Yawalapiti Breasts « The Original Mud Puppy

Yawalapiti Breasts

December 12, 2007 at 11:38 am · Filed under National Geographic, The Amazon, Travel Channel, Yawalapiti

So the other night, while the football game I was watching was on a commercial, I was flipping through the other stations to see what was going on. To my amazement, I came across a whole screen full of breasts. No, I don’t subscribe to the Playboy channel—this was coming to me direct from the Travel Channel.

Tribal Odyssey: The Yawalapiti from the Amazon
The Yawalapiti live in a remote natural habitat in the Amazon known as the Xingu National Park. They are a hugely decorative tribe that has many shamanic ceremonies. The Yawalapiti are also a wrestling tribe with many sexual games. The film follows the tribe as a recent lunar eclipse initiates a ceremony to protect against spirits.

Much like you’ll find in most National Geographic magazines, the nice people at the Travel Channel thought it would be just fine for us to see some Amazon breasts. A full hours worth no less.

Now, my problem today isn’t necessarily that they are flashing boobs on cable (although I do have issue with that as well). No, my problem is that they didn’t even see fit to give these fine women any blur action. I mean, seriously, my entire life I’ve seen this happen. It’s as if they are saying they are not real people. Like they are less than human.

Please. Do tell. Why are the indigenous breasts not worthy of a blur?

Permalink

47 Comments »

superman1224 wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 11:44 am

I’ve got one better dude. A few months ago I was watching this program about Men who have breast reduction surgery to get rid of their man boobs. When the men took off their shirts they blurred the nipples! They were men! What is going on here? I really think since the infamous Super Bowl, no one knows what to do anymore. Personally if it’s in question don’t put it on TV, but that’s just me. Anyway, I’m with you bro. To go along with that, you don’t have to be 18 to by National Geographic either. People are just stupid.

worshipcity wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Haha! Man I would have died laughing if I saw a program blur a man nip

Mud, I suppose you don’t watch Last One Standing? Westerners go visit these tribes in remote parts of the “unreached” world and participate in local traditional custom like sports. Well obviously, many of these people groups are like your Yawalapiti tribe and wear little if no clothes upstairs. What they do is have a warning up coming back from a commercial break letting you know that you’re about to witness clothing/nudity indigenous to the region they’re filming and it may not be suited for some. No blurs, not anything. I have noticed however that the cameras don’t linger on these things though. Last night’s was probably the most graphic, there was some questionable men shots that I’m not sure what I saw.

shanebertou wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Mud, I think you raise an interesting point. Janet Jackson gave the world a millisecond glimpse of one of her breasts, which still was a bit covered by ornament, and the FCC went ape nards. I remember ER making a decision shortly thereafter to edit a scene they were planning to run which would have shown a woman getting a mammogram – fearful of fines.

At best American culture is inconsistent when it comes to bare breasts. I’ve spent time in two cultures where bare breasts were pretty common: Africa and the Netherlands. It was such an interesting contrast. In one culture it was just a way of life and no one (including myself eventually) thought twice about it. In the other culture it was definitely meant to arouse (you should have seen the shampoo commercials!), but it was still very prevalent and most people didn’t think twice.

America is one of the last places on earth you would even think to blur naked breasts on television. But we still can’t seem to decide as a culture if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

alex mclean wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm

this made me laugh during a staff meeting. Thank You!

mudpuppy wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Alex – Anytime I can lighten up a staff meeting I’m happy!

Shane – Yeah, the inconsistency is pretty crazy. But I can’t for the life of me figure out why they think those aren’t breasts.

Conner – I’ve only seen a few commercials for that show. It looked interesting, but I’ve been on that movie/documentary kick lately. (Roughly 90 since June… YIKES!)

Mike wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 1:48 pm

There are places in this world where women are beaten mercilessly for exposing their ankles. And there are places in this world where people (of either gender) have absolutely no compunction about the amount of skin they bare. We’re somewhere in between, and regrettably too close to the former.

What is to be gained by upholding the notion that the human body is something to be ashamed of? Are we really better off forcing a mother to retreat to a dirty public restroom to breast feed? Or censoring great works of art? Or blurring a documentary film?

Personally, I don’t see any reason to be offended by non-exploitative nudity. I do tend to get worked up over the true atrocities that somehow no longer faze us when we channel-surf past them during commercial breaks: famine, war, disease, genocide, and so-forth.

Nicholas wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm

It’s all context. Sexual nudity is covered on our televisions, but if you blurred native boobs, you are bringing them under our empire of censorship. I say. . . LET THEM SWING UNBLURRED. . . DON’T CONFINE THEM UNDER OUR PRUDISH RULES. . . LET THEM FREE

mudpuppy wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Again… my point was mainly the distinction between the two sets of breasts on the same wavelengths. Because some are out of the Amazon, then they can be seen. But because some are from the U.S.A., they are out of line.

