Tits
I wrote my last entry in a bit of a rush, and Alex caught me on a glaring hole that I left uncovered in my mad dash to convince people to put more boobies on TV. :-)
There are really two points worth mentioning here. The first relates to how calculated a plot this was to unleash an Evil Tit on an unsuspecting public. As Alex pointed out in the comments, surprising people with a boobie (particularly when it's the last thing you'd expect to see) definitely not kosher. It's one thing to be offended by a tit, it's another entirely to try to practice Safe Parenting when one bursts onto your TV during the SuperBowl unannounced. For what it's worth, I suspect it was a calculated move on the part of MTV (and perhaps CBS) and their denial of this doesn't ring true to me. In recent years, I've always viewed MTV as a whore of a network, willing to do whatever it takes to be seen as "fresh" and "hip" and "buzzworthy" without any thought for artistic license. That they would put Sean "Puffy/Puff Daddy/P-Diddy/No-Talent Attention Whore" in the halftime festivities underscores that. So a big middle finger to MTV.
The other point was the one I was vainly trying to illustrate - the innocuousness of the boob. Leaving the other issues aside, boobs, sex and nudity are viewed with a much more prudish eye in America than violence, and this bothers me quite a bit. I suspect a large part of this comes from America having a big "Bible belt" going right through the middle of it, and these folks still view nudity and sex as more evil than violence. I hope that someday soon things will change in this regard, but I'm afraid it won't.
So to get to the point: if ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox want to put boobs, penises, and hot sex on free TV (with the appropriate disclaimers and perhaps a late-night time slot if it's more than simple nudity, of course), I'm here for you, network whores!
Comments
You know the whole thing was staged... No shirt just "accidentally" opens up like that. Like a bra for nursing or something.
Posted by: lyssa | February 2, 2004 02:13 PM
Down here in the Netherlands, putting a boob on TV in any entertainment show would raise very few eyebrows. In fact, I saw on the 8 o'clock news tonight the item covering the uncovering of the tit: "In the United States there is an uproar about a show in which JT ripped of the top of JJ, uncovering a tit: " *cue a 5sec recording of JT doing just so, plain and simple* *next item*. Had it not been for Brad's article, I would have already forgotten about it.
I mean, come on, it's just a boob, a 37 year old boob even. Do those people objecting to this have no mothers? _EVERYBODY_ knows what they look like. Are these people embarassed if their familymembers see them naked? It was like that over here too, in the 1950s.
Moral of the story: come and visit Amsterdam, it's better here ;) Not even mentioning the utter superiority of non-american beer and coffee.. I'll buy a beer and some decent coffee for anyone here who visits Amsterdam, just let me know :)
Posted by: Arthur Langereis | February 2, 2004 03:44 PM
To further illustrate Brad's point. I was at work on Sunday. I didn't get to see the previous mentioned breast. In fact, I watched the second half of the football game and heard nothing about it. I woke up this morning and heard it on the radio. I went to the computer and googled Janet Jackson superbowl. All the British newspapers had the pictures available uncensored. None of the mainstream American media (I don't consider the DrudgeReport mainstream) had the pictures. Sex on tv should have the same cautionary labels as violence. Nudity however is a fact of life. If you are going to ban bare breasted Janet Jackson (Miss Jackson if you're nasty), you must ban the hairy beer-gutted men who take their shirts off to reveal their chest painted with the colors of their favorite team.
Posted by: Spazdog | February 2, 2004 04:22 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with all points. Nudity is treated in this country as a big no-no, but it's okay to show murders in prime time? Something wrong. Reminds me of when an employee of Burger King asked a customer to stop breast feeding. The chain eventually apologized. A local resident's comment: "People need to realize that breasts aren't just for selling beer."
Even worse is the hypocrisy of advertisers and networks teasing us mercilessly with innuendo and HINTS of nudity in order to sell us stuff. MTV is particularly bad. Maybe that just reflects the music videos that are themselves being provocative to compete for air time on the network.
Having said that I'm not offended by nudity, there's a time and place for it and I AM offended by attempts to blindside me with it. Compounding the error: rather than admit to poor judgement, everyone involved denies knowledge or responsibility! I'd have some sympathy if someone would just say, "Yes, it seemed like a good idea given how well the Madonna/Britney kiss seemed to go over, but in retrospect it was a terrible idea and we're sorry. In our defense, we DID clear it with the president of CBS beforehand even though he denies it now..." Etc.
Posted by: Matt Diamond | February 3, 2004 10:09 AM