Marcus Penis

[cwalton]

I can not believe that they missed this one. Of course, I missed it when I was watching. I sure wasn't looking right there, but apparently someone was. I didn't want to post this on the main site, but here is the site that I show it on. They have an animated gif file of it.

Wow.

!! omg blog !!: OMG, 'Survivor' penis flash: Marcus Lehman

[metalbear]

That poor guy he will never hear the end of this one!

[34Ford]

WTF. Everybody gay?

I would much rather see Michelle's camel toe that was blurred out.
They got rid of the eye candy for a whole season for us straight guys.

[Trisha B]

DANG I MISSED IT ALSO! I was watching the show, but I guess I missed that part or something......

[Misssourshots]

We are an organization of 200 plus and growing quickly by the day. You can find our home page at Fight-The-MPAA.

Our goal is to form a resistance to the gender biased media that has existed for the past 46 years.

On Tuesday, October 14, 2008, we sent the following email to Ray Faiola, CBS Audiences Services.
212-975-3166 rpfaiola@cbs.com
We also called him and he told us he never received the email, we are still waiting for a response from CBS.


* On Thursday, Sept. 25, 2008, CBS aired a showing of
"Survivor: Gabon" in which a contestant known as Marcus has an alleged wardrobe malfunction which allowed his penis to become visible. The penis was in no way censored by CBS.

The uncensored penis in "Survivor: Gabon" is in no way new news as the media has done this numerous times in the past, but instead of being "supposedly unintentional", as in "Survivor: Gabon", it was obviously intended, as were the following examples:

* Superman (1978), aired often on public TV, showed a prepubescent boy's full frontal nudity, no censor.

*
Never Cry Wolf (1983), also aired on public TV, showed full frontal nudity of a grown man's genitalia, no censor.

* In the mid 80's I can recall watching a news report on prison guards who went to work one day totally nude. The censor patch was applied poorly and at most times did absolutely no good what-so-ever.

* Not to mention the countless documentaries made about foreign cultures, in which nudity is considered acceptable for airing as it depicts the culture being studied, but it is always a penis we are being shown in these documentaries, not a vulva.

Why is it that censorship only works in regards to female nudity and not male nudity?

Why is it the media is only concerned with not offending viewers who disapprove of female nudity, but they are in no way concerned with offending viewers who disapprove of male nudity?

Please do not site the Janet Jackson Super Bowl Incident, as we see male's nipples on television day-in and day-out. A female nipple is in no way equivalent to male genitalia.


We also sent the above email to the Chairman of the FCC, Kevin J. Martin, with these additional questions:


Will the FCC set an example by slapping CBS with a fine much greater than that of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl Incident, or will the FCC show them selves to be gender biased by making a much weaker fine for this "incident", there by encouraging CBS to do this kind of thing again and again.

Also what are the fines for the following:

A females nipple

A males nipple

A vulva

A penis

And if the fines are held to different standards in regards to male nudity vs. female nudity could you please explain why.

Once again we are awaiting a response from the FCC.
To contact the FCC the number is,
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC

Respectfully,

Noel Torrey

[cwalton]

Dude. Whatever.

You just got me more traffic by using all of those words in your post. Now people will search on those words and find this unclear rant.

Gender bias? What gender bias? What do you want? You want MORE sanctions or LESS? It's not clear. This is also not a political forum. Go away.

[Brian Southworth]

Who cares. I'm glad I got to see it personally.

[pawpaw]

Originally Posted by Misssourshots

We are an organization of 200 plus and growing quickly by the day. You can find our home page at Fight-The-MPAA.

Our goal is to form a resistance to the gender biased media that has existed for the past 46 years.

On Tuesday, October 14, 2008, we sent the following email to Ray Faiola, CBS Audiences Services.
212-975-3166 rpfaiola@cbs.com
We also called him and he told us he never received the email, we are still waiting for a response from CBS.


* On Thursday, Sept. 25, 2008, CBS aired a showing of
"Survivor: Gabon" in which a contestant known as Marcus has an alleged wardrobe malfunction which allowed his penis to become visible. The penis was in no way censored by CBS.