What sense does that make?

If it was deemed inappropriate for a nipple to be seen on American airwaves by the powers that be, then every and all nipples should be subject to that rule. Otherwise, you’re simply saying that one isn’t equal to the other and, in my opinion, saying that one woman is less human than the other.

Brandon wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I think the rule is if they are shaped like triangles, there’s no need to blur.

Mike wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I see your point, but there’s a flip side: If failing to blur film of Yawalapiti women’s breasts implies they are less human, doesn’t it follow that Yawalapiti women themselves are less human because they don’t hide their breasts? (I find this whole line of reasoning troubling. The amount of skin bared does not reveal a society’s humanity.)

Like Nicholas said — it’s context. It’s not obscene unless (1) the human body itself is obscene or (2) the Yawalapiti way of life is obscene. I don’t believe either of those things to be true.

worshipcity wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 2:47 pm

THIS…IS…AWESOME

Ape nards!
LET THEM SWING UNBLURRED!
…if they are shaped liked triangles

Unfortunately, the true weight of the conversation is lost on me because I’m laughing my head off

However, if I may settle down. I ponder at the thought of whether it has something to do with what is culturally acceptable of the people on TV and not who’s watching? Different cultures perceive the human body from one end: it’s sacred and needs covering to bare all. In American culture we do not walk around exposing ourselves topless. In various tribes that are now being shown on TV a jewel on the nip that’s shaped like a triangle is fully clothed. The American girls get censored and the various tribe girl does not.

mudpuppy wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Mike, I don’t agree. They may be fine culturally with exposing themselves, but that has no bearing on our cultures rules. And it doesn’t make one right or wrong.

A nipple is a nipple.

ps. I am trying not to enter any conversation about America’s fascination with the human body vs. other cultures. I never said any of it was obscene, only that the censorship was inconsistent, and thus making distinctions about certain people that I don’t think are appropriate.

mudpuppy wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 2:54 pm

BTW, I know there are a bunch of ladies that read this blog. I’d love your opinions on the matter!

Wulf wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm

I see this not really as a “women’s right thing.” We could go on-and-on about full frontal of women in movies but always hiding a dudes “junk” (that’s what I was told to call it by my co-workers).

In a nutshell, if the director shooting the documentary can persuasively convince the FFC that it’s “nude” not “naked” then it will go on tv. For those who don’t know the difference, nude is art, naked is well naked.

Plus if the documentary is on tv after 10pm, then it’s up to the stations digression if they want to blur or bleep content.

Steel told me to comment.

superman1224 wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm

I think the position to blur or not to blur is derived from a set of three different criteria.

1. Age of said boob

2. Shape of said boob

3. The effects of the earths gravitational pull on said boob.

Although the results of this criteria are debatable, you don’t see many twenty-something spherical boobed indigenous or otherwise girl without a blur on TV.

Mike wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:09 pm

That’s a matter of perspective. You see them as “exposing themselves”, but I don’t think the Yawalapiti would view it that way. What if the filmmakers had brought along a trunk of clothes, and asked the Yawalapiti to cover themselves before they turned on the cameras? Isn’t that dehumanizing? Surely, it would diminish the value of the production.

Yes, a nipple is a nipple. Is the nipple being revealed as a sexually-inspired act of exhibitionism? Or is it depicted in a classical painting or sculpture (or a documentary film)? Clearly, our culture holds these situations to different standards. And rightfully so.

Mike wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:10 pm

(that was in reply to mudpuppy @2:48)

mudpuppy wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Mike, you’re fighting a battle I’m not involved in.

FCC says no nipples, but these keep showing up. I want to know why.

(And it was around 9pm for anyone that is interested.)

mudpuppy wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm

And Jason, there were a full range of sizes and shapes and ages.

Now that I think about it, they actually did blur out the privates of the children. Make sense of that.

shanebertou wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Keeping with the intended topic:

The bottom line is that Mudpuppy is completely right. If the cable networks (although not restricted by the same FCC standards as broadcast networks) feel the need to blur, pixelate or blatantly edit out a shot of, say, Jessica Biel’s breasts, there is really no logical explanation as to why they wouldn’t do the same in this context either.

In keeping with the effort to derail this conversation:

America’s confusion about breasts can be summed up in a recent, shall we say “debate,” I had with my mother in law.

She was completely offended by a newspaper ad which pictured a woman of “ample features” from the waist up wearing nothing but a bra. My argument was that it wasn’t that big a deal to me, and honestly didn’t really make me look at her “lustfully” because I’ve seen millions of similar images throughout my life.

