Last night we were watching Dirty Jobs (a fun yet disgusting show) and the episode was focused on breeding racing horses. It’s actually a very involved process because they don’t just let the horses go at it.
Anyway, aside from how gross it was to watch, the censoring was totally whacked.
Ok, first this very excited horse came in and a giant area was, well, blurred out while the horse got his jollies. Understandable. Odd, since it was a horse not a person, but understandable. Ok, so it goes to commercial and we see the next segment which is the insemination part and that very excited female horse was not censored.
Hmm, that had us a little perturbed. So, it was not ok to show a horse penis but was ok to show the horse vulva? Interesting.
Well, it gets more interesting because when the segment came on the female horse was also censored.
So, does this mean that trailers and commercials are not restricted with the same censorship rules as the shows themselves?
I don’t think there are different rules. In fact, I don’t think showing horse genitalia in a program about horse breeding is indecent in any way.
If someone finds horse breeding more disturbing than the episodes with the raw sewage and exploding toilets then they have a problem.
And why is it ok to show a bag full of horse semen and not the horse penis it just came out of?
Really, what the hell were they thinking?
That sure does sound weird. Almost sounds as though it’s being treated like an X-rated National Geographic show. It’s too bad the message is being sent that its wrong for animals to mate. (perhaps cuz they’re not married?)
My wife and I watched that episode several weeks ago and noticed the same inconsistency! I just wonder what the rules are and why – it did seem odd to us that the image blurring was inconsistently applied.
I’ve seen the same episode.The stallion’s penis is blurred and we do see the vulva of the mare somewhat,some of it was blurred also.
But in my telivision viewing,it has always been the other way around,be it horses or humans.
it’s amazing thatt feminazis complain about the unfairness of Tv daring to show vulva(a horse for god’s sake)and not equally showing the male anatomy.
How come you don’t complain when so much TV today shows the male genital but nowhere is the vulva.
As the perfect example,HBO showed Private Dicks but the feminazi producer Meema Spadola never made the other side of the story “the vulva”
Why don’t you hypocrites complain about that.
Take it easy Marc. I have no problem with nudity on TV, but that is besides the point. We are not talking about showing human male or female genitalia, but about how ridiculous it is to censor the most important part of an educational program.
A large proportion of programmes I happen to watch on UK tv are all too happy to show as many penises as possible, in every detail, erect or not, sometimes even before the 9:00 watershed. But I can think of only one occasion when I have EVER seen a vagina shown on tv and that was on ‘Extreme Cosmetic Surgery’ or something like that, presented by Vanessa Feltz. Bearing in mind ‘genitalia’ does NOT mean a few pubic hairs or ‘full frontal’ when it applies to females, I think it is FAR more common for unequal censorship to be used to protect the dignity of females, and not males. Examples: Channel 4’s ‘Embarrassing Illnesses’ (broadcast at 8:30) & BBC’s ‘The Human Body’. There was male nudity galore in both but no corresponding female nudity and these were both supposed to be balanced, educational programmes… The sexism is SO obvious. If it were the other way around, everybody would be outraged wouldn’t they? Double standards!