pageok
pageok
pageok
"Indigenous Nudity":

Spotted by Arnold Zwicky (Language Log), on a Travel Channel food show:

This program contains indigenous nudity. Parental discretion is advised.

Hoosier:
Only native-born breasts, buttocks, and genitalia will be shown.
8.14.2008 8:37pm
Cornellian (mail):
So the nudity of people recently arriving in the country is not a matter for parental discretion?
8.14.2008 8:50pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):

This program contains indigenous nudity. Parental discretion is advised.

So if they call it "indigenous nudity" can they broadcast some of the wilder videos from Mardi Gras without the FCC bringing the hammer down?
8.14.2008 8:55pm
ronbailey (www):
"Only native-born breasts, buttocks, and genitalia will be shown."

Those are my favorite ones, anyways.
8.14.2008 9:11pm
Lior:
It seems wild Mardi Gras videos which feature indigents might be legal. I guess the producers just need to add a "total household income" line to their release form?
8.14.2008 9:33pm
roy (mail) (www):
It's a useful distinction to make. They just need to grammar it up a bit.
8.14.2008 9:55pm
BlackX (mail):
Man, I loved National Geographic when I was 12. @.@
8.14.2008 10:00pm
Katl L (mail):
It means : there is a compelling cultural, antrophological, interest that makes it protected speech
8.14.2008 10:16pm
tommears (mail):
My late uncle was stationed in New Guinea at the end of WWII. He was in the navy. A few months before his death he very proudly showed me his photo album from that period. I don't think any of his siblings had ever seen it before--certainly not my mother or any of his other sisters. I suspect it was only taken out at lodge meetings and shown to the men-folk. It was crammed full of local New Guinea women exhibiting, very ample, bare-chested "indigenous nudity".

In 1945, this was apparently hot stuff to a 20-yr old farm boy from the, then VERY rural, Eastern Shore of Virginia. Better than National Geographic by a long shot.

I have the album, but one of my aunts censored all the "indigenous nudity" pictures before sending to me.
8.14.2008 11:15pm
Devilbunny (mail):
I take the phrase to mean that the people, while nude, are not involved in lascivious conduct - not that they are primitives, or inferior, or what have you. No different from topless sunbathing, really, just a warning that different places have different standards of dress and attitudes toward exposing parts of the body.
8.14.2008 11:37pm
FlimFlamSam:
Haha, I would love to know what happened to National Geographic's subscription numbers from the mid 50's when they started printing native nakedness in earnest to the end of that period in the late 60's.

I had a full collection of National Geographics from that period as a teenager. Needless to say, they came in handy.
8.14.2008 11:46pm
Hoosier:
"Indigenous Girls Gone Wild"

(Because "Indigent Girls Gone Wild" was not a commercial success.)
8.14.2008 11:57pm
jpe (mail):

I take the phrase to mean that the people, while nude, are not involved in lascivious conduct - not that they are primitives

In theory, that's a simple enough distinction to maintain; in practice, probably more difficult. (see generally: feminist critiques of film as an essentially objectifying relation between subject and object)
8.15.2008 10:19am
jpe (mail):

Because "Indigent Girls Gone Wild" was not a commercial success.

It was mainly for Bum Fights completists.
8.15.2008 10:20am
Sarcastro (www):
I read this as "ingenious nudity."
8.15.2008 10:22am
pete (mail) (www):
I was watching a show a few years ago when I still had cable on the national geographic channel (I think) where they had blurred over the indigenous nudity. I was a bit surprised since every other similar documentary type show had not bothered to hide anything.
8.15.2008 11:26am
Hoosier:
pete:

Yeah. I thought the nudity rule was: "Under-developed nations: OK. Under-developed girls: Criminal."
8.15.2008 12:18pm
Tom Cuddihy (mail):
Actually I think this is an incredibly efficient and sensible turn of phrase. Two words, captures three crucial points about the show:

1. There is nudity in this show that would be considered indecent in many contexts
2. The nudity is not gratuitous, but is unavoidable due to the naked savages in virtually every shot.
3. We're politically correct, so we'll call them "indigenous" instead of just "uncivilized" or "savages."

Whether or not the intent is convincing, that is clearly the intent.
8.16.2008 3:31pm
Tom Cuddihy (mail):
Actually as a postscript: I did watch this episode of No reservations, takes place in the South African bush with bushmen. He eats an Ostrich egg omelet cooked directly in the ash of a log fire (mmm!) and impala rectum (double mm!). The nudity really is unavoidable.
8.16.2008 5:04pm