obscenity
Saturday, March 14, 2009 (8:32 PM)
being in this industry for some time sorta gave me some interesting insights into the mechanics behind censorship.
a certain episode of oprah created some thoughts in me.
this particular transgender who used to be a beautiful woman became a man and married another woman. some time later they decided to have a baby together but the wife was unable to bear the child for some reason. so, they used the transgender's womb for the baby instead and there the transgender became the first pregnant "man" ever. the media is pretty lame because it's obviously a pregnant woman. i digress.
the papers then showed an image of a topless him with his pregnant body. and this got me pondering, what is it about a woman's body that makes her being topless obscene? why is the transgender's breastless body allowed to be shown when the body is in fact a woman's body to begin with? what's the rationale for censoring a topless pregnant woman but allowing a topless pregnant transgender to pass?
is it because of the missing breasts? but what about the breasts make the person different from a fat man whose breasts may not necessarily be smaller than a woman's? does that mean women with really small breasts can go topless on public media?
even though the transgender is supposed to have become a man, that doesn't change the fact that it's a woman's body. unless maybe they mutilated her head and attached it to a man's body.
and what about the term "transgender" makes the body a man? being a man has become such an abstract concept, it seems that calling yourself one is good enough a reason to go topless in the public. you girls can try doing that. but if you do, let me know. i'd like to catch you in action.