The uncensored penis in "Survivor: Gabon" is in no way new news as the media has done this numerous times in the past, but instead of being "supposedly unintentional", as in "Survivor: Gabon", it was obviously intended, as were the following examples:

* Superman (1978), aired often on public TV, showed a prepubescent boy's full frontal nudity, no censor.

*
Never Cry Wolf (1983), also aired on public TV, showed full frontal nudity of a grown man's genitalia, no censor.

* In the mid 80's I can recall watching a news report on prison guards who went to work one day totally nude. The censor patch was applied poorly and at most times did absolutely no good what-so-ever.

* Not to mention the countless documentaries made about foreign cultures, in which nudity is considered acceptable for airing as it depicts the culture being studied, but it is always a penis we are being shown in these documentaries, not a vulva.

Why is it that censorship only works in regards to female nudity and not male nudity?

Why is it the media is only concerned with not offending viewers who disapprove of female nudity, but they are in no way concerned with offending viewers who disapprove of male nudity?

Please do not site the Janet Jackson Super Bowl Incident, as we see male's nipples on television day-in and day-out. A female nipple is in no way equivalent to male genitalia.


We also sent the above email to the Chairman of the FCC, Kevin J. Martin, with these additional questions:


Will the FCC set an example by slapping CBS with a fine much greater than that of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl Incident, or will the FCC show them selves to be gender biased by making a much weaker fine for this "incident", there by encouraging CBS to do this kind of thing again and again.

Also what are the fines for the following:

A females nipple

A males nipple

A vulva

A penis

And if the fines are held to different standards in regards to male nudity vs. female nudity could you please explain why.

Once again we are awaiting a response from the FCC.
To contact the FCC the number is,
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC

Respectfully,

Noel Torrey

[Misssourshots]

Originally Posted by cwalton

Dude. Whatever.

You just got me more traffic by using all of those words in your post. Now people will search on those words and find this unclear rant.

Gender bias? What gender bias? What do you want? You want MORE sanctions or LESS? It's not clear. This is also not a political forum. Go away.

To answer your question, we are not against male nudity, we are for female nudity. Why is it only acceptable in western society to push for male nudity, but not acceptable to push for female nudity? Why the outcry over Janet Jackson's nipple, but hardly anything over Marcus and his penis.

If it is acceptable to see a penis it should be acceptable to see a vulva, if it is acceptable to see a male nipple it should be acceptable to see a female nipple, that would be unbiased and lead to LESS sanctions.

When we treat one sex different, the prejudice in action or treatment against a person on the basis of their sex, this is a gender bias. This is not my term, just Google "gender biased".

We are making a documentary on this subject and invite you to watch it this coming November. Just go to our home page, Fight-The-Mpaa , click on our join button, and click the youtube link, that will take you to our youtube channel. We will be allowing comments on our documentary as well, but you will have to post them as video files. We will be showing the world who we are, there is no reason the world should not show us who they are. In other words, no anonymous text messages from a name without a face.

And just to prove our point here is a link to our smiles.

0611081309b on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

As I stated previously:

"The uncensored penis in "Survivor: Gabon" is in no way new news as the media has done this numerous times in the past, but instead of being "supposedly unintentional", as in "Survivor: Gabon", it was obviously intended, as were the following examples:

* Superman (1978), aired often on public TV, showed a prepubescent boy's full frontal nudity, no censor.

*
Never Cry Wolf (1983), also aired on public TV, showed full frontal nudity of a grown man's genitalia, no censor.

* In the mid 80's I can recall watching a news report on prison guards who went to work one day totally nude. The censor patch was applied poorly and at most times did absolutely no good what-so-ever.

* Not to mention the countless documentaries made about foreign cultures, in which nudity is considered acceptable for airing as it depicts the culture being studied, but it is always a penis we are being shown in these documentaries, not a vulva."

[cwalton]

No, really. I said "GO AWAY". This is not a political forum.

Thanks for the traffic though.