stupid media kerfuffle
February 3, 2004 04:10 PM
My co-workers, who are known for a complete disregard of the line between work-safe and its opposite, were - I kid you not - huddled around a close-up photo of Janet Jackson's breast this morning, talking about how icky it was. A bunch of people on LJ have been talking about this in the same context as the most exploitative porn. Yesterday, the Glen Beck guy on the conservative talk radio was railing about second-rate halftime talent wrecking family values, and I was deeply confused as to what he was trying to say (not having seen the Super Bowl, which is NOT covered on NPR). Today he lambasted Howard Dean for saying the FCC ought to focus its attention on other things that could be bad for kids (yeah, like the 6PM news). And Katie Couric thinks it's nasty; Pat O'Brian disagrees.
My personal reaction when I read what had actually happened could be summed up in the following: eh, Justin finally got Britney back for that whole Madonna kiss thing; guess that means he's winning the breakup wars according to whatever that thing was on MTV with the animated boxing gloves. [Yes, my personal reactions are this shallow.]
This is stupid. We don't even need to be talking about this.
And this is why most Americans laugh at anyone of strong political belief, because it will eventually expressed as either the aforementioned talk radio program expressed it, or it will come out in the "feminist" claims that Janet Jackson is yet another symbol of passive feminine sexuality, as she did not rip off her own shirt. Basically, it's people like Glen and the LJ feminist communities that make us all look a bit absurd.
It's just a breast, a body part that all little kids have likely seen. It seems highly unlikely that she was not complicit (I mean, she was the one wearing a snap-off cup with no bra under it).
Get over it, America.
Also. This is related to Kim's male nudity/Justin Timberlake post, at least vaguely. There's this idea that the female body is inherently and entirely sexual if nude, while the male body is only sexual in one part - the penis. Of course, the penis is so intensely sexual that just showing one apart from any sexual situation in a movie is grounds for a more serious rating than the goriest of gory action/horror movies, while a bevy of topless or otherwise near-nude women is just background noise.
I understand that people have different feelings about nudity, and that some people legitimately are just annoyed that they were unexpectedly exposed to boobies when they had no reason to expect boobies during their football game, but the resulting media kerfuffle is wholely unnecessary.
If you're really that upset by nudity, ask why female nudity is used to titillate vastly more, and why unsexual naked body parts are considered worse than real-life or fictionalized gore and violence. And do something about that.
TrackBack : in books & tv & internet stuff
« ew. ick. magazine. ick. |
| are we fighting the same fight? »
your wicked thoughts
I'm with you there. Never have so many been so up in arms about so small a flash. I've seen more boobage in cat food commercials.
these are the thoughts of Trance on February 3, 2004 07:32 PM
please note that your IP address is logged when comments are posted, and comment abuse including spam will be investigated and reported to your internet service provider.