At which point she said, “But don’t you see that’s because you’ve become desensitized?”

To which I replied, “Wait a minute, is that such a bad thing? I just said being innundated by those images has caused me not to be so lustful when I come across them.”

At which point we just both looked confused and moved on to another subject.

Mike wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm

The FCC doesn’t regulate cable or satellite programming.

tom3 wrote @ December 12, 2007 at 4:14 pm

A full hour? You really took time to research for this topic!….LOL!

Jay wrote @ December 13, 2007 at 7:41 am

Russ, I think you said it in your post…
(”I mean, seriously, my entire life I’ve seen this happen.”)
It’s been going on for so long that people are use to seeing it, and that is what makes it acceptable. It doesnt make it right by any means.
I think that in my opinion they are just like any other tribe that has been documented on T.V, a people who’s culture has not changed since forever and then percieved as a”simple people”. Should the boobs be blurred out of respect? yes, will it happen? No.

Dave wrote @ December 13, 2007 at 2:20 pm

As a MALE who has lost nearly 80 pounds (with more than 120 pounds I’d like to drop), I’m ALL FOR a “digital cover-up” of man boobs! Then again, I probably need a “bro” (= man bra) myself.

Amy wrote @ December 13, 2007 at 2:24 pm

This is the funniest thing ever. A true not perverse discussion about breasts, with all men! A little offensive towards the swinging sisters:). I have my ideas, but it really stereotypes men and I know most if not all that have posted are Christians and I don’t want to offend any of you. I guess I will say that I think its all about the difference between men and woman and ratings.

sam wrote @ December 14, 2007 at 7:49 am

Dave, I think they settled on calling it a “manzierre”

ericlikeseatin wrote @ December 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm

i think its the nature of the show. rather than a perverse, sexual or explicit portrayal (a la playboy) the shows intent is educational. good observation though…

Ken O wrote @ February 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Anyone who saw the Yawalapiti or other tribes on the Travel Channel must have formed opinion along the lines of the foregoing. Given that some members of the public do not fancy beaming pictures of certain body parts into their living rooms, one would have expected the Travel Channel to be mindful of that. And I believe they were…there was a clear warning of impending nudity at the beginning of the programs. Besides, in my view, the major fascination with those programs derived from seeing “raw” pictures of such societies in contrast with general civilization. Those documentaries would have less appeal, and would be less representing of those tribes, if we were to see swathes of blurs masking any and most aspects of these societies.

thepatriot wrote @ February 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Ken,

Very good summation. I agree completely.

Twool wrote @ May 12, 2008 at 12:57 am

I think it depend on where and when you live.

For Xingu Indian, they have no sense of guilt. I would think if they watch the same show we watch without a blur, they would see nothing wrong with it, not feel offended at all, and not be sexually aroused at all. Remember, they have been living like that for thousand of year with only decorative ornament.

For civilize world, many people will see that offensive. I wonder what started those psychological behavior, something must have happen in past that make us feel guilty or sense of fear. Put it this way, if the behavior didn’t happen, not of those blur will ever happen on TV.

Fascinating subject.

beartracks wrote @ September 15, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Several years back we had to deal with this same topic in my cultural anthropology class. To set the scene, should other cultures (American) enter into a third world and superimpose our standards into that culture to adapt to our standards.
The Puritins have created a culture which has a curiosity to see what is hidden (breasts) and a Playboy, Penthouse and others were born. Now if America allowed women to be topless we would all but crush the porn industry. This idea is similar to the Libertarian position on legalizing drugs.
New York has already passed laws which allow women to go topless.
The Travel channel is an education station and I guess they concider this educational. Our tv has the V-chip and is set to block out R rating and above. I am not certain it would block out the Travel channel because they show topless natives.

AJ wrote @ December 29, 2008 at 2:09 am

Are you serious? Imagine if you hadn’t been born in to puritanical ignorance. Have you ever traveled outside your sphere of existence?

I am seriously amazed at this. Culture, perspective, and traditions of those living around the world are vastly different than your narrow view. Step outside your box for a while.

Joel West wrote @ December 29, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Nice blurred photo! What do you call the red paint that they wear? Is this “achiote?” I am looking for a natural dye that can be used to make temporary tattoos. I found some similar pictures using natural dyes at Amazon Tribes

Thanks for the beautiful “blurred” photo!

Anotherperson wrote @ December 31, 2008 at 7:42 pm

I believe the FCC does not and should not regulate the cable channel that the show was on. I think the public airwaves are the channels the FCC regulates. I personally don’t believe in censorship. If you need to censor than do it for yourself.

