I just got through watching naked taboo ( anything that has to do with Japan I have 2 watch and that hadaka matsuri festival was very interesting @_@ lol)

anyway I was wondering why is it acceptable to not censor those tribal women in Africa but any European woman shown on tv their nudity must be censored?
I have to say I find it pretty insulting either show EVERYONE censored or uncensored

I agree with lena. I watched a good portion of episode 7 and found it to be interesting until the end. While nude white women featured in this episode had their erogenous zones (in this case defined by Western civilization) censored throughout the program, the African women were shown with breasts fully exposed.

So now the question is what is the National Geographic Channel's excuse this time for this double standard? In the past whenever this subject has come up in a class or group discussion I would hear that these tribal African women don't view this level of nudity as inappropriate or obscene in their own culture and that National Geographic is just reflecting this cultural viewpoint by not censoring these images. Yet in this episode of "Taboo" it is white women who within their own cultural (or tribal) groups seemed comfortable with their nudity, enough to let television cameras film them while in various locations within the public sphere (the women practicing Wica were outdooors at the time). Therefore it cannot be the cultural norms of the group being filmed that affect this decision of whether or not to censor.

In my opinion National Geographic is just perpetuating an all too familiar historical narrative, the white female body being worthy of "respectful censorship" while the bodies of black women are ok to display as one chooses.

I was extremely disappointed in this episode of naked taboo where National Geographic considered it acceptable to show the breasts of the African women but censored those of the white women in the United States and Australia. Too many times I have to be disgusted by this blatant form of bias where one considers a culture or race to be superior to another. I hope National Geographic makes a greater attempt to stop this form of bias.

Thank your for your recent question about our Taboo program on nudity. It's a good question that we've wrestled with and we've worked to develop a policy that we believe is consistent and respectful. Our policy for showing naked breasts, and when, is based on decency standards for broadcast television here in the U.S., and on the cultural norms of the people we are featuring. It is not based on race.

Generally we will show nudity when the broader local culture sanctions it as part of daily, regular public life, and we obscure it when it is not part of the regular public culture. In the Taboo: Nudity show, as you noted, we see blurred female Caucasian breasts and unblurred female African breasts. While there may seem to be an inconsistency here, the distinction lies in the culture in which the practice was filmed. In this program, the societies in which the Caucasian women were filmed (various states in the U.S. and Sydney, Australia) regard female breasts as private parts of the body. In these societies, it's generally not accepted for women to appear in public, daily life without covering their breasts. Yet the society in which the African women were filmed (the Hamar of southern Ethiopia) female breasts aren't viewed in the same private manner.

Because our presentation of nudity is dictated by local customs, a program that covered a nude public beach in a Caucasian country where those beaches are legal and normal, for example, might include some shots of unblurred female Caucasian breasts. Interestingly, in another Taboo episode, "Body Modification", we profile the practice of breast ironing in Cameroon. In that story, the breasts of the featured young African woman are blurred, since we filmed the segment in a private home, and within that Cameroonian society, female breasts (whether African or Caucasian) are kept covered.

Again, thank you for this excellent question; I hope this clarifies our policy.

Mr. Chapman -- you refer to standards for broadcast television in the US -- yet NGC is cable, which is not subject to arbitrary FCC rulings.

You refer to "local culture" -- yet in segment on Westfield Vermont you did NOT follow local standards -- Vermont does not have state laws against public nudity -- the town of Brattleboro recently (and briefly) had a local law against nudity but that was repealed. Local standards accept nudity. I'm surprised that National Geographic would be ignorant of local customs and culture.

It really does come back to - "White breasts are unacceptable, non-white ones may be acceptable.

-- A New England Yankee

What could be the importance of taboos in any given society

To: A New England Yankee

Despite being on cable, the National Geographic Channel and most cable networks very much follow FCC guidelines including decency, captioning and others. We regulate ourselves regardless of what rules we must or voluntarily follow.

Unfortunately, our programming is not targeted to Westfield Vermont, but the same signal across the United States. We cannot therefore alter from area to area, so we take on the customs and standards (not necessarily written laws) of the country.

We have thought long and hard about this very subject and believe our stance is the right one, I'm sorry you feel there is ulterior motive.

Mr. Chapman -

You wrote that a program that covered a nude beach in a Caucasian country might show unblurred Caucasian breasts -- interestingly enough, NGC went to three continents for the "Nudity" episode yet skipped Europe entirely -- where in many countries it is the completely accepted norm on beaches, in parks etc.

Yet again, on 9/8 in two episodes of "Tribal Secrets" NGC chose to show full Black nudity at length.

I certainly am not saying that there is any 'ulterior motive' -- the double standard for what NGC chooses to show and not show is completely open and blatent -- which is why I and the others are complaining -- we are arguing for less, not more, censorship.

Please prove me (and the other posters) wrong and give specific examples (episode names and broadcast dates) of where NGC chose to portray Caucasian nudity (unblurred etc.) the way it often chooses to portray non-Caucasian nudity. If you can't then all your theoretical arguments really don't hold up. And even if you say you are trying to follow 'broadcast standards' you are doing it voluntarily -- so any censorship is entirely your own decision.

- A New England Yankee

Thank you "A New England Yankee" for continuing to discuss. We love to interact with our viewers in any forum.

Since we've never filmed Caucasian nudity where it is a cultural norm and/or broadcast to a limited set of people (on a nude beach as an example), we have not exposed Caucasian breasts on camera. We have blurred out African breasts as they were filmed in countries and areas that it was not their cultural norm. Our policy is not theory, its stated in a prior posting to this blog, I hope that was helpful.

