Sex and the city, bare bums and a little spot of blood

[StillFrigginRexManningDay]

I know this is really rather silly but its kind of got a serious undertone and its irrationally annoyed me.
There are reruns of sex and the city on the comedy channels during the day with the swear words and obvious sex references removed. Dd1 has been watching it and I noticed that they allow Harrys bare bum, references to grey pubic hair that must be dyed and various other things that I would not want my younger DC to be privy to. Yet I noticed that when Charlottes dog came into heat they cut out a couple of drops of blood on Charlottes shoe. A normal biological function not shown in any way graphic is considered too much but a mans bare arse is fine?

PMSL it is, although the smells coming from dh bare arse at the moment is anything but normal but I was surprised to see one at lunchtime on TV and they cannot show a couple of drops of blood?

I also don't know why dd is watching it, every character annoys her.

what passes censorship laws and what doesnt, appears to be pretty random. I dont really get it.

i know they never show erect cocks or full on fannies but then there's so many strange non offensive things that wont pass either

Wow some of those episodes must be half the length - can't quite see the point of SATC without the S

It's one of those 'little' things that completely bypasses anyone not tuned into it, but once you are aware of discrepancies like this you see them everywhere.

I suppose its the same people who use the blue liquid to represent period blood, because to see red liquid might just tip us right over the edge.

Imagine a mooncup advert!

I don't see why a menstrual cup advert would be so awful. We have tampons soaking up tubes of blue water, so presumably could have menstrual cups holding some too? Or reusable nappies? Reusable sanitary towels?

I don't get the blue liquid, surely even the most pearl clutchy of people know that blood is red?

Why do we have such a nanny version of what is and isn't acceptable on TV and why does it make no rational sense? Cartoon violence, violence against women, violence against men are all ok, but having blood depicted as red isn't. Okkkkk

I think they don't think we can cope with seeing water dyed red, I mean we might think they used real blood... and of course real blood is so shameful and distressing, that's why on casualty they make sure the blood isn't too realistic, I meant they couldn't use red blood could they...? Oh wait... that'll just be a rule for menstrual blood them because women vaginas are icky.

I imagine they think they'll sell less sanitary protection if they remind people it has something to do with menstrual blood.

(I am very bemused at the idea of sex in the city with no sex... "Relationships in the City", "Friendships in the City", "Expensive Shoes in the City" ?!? )

"Swan-about-all-day-doing-not-very-much-and-yet-can-afford-to-live-in-a-big-apartment in the City"

Without the swearing and sex, does Samantha actually appear at all? Is it three friends in the city, with this weird extra who appears to have lunch with them but not say anything?!

Am amazed Harry's bare arse is suitable for daytime telly - with all credit to the very talented Evan Handler.

The blood thing is weird - it was a dog. A bleeding dog. It wasn't Charlotte having a period leak on her own shoes. I hope they didn't cut the lines:

Miranda: Elizabeth Taylor got gang-banged in the park?
Samantha: Oh god, that's so 80's!

I-Couldn't-Help-But-Wonder-In-The-City.

I didn't know dogs had periods til that episode acksherly. It's educational.

I saw a hint of a models nipple today on it. I am not looking at it to find things to support my period blood theory, not me, oh no
Evidence that a woman is not just a fuck hole=bad
Women are just sexual objects=good