Max wrote @ February 5, 2009 at 9:06 pm

It’s not like these people walk around hoping to have a giant orgy. They see each other naked as we see each other clothed. It’s no big deal. Modern culture seems to have an embarrassment of the naked body, almost a hatred, but these people don’t have that. They live simply, so don’t feel as if they are disrespecting the tribe, because they’re not. The tribe lives naked, so keep that in mind when watching shows like this. If you can be mature about it, and start not noticing their nakedness, it can actually be quite interesting.

john wrote @ February 5, 2009 at 11:56 pm

i thought it was hot and looked great. turned me on.

nack wrote @ March 14, 2009 at 4:36 pm

To the topic starter, no offence but you are an idiot. What’s wrong with showing such nice breast I ask you??

Your kids must be choking at home I’m sure. It wasn’t porn or playboy. It’s a nature show. Grow up!!!

mudpuppy wrote @ March 16, 2009 at 1:32 pm

I’m continually surprised at how many people miss the point of this post.

Regardless, this is one of my all-time favorite comment threads hands down!

dave wrote @ March 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Come on, its just skin, all women have boobs and there is no reason to be ashamed of them as proven by the women in this tribe. Censorship only protects the extremely insecure. Wake up you stuffy conservatists!

faerr wrote @ March 22, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Well there is a statement before the programme starts. What about the large amount of naked bums and penises?

I guess you may have been born with clothes?

kal wrote @ May 4, 2009 at 12:14 am

mud, not only breasts, but the whole thing!! The women were fully naked. I found that disturbing as well. It’s really shocking to see these images on a regular cable channel. And true, what makes the travel channel people think of these people as less of a humans to show them naked like that. I get your point.

Ladykatta wrote @ May 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Why did all of you complainers proceed to watch this show? The Travel Channel shows a disclaimer before every Tribal Odyssey episode that warn of “indigenous nudity”.

As a German, I can only shake my head at American prudity. Get over yourselves already!

mudpuppy wrote @ May 8, 2009 at 12:51 pm

@Ladykatta // Obviously you didn’t read the post. The complaint wasn’t the nudity, but rather the double-standard in the television industry.

As an American, I can only shake my head at German ignorance. Take some time to read a post before commenting already!

David wrote @ June 8, 2009 at 8:10 am

It’s an interesting comment that not blurring Amazonian breasts makes those women less human. Why, even with the comments about male nipples, is nobody picking up on the basic inconsistency: everybody has nipples. So why is it OK to show male nipples, but not female nipples? Our societies (I’m South African) are fundamentally sexist. A topless guy: no problem. A topless woman: she’s indecent, slutty etc. It’s the age-old nonsense double standard that blames women for sexually enticing men. It’s completely inconsistent with the idea of social equality.
I do completely agree with the comments about ignoring atrocities. To all my fellow Christians: God made breasts, and made them good, and was pleased. Humans make wars, genocide, famine etc, they are evil.
Which should we get outraged over?
I think the answer is obvious

David wrote @ June 8, 2009 at 8:16 am

A follow up to my last post: if not blurring body parts makes people less human, are men less human than women?
Or is this so-called “respect” for women actually men just being possessive over women’s bodies? These Yawalapiti women (and men) are habitually naked. They are not disrespecting themselves. We are not respecting them by blurring their bodies.
All that we are doing, if we do that, is catering to our own, unquestioned, prejudices regarding the human body.

bbasingal wrote @ June 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Let me say that I find it amazing that the FCC requires any program to blur out people in their native garb, even if that garb is no clothes at all. We are not talking about network TV here, we are talking about cable. There are plenty of parental control devices out there, let people put them to good use and give me totally uncensored programming. btw, I’m female.

Brad Khan wrote @ June 18, 2009 at 9:23 pm

I completely disagree with your assessment. Have you ever taken an ethics class and discussed cultural relativism? It is wrong for us to believe the Yawalapiti tribe should be censored solely because our relative view of ‘humanity’ implies censorship. The view of humanity in their culture does not imply censorship. Ergo, it would be treating them unethically to ignore that and prescribe them to our view of humanity. This is similar to believing it is okay to industrialize the Middle East.

The censorship issue of letting breasts and penes hang out on our American television stations is another issue. However, in my opinion, censorship is overrated and is already too prevalent. You can always choose to change the channel. Moreover, it’s ridiculous to censor the natural non-erotic occurrence of body parts which we were all born with.

We need to stick all censorship advocates on their own island, leave them be, and revisit them in 100 years to see what type of atrocity they have created of their own lives.

Your comment

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

	mudpuppy on June Debrief
	jeremy on June Debrief
	joshua on Christian Swear Words
	June Debrief «… on May Debrief
	June Debrief «… on April Debrief
	June Debrief «… on March Debrief
	June Debrief «… on February Debrief

The Original Mud Puppy