We chose 3 stories we felt were compelling and showed the range of how nudity is defined by a variety of cultures, but we cannot hope to cover everything. We felt we didn't need Europe for this film, but that does not mean we wouldn't cover in future episodes. Its often a matter of production timelines, efficiency and telling the best stories. Beyond that, its debatable about whether full nudity by any race is publicly acceptable throughout Europe, but that debate is for another day.

Greg Chapman:

I have been following your exchange with the other posters and was intrigued with your comment about not ever portraying Caucasian nudity. Why not?

NGC routinely and often portrays non-Caucasian (especially black) nudity.

You seem to be unfamilar with Western Europe. There are many places where Caucasian nudity is the norm. I encourage you visit their fine beaches and parks.

NJ Liberal: You are quite correct, there are many places in Western Europe where nudity (of any race) is the norm. However, it is not the norm in every part of the culture, as it is in many African nations. You don't go to Barcelona and see nudity as a norm around the city, as an example -its kept to certain areas, such as beaches and parks. We struggle with these issues you are all bringing up and feel we have a policy that is respectful of the cultures we are filming, the society in which we are broadcasting and not censoring ourselves.

I wanted to let you all know this has been a great discussion. In fact, we've decided to use this to reevaluate our entire policy, which we are working on now. As soon as the policy is completed, I will post it here to get your feedback. Again, thanks for the honest and direct feedback, it really means a lot to the channel to have these discussions.

Greg Chapman, You said you decide censorship based on the norm of the culture where people are filmed but then you said you follow fcc rules.
Guess what? The fcc doesn't care where a show was filmed. They care if it is appropriate for americans to view, based on their assessment of american values. What one thinks is right or wrong doesn't change depending on who is on tv. Thus, the FCC criteria for decency should be applied evenly for any part of any show.

Therefore, both the Christian nudists and the Africans would be censored, or neither would be censored.

It would make more sense if you censor according to the culture in which it is aired (aka viewed). Even better, you would ask the people (subjects) who are recorded if they want to be cencored. If they want to be, they would be censored on the master copy and then even more would be censored or not depending on the culture where it is aired.

Of course the above is only for general audiences. Any true objective investigation is not censored at all.

Your current policy makes no sense.

Plus, under your current policy, you make it a racial issue by where you choose to record.

I thought that National geographic used to operate without any censoring of nudity, National geographic were to act as observers and scientists rather pushing the cultural views of a culture, if we are talking about nudity specifically then the magazines of about 20 years ago weren't censored at all, nor were the last ones I read, why then make a point of changing policy for film? what if you were to actually do a documentary on nudists in the western and/or european and/or other part of the world, would you respect the nudist culture or the culture of the authorities of that country or what?

While watching the "Taboo" series I was disturbed by the story they did on breast ironing in Camaroon. The stiory was centered around a 12-year-old girl whose breast was shown in its entirety withthe exception of a small white smudge on the tips of her nipples. I have seen NATGEO do stories on white and other ethnicities in the Taboo series and the subjects were properly censored. I think it is dehumanizing and racist that a young girl who's from a culture that insists on modesty (hence the breast ironing) is exposed in such a manner. I think it was an intentional statement made by National Geographic abotu how the company views people of color.

Regarding the Wodaabe wifeswapping segment on this program, the expert is mistaken when she describes Wodaabe to mean something taboo. This group is part of the Fulani tribe. In their language, Fulfulde, Wodaabe is the plural of Bodeejo which means red person, so Wodaabe literally means red people....referring to their lighter colored skin.

Further to my previous post, the real taboo subjects surrounding the Wodaabe are that they still maintain slavery of the Baleebe (black people), and they practice female circumcision.

Mr Chapman:

I see that NGC had re-calibrated it's censorship policies (Taboo "Nudity" episode re-broadcast in Feb. vs. broadcast in Sept.)

I will say it's a start. In Sept. I was annoyed, now I'm just amused. Now it is only Caucasian genitals which are "Taboo" for NGC (since Tribal Secrets and other programs have never had a problem with full Black nudity.)

Maybe in the future, NGC will respect the majority of it's viewers' choice in what to watch and what to skip -- and not pre-censor things for us. "Yes, Mrs. Jones -- we recieved your complaint that you were offended by the nudity you saw on our program that you watched called "Nudity" in the series "Taboo..."

Again, it's a start...

A New England Yankee

Cable Channels like the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, and CNN did not follow FCC Guidelines about nudity as strictly as Broadcast until after 2002.

What scared everybody?

Andrew Falconer

What I would like to know is if the FCC can not put the hammer down on nudity shown on basic cable, who is threatening behind the scenes to attack all cable channels if they show nudity outside of the 12:00 a.m.-4:00 a.m. period. The only cable channel not a premium subscription channel that is showing any nudity is TNT. This means that nudity on video for any resson is now an expensive commodity for premium subsribers and DVD purchasers.

If nudity recorded on a video format is now a premium commodity, then only show men and women who have low body fat and great muscle tone to make it worth purchasing.

That would take something casual and make it more work for everybody. Everybody get to work until you are perfect. That is what the U.S.A. culture is about being perfect. If you are not perfect, you can not be seen in public.

Why not show them all? Any censoring is biased against those of us who want to see naked breasts.

Wodaabe is not plural to Bodeejo, but to Bodaado. It DOES mean 'people of the taboo'.

They don't have slaves. Their society hasn't even all these complicated layers the Touareg have.

And they most certainly DON'T circumsize women. Other Fulbe do, in the south, but the Wodaabe don't.