Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums > Reference > General Archive > Eyes on The World > Boobs!

[Shadow Nexus]

OK, I saw the whole Janet Jackson in the Superbowl thing on TV, apparently and according to the news guy, it has rised quite a problem in USA. Well, I don't live there so I don't know how things are going exactly, but seriously, even if I don't give a damn about Janet's breasts, isn't it a little sad such a fuzz happened out of something like that? It's a little bit extreme to see how many people seem scandalized for something as ridiculous a 2 seconds footage of a breast. Will it cause irreversible damage on the mind of someone or something like that? Such sexual repression is preety damn terrible, it's not like we are in the victorian ages anymore. I mean, a breast is just a part of the body, damn it, and apparently now a TV series (Dunno which one, ER I think) was forced to take out a scene where an old woman showed her breast. Whats next, banning Tiziano paintings because they are sinful? God, it's beyond ridiculous.

Also, it's ironical the TVs show the images on the news, I mean, isn't it supposed to be so horrible? Because now such images have been repeated over and over because conservative christians made a big fuzz about it.

[Meow]

The possibility of that whole fiasco being a publicity stunt annoys me a bit, but what really burns me is the disproportionate uproar. This rabid call to censorship, i think, says less for upstanding moral value than it does for sexual repression. Just as you mentioned, it seems to me so many people fear sexuality more than they embrace the wish for its respectful presentation, because American society wouldn't be so generally sexualized - be it pop culture, advertisement, celebrities - unless sexuality were still an abusably repressed issue. It all ends up a "forbidden fruit" hedonistic excitement to the younger generations and an immoral peepshow to the older ("older" and "younger" as general cultural forces), but the problem remains the same.

If we could realize and teach mature acceptance of sexuality, not only would the parents freaking out about their kids seeing Janet Jackson's breast be able to breathe more easily, but they themselves wouldn't have to freak out and then displace it onto their kids in the first place.

[God]

Perhaps we can get our facts straight, for one thing.

I mean, a breast is just a part of the body, damn it, and apparently now a TV series (Dunno which one, ER I think) was forced to take out a scene where an old woman showed her breast. --Shadow Nexus

"Forced" implies that they had no choice. ER voluntarily edited their program. No one forced them to. That's how I understand it.

This rabid call to censorship, i think, says less for upstanding moral value than it does for sexual repression. --Blanco Meow

"Censorship" again implies that they have no choice. The broadcast networks choose what they want to show. CBS chose not to display nudity during the Superbowl, and that choice was taken away from them by the singers. CBS is not "censored" in the sense that they want to display nudity but are not allowed. Their public stance is that they do NOT want to show nudity. In fact many channels do show nudity.

If you want to see nudity or want your kids to, there are plenty of channels you can watch. You do have the right to see anything you want on TV, all the way up to porn and gore-movies and whatever. People also have the right NOT to see those things, however. CBS, and the Superbowl specifically, are things where it is implied that there will not be any nudity or inappropriateness at all. If things that are PROMISED to be appropriate for all ages are allowed to contain random nudity, how can a parent control what a child sees? Every time someone blames the media for something bad, the response is always "The parents should control their children!" But if the companies who produce entertainment don't control their own content, the only way to control what a child sees is to stop them from ever listening to music, watching TV, or playing a video game. That's not acceptable.

Imagine buying Pokemon for a kid and it randomly contains images of naked girls. That's the same thing as the Superbowl. We should (and do) have a guarantee that those things do not happen.

So far as whether or not the incident in the Superbowl itself is appropriate or not, it's not up to you to decide for the entire world what's appropriate. For a Muslim even seeing a girl's face can be inappropriate, from what I understand. For an African tribesperson, you can walk around stark-naked all day long and no one cares. It's a part of culture, and it's arbitrary, but it still has meaning.

To say another person's cultural ideas are "wrong" is ridiculous. I mean, I could argue that we should show private funerals on TV; some people might think it's entertaining to see a hundred people in real misery, mourning death of a loved one. Or maybe we should show death-row inmates being killed. Or how about just put some cameras in the bathroom and we can watch people take a crap during the Superbowl. After all, if people were "mature" enough, we could watch those things and no one would care. How about we all just walk around naked in public 24 hours a day, and we can go to the bathroom on the street corners and have sex in public like wild animals. Are you in favor of that? If not, why not? Are you repressed?

All concepts of privacy and decency are arbitrary to a point, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or don't have significance. I personally agree very much that nudity during the Superbowl is not decent or appropriate.

[Meow]

In the public media, censorship of the self is, in my mind, censorship all the same: it all falls under the category of restriction in some form or another, be it from within the organization or without, in deference to decency. If "censorship" as a term only specifically concerns enforced restrictions from outside agencies, then i've misused it. In any case, i was referring to the network's general taboos for decency's sake.

But my argument isn't against the network for holding that position, but a critique of the beliefs and practices that uphold its spirit. No, i don't believe we need copious amounts of nudity or language or any of the other extremes traditionally avoided by network television to parade the stations. But i do think that our absolute rejection and constant attempts to hide truths - such as sexuality - from our children simply isn't healthy.

We Americans have laws against drinking until the age of 21. The idea is that little kids simply aren't mature enough to deal with alcohol, emotionally and physically, until that age. But the thing about this restriction is that it whips up a very powerful "forbidden fruit" mentality, not only making alcohol that much more interesting a prospect, but also preventing folks from learning responsibly about alcohol consumption from the time and place where it will resonate the most: as a youth in the home. Introducing kids to alcohol in controlled amounts completely shatters one of its best selling points: that it's illegal. That alone makes it far more appealing than your average soft drink. Obviously the other main selling point of alcohol is drunkenness, but that early and controlled introduction is going to instill responsibility about liquor.

It works the same way for issues like this Janet Jackson fiasco. i wasn't impressed, nor do i really approve - it's nothing but a silly stunt, after all - but the resultant backlash has been staggering. i guess i do agree that this particular instance was inappropriate, seeing as people sat down to watch it with no prior notice of any nudity. But i'm using this particular event as a springboard for a more universal issue.

People are using this as an excuse to crack down on standards across the board, and that's not a good idea. Hiding something from someone only makes their drive to find it stronger, and can even extend it to an unhealthy degree. People scream and shout about "the destruction of decency," but to me that's looking at things the wrong way. Just like alcohol, early and controlled introduction to many of the things we consider taboo is the best way to curb the problems we have with them. Every time someone accuses our culture of having a rabid obsession with sex or violence or language or whatever other decadent things and tries to restrict even more is only going to have the next generation salivating more and more over such prospects.

Ultimately, i think, it has to do with education in the home. Take what culture throws at you and apply it constructively, because shoving our kids away from it and hiding it in the closest is only going to have them eventually pounding at the door to get in. To present it to them with solid explanation and with an undertone of responsibility gives them the tools to deal with it maturely.

[Shadow Nexus]

Unne, I don't know how voluntary was the ER thing, I mean, they may have eliminatewd the scene due to pressure, and acting under pressure is not something totally voluntary. Still, I don't know much about why they decided to take out the scene, I just know they did.

You say some TV channels that are supposed not to emit scenes