I found this on a & thought it was pretty funny:
August 13, 2008 @ 2:56 pm· Filed by [Arnold Zwicky]("http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?author=5") under [Prescriptivist Poppycock]("http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5"), [Semantics]("http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=19"), [Syntax]("http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=20") « [previous post]("http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=480") | [next post]("http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=481") » Caught on-screen in an episode (set in Namibia, a re-run from some years ago) of Anthony Bourdain's *No Reservations*, a travel-and-food [television show]("http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Anthony_Bourdainhttp://"):
This program contains indigenous nudity. Parental discretion is advised.
It’s a warning that there were to be (female) breasts and (male) penises on display, though surely only fleetingly or out of the main focus of the camera, combined with the reassurance that the people whose bodies are (however negligently) on display are indigenous peoples — “primitives” and not “full people” like you and me, the viewers (or like Janet Jackson). That’s the social point, which has been commented on on the net by a fair number of people, and about which there’s a gigantic literature having to do with the attitudes and stances of people in dominant, urban, colonializing, modern, Western, literate, largely white, and/or “civilized” cultures towards the Other, the Exotic.
I remember reading somewhere that the first magazine in the US to print photos of naked females was . . . National Geographic, in 1901. More than 100 years later the same principle seems to hold, Third World nakedness doesn’t count.