At least, in the eyes of the FCC.
Janet Jackson had her breast exposed on national TV, and it's provoking a firestorm. The FCC is talking about potentially millions in fines for CBS stations, as if they had something to do with Justin Timberlake ripping off Janet Jacksons's bra. I'm sure I speak for much of the male population when I say that given the opportunity, I'd have done the same thing.
Why is the breast obscene? Why is exposing it indecent? And it's not even the entire breast that's obscene, just the nipple. Cover that up and you can let those puppies swing free! Men show their nipples all the time without causing a controversy; why should a woman's nips be different?
Because we're still in the grip of a puritanical hatred of women and repression of sex that's about 250 years out of date, that's why. At some point, somebody came up with this crazy notion that our spirits are corrupted by flesh, and that we must deny our animal bodies in order to cleanse our souls or some such crap. They decided that man had a dual nature, animal and spirit, and that the spiritual part was of more value than the animal part. Therefore the animal part was to be discouraged as bad, detracting from the pure spirituality that was the true nature of man.
I think this is an opportune moment to point out that by definition God created both the spirit and the flesh, including all the drives that go with it. Telling me that flesh is somehow dirty or evil is saying that God, who created us in His own image after all, did an imperfect job.
That's a fifteen yard penalty for unbelievable BS!
Man may have a dual nature; biologists tend to disagree, but I think it's so. I believe we have a spiritual nature, a soul if you prefer, but I don't believe it is of a higher value than our physical nature. Our physical needs and drives are every bit as important as our spiritual needs. They are not inherently contradictory, although they do come into conflict from time to time. We may desire a woman who is unavailable to us for any number of reasons. In such instances, we choose to deny the impulses that result from the attraction, but that doesn't mean our attraction is evil, or that the woman is evil for enticing our attention. Only that a full expression of that attraction is inappropriate.
Sexual desire is not evil; appreciating female beauty is not evil; so why is exposing a breast obscene? It may be inappropriate (and a Super Bowl halftime show certainly qualifies on that score), but obscene or indecent?
Never!
It's time we grew up a little bit and replaced this unhealthy obsession with sex with a healthy appreciation for it.
"But we must protect the children!"
From what? A natural biological function? Please! What we need to protect our children from is this warped and twisted view of sexuality.
Posted by Rich at February 3, 2004 12:16 PM | TrackBackI liked billmon's take on this:
How many obnoxious beer ad campaigns have been born at the Super Bowl? How many Swedish bikini teams, mud-wrestling underwear models, pneumatic fantasy dates just dying for a name-brand light beer? How many close ups have we seen of wriggling cheerleaders just one button away from completely popping out of their "uniforms"?We could reasonably rename it the T&A Bowl.
But let a real, unairbrushed breast actually wave free for one shuddering moment of unscripted exhibitionism, and suddenly we've got a full-blown Puritan hissy fit on our hands. Oh, to think of all those tender young viewers out there in NFL America, exposed to such filth at such an early age! Where's Cotton Mather when you really need him?
I mostly agree. But, I do think there's something to be said for the way that her breast is bared. It's one thing to be offended by a breast in general, for all the reasons you have cited above. However, the manner in which she was exposed -- Justin Timberlake ripping her clothes off and Janet feigning shock and embarassment -- is not exactly the most healthy way to introduce the naked breast to the American public. Not to mention the implications of ripping a woman's clothes off as acceptable behaviour.
So this action of "exposing" something, which clearly is meant to be hidden, therefore only furthers the eroticization of the breast. It would be different if she just showed up on stage without a shirt on, or something equally skimpy.
So, all MTV has done is offend both sides of the spectrum, in my opinion: people that are offended by the female breast in general, and people that would prefer to see the breast as a natural part of the woman's body that wouldn't require "exposing".
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 3, 2004 1:30 PMHmmm. Interesting take, although I'm not sure the shock was wholly feigned. I didn't record it and I wasn't watching very closely, but it appeared to me that Janet's reaction afterwards was similar to other inadvertant exposures I've seen (Minnie Driver at the Oscars a couple of years ago comes to mind) by women who aren't body conscious.
But I do want to ask you why eroticization is a bad thing.
When I say that breasts are not indecent, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be erotic. My argument is that eroticism is not evil. Whatever physical characteristics we as a culture find arousing should not be neutered anymore than they should be proscribed.
Eroticism is more a function of the mind than the body anyway. I've been on beaches in Europe where the custom is to go topless. After the first few minutes of gawking, you quickly adjust to the presence of bare breasts, and it's no longer a big deal.
Except for those women who want to be noticed.
As Lewis Grizzard observed, "There's 'naked', and 'nekkid'. 'Naked' is when you've got no clothes on. 'Nekkid' is when you've got no clothes on and you're up to something!"
I watched a girl, a fairly plain brunette, sitting with her friend, a flashy blonde, both topless, as a group of sailors from the Nimitz walked by. The blonde laid back, ignoring the guys, but the brunette went from naked to nekkid without seming to move a muscle. It was the most incredible demonstration of attitude over pulchritude I have ever seen. Needless to say, the squids came over to talk to her, not the blonde. Mission accomplished.
As I said earlier, sexual arousal is a good thing. If a woman is viewed erotically, does that demean or lessen her? I don't think so; that attitude is tied up in the same puritanical view I was talking about. Being sexy is not being bad.
Posted by: rich on February 3, 2004 2:26 PMNo, I agree. I didn't mean to imply that eroticization is bad. It just is.
There's also a subtle difference between genitals or breasts being erotic and just being something to be "shameful" of. Either way, they are arbitrary social constructions.
I just meant that if the goal is to make breasts less erotic or less shameful/hidden, MTV didn't do much to help the situation in either direction.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 3, 2004 2:58 PMThere's also a subtle difference between genitals or breasts being erotic and just being something to be "shameful" of.
I also think the former can be tied to the latter, incidentally. Perhaps a better word would be "fetishization". The female breasts can be eroticized to a fetishistic extent specifically cause of the puritan influence in our society.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 3, 2004 3:01 PMWhat the FCC ought to be investigating is simulated sexual assault as entertainment. And big nasty horse farts.
Posted by: SKB on February 3, 2004 10:41 PMOr the arbitrary censoring of ads.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 4, 2004 10:42 AMfetishization--good word for what we're talking about. I think we are in agreement on this one.
Posted by: rich on February 5, 2004 1:13 AM