being suggestive of porn merely the basis of 'blurring out' tits on the boob tube? Are matters of attractiveness really out of the question? If this policy's supposed to apply to all females, then why leave out the South African tribe?
Anyway, it's just a thought.