One Utah

I didn’t see the exposed the “wardrobe malfunction.” When I heard about it, I didn’t care. Her boob was partly visible on TV for less than a second. Frankly, to me it’s a complete non-issue.

Apparently, however, Janet’s boob is the boob the religious right just can’t let go. They’ve got it in a tight grip and they’re not setting it free until they get satisfaction. And they’re twisting and turning every which way to get their satisfaction with Janet’s boob.

I don’t consider a quick flash of tit (even during primte time, even during the Super Bowl) a big deal. The notion that anyone is harmed by the sight of a bared breast seems less like a reasoned position on nudity than an extreme and unhealthy prudishness.

Judith Levine’s Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex explores the idea that our much hyped efforts to keep children “innocent” actually results in greater harm (for instance, young persons who complete abstinence only programs are as likely as their peers who had no sexuality education to engage in unprotected intercourse with all the risks associated with it). Levine argues such efforts leave young people unprepared to deal with matters of sexuality - including their own feelings and well being. Efforts to protect children often go beyond the normal silence about sexuality into sending messages that sexuality, the body, and even thoughts of sex are inherently wrong, damaging, and dangerous.

A recent court decision held the FCC’s fine against CBS for the flash of boob was arbitrary and capricious; for decades, the FCC has not levied fines for fleeting nudity. (The 102 page decision makes for truly engaging reading. Not.) Today’s D-News has an unintentionally funny and overblown editorial about the ruling, writing:

. . . a federal appeals court in Philadelphia this week made the FCC’s job a lot more difficult . . . By overturning the FCC’s $550,000 fine against CBS Corp. for Jackson’s obviously premeditated indecency during halftime of the Super Bowl in 2004, the court opened the door to a flood of “spontaneous” abuses on live shows.

The three-judge panel said the FCC changed its previous practice of assessing fines only against behavior that was “pervasive” and that amounted to “shock treatment” for the viewing public. Jackson’s breast-baring incident lasted only nine-sixteenths of a second, the court said, and it was not part of the script.

Set aside for a moment that the incident happened in front of a television audience of 90 million during a game that has evolved into something akin to an annual national holiday. Jackson and fellow singer Justin Timberlake were performing a song called “Rock Your Body,” which included the lyrics “Gonna have you naked by the end of this song.” Jackson was set to debut a new album and MTV.com had recently predicted “some shocking moments” during the Super Bowl halftime.

What part of any of that sounds appropriate for the type of family audience that watches a football game?

Does the D-News editorial board really believe that the Super Bowl is some sort of family event where mom, dad and the assorted offspring gather in front of the TV, mom in her pearls and dad in his cardigan and watch the game in some retro vision of family harmony? Try getting into a bar on Super Bowl night. It seems almost every neighborhood has at least one house that throws a big blowout. If you arrive at any grocery store, convenience store or liquor store on Super Bowl sunday, they’ll be sold out or nearly sold out of their chips, beverages and nuts. I get invited to at least three a year - usually with promises of all the beer I can drink and taxis arranged for rides home as needed. The D-News editors are kidding themselves if they think that the Super Bowl is some sort of family home evening event full of family bonding and special moments. Sure, Super Bowl sunday is an unofficial national holiday, but it’s not a “family” holiday (at least as the term is being used by the D-News).

I question the use of the term “family” as indicative of something that is scrubbed entirely free of suggestive words, dance moves, or images. Some years ago, I read that in the UK, the BBC aired Buffy the Vampire Slayer at 9 o’clock at night - arguing that the shows violent content was offensive to younger viewers. In the US, we never noticed the violence but in the shows later seasons, when it included more overt and honest discussions of sexuality, it garnered warning labels. In the US, it’s not uncommon for any show which even mentions homosexuality to carry a TV MA rating, even if the content itself is nothing other than a gay couple holding hands. However, BBC children’s TV staple Doctor Who frequently includes simple, unsensational references to and images of same sex couples (in one episode, showing a party, a male couple is clearly visible dancing together in the background, then later, as the rooms blows up, fleeing together). Even in supposedly repressed Great Britain, matters of sexuality are treated much more matter of fact than in the US. Many European parents seem to give little, if any, thought of taking their children to topless beaches. Nudity is simply not taboo or shocking. The outcome of those differences in attitude are visible in American and European responses to nudity; Americans react with shock or by immediately projecting sexual intent into nudity, often expressed as the idea that the only reason a person is naked is to have sex or engage in inappropriate sexual behavior (like flashing).

The insistence on an entirely “family friendly” mass media suggests to me an inability to understand and set boundaries. Some things which are appropriate for adults are not appropriate for children, nor should they be. In instances like Janet’s breast, adult reactions teach children all kinds of lessons they don’t think they’re teaching. When adults are shocked, children learn that they should be shocked. By contrast, if adults react calmly or even ignore the incident, kids learn it is no big deal. Rather than being upset, they shrug it off and move on. The adult kerfuffle is probably more upsetting to kids than the actual bosom involved.

This is an instance of cultural conservatives having a public fit over something that is largely a non-issue, creatings lots distraction but not creating a space in which the topic can be productively discussed. It’s easily arguable that no one was harmed by the incident (certainly, Janet Jackson’s career remains vital). People who are upset about the incident argue that seeing her breast is harmful but haven’t actually made a case that it is harmful. But, with all the shouting, it’s been difficult to have anything like a rational discussion.

This entry was posted Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 am and is filed under 4th Estate (Media), Bullying, Conservatives, This Blog, censorship. Both comments and pings are currently closed.