Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Cold Blatant Supression (aka CBS)
The powers that be did it again, filing new charges against CBS. Remember they did it 1 year ago when Janet Jackson's aereola got accidental exposure? Well CBS is under fire again this time for an episode of "Without a Trace" that aired 2/06. The infamous scene featured a teenage orgy. Of course it was censored, but apparently this outraged pro-family fundamentalists (aka lobbyists). This is asinine as the most shown was a few male chests and some butt cleavage, also male. So I have to ask, is it the female breast that we fear or feel the need to "hide?" Why must the female body be hidden at all? Will it bring the end of western civilization as we know it. Will millions of men and boys suddenly stop in the middle of their daily tasks (even while in public) and drop trou in order to "wank" at the sight of the rare female nude, freely proffered via the television airwaves? Is her body inherently evil, sexual or profitable? I concur with the idea of profitability.
Experts claim the female nude body inspires lust, ergo the male body inspires angst. This is absolutely ridiculous.
During sexual arousal both male and female nipples enlarge, both are erogenous areas and both are attractive features to the opposite sex, yet male chests are shown literally everywhere from Disney movies and TV commercials to print ads. Heck, I've seen full frontal male nudity during a church stage play in New York! So are breasts censored because they have potential of squirting? A penis has that potential, but so does every nose. So we can rule out the "leaking rule." Why the double standard in censorship, and why the censorship at all?
Here's my take on it all. The male body may turn on the average woman (or openminded male), but during "war time," it is propagandized as an object not worthy of lust, therefore a joke. Jokes make good soldiers as we revel in seeing them shot and mangled in battle movies.
If it squirts, censor it. Thus we censor penis and breasts (and of course vaginas even when there is no censorship). Ok, maybe my postulating merits further research on my part. Fine! I contend that only body parts of desire get censored. But don't women desire men's chests or their "dicks" (pardon the colloquialism)? Some would say you can't desire a "thing" which you abuse (i.e. kick or castrate) or for that matter rape.
Confused yet?
Good. Confusion is exactly what this irrational supression of nudity in media, art and mainstream western culture contributes. Then I must be doing something right. So you see this censorhip is all part of the propoganda plan to desensitize us to the insanity of war. Big leap of logic? I don't think so. There is a connection between both subjects. Believe it or Not ....(as they say in that pedantic TV show.)
¶ 4:56 PM The powers that be did it again, filing new charges against CBS. Remember they did it 1 year ago when Janet Jackson's aereola got accidental exposure? Well CBS is under fire again this time for an episode of "Without a Trace" that aired 2/06. The infamous scene featured a teenage orgy. Of course it was censored, but apparently this outraged pro-family fundamentalists (aka lobbyists). This is asinine as the most shown was a few male chests and some butt cleavage, also male. So I have to ask, is it the female breast that we fear or feel the need to "hide?" Why must the female body be hidden at all? Will it bring the end of western civilization as we know it. Will millions of men and boys suddenly stop in the middle of their daily tasks (even while in public) and drop trou in order to "wank" at the sight of the rare female nude, freely proffered via the television airwaves? Is her body inherently evil, sexual or profitable? I concur with the idea of profitability.
Experts claim the female nude body inspires lust, ergo the male body inspires angst. This is absolutely ridiculous.
During sexual arousal both male and female nipples enlarge, both are erogenous areas and both are attractive features to the opposite sex, yet male chests are shown literally everywhere from Disney movies and TV commercials to print ads. Heck, I've seen full frontal male nudity during a church stage play in New York! So are breasts censored because they have potential of squirting? A penis has that potential, but so does every nose. So we can rule out the "leaking rule." Why the double standard in censorship, and why the censorship at all?
Here's my take on it all. The male body may turn on the average woman (or openminded male), but during "war time," it is propagandized as an object not worthy of lust, therefore a joke. Jokes make good soldiers as we revel in seeing them shot and mangled in battle movies.
If it squirts, censor it. Thus we censor penis and breasts (and of course vaginas even when there is no censorship). Ok, maybe my postulating merits further research on my part. Fine! I contend that only body parts of desire get censored. But don't women desire men's chests or their "dicks" (pardon the colloquialism)? Some would say you can't desire a "thing" which you abuse (i.e. kick or castrate) or for that matter rape.
Confused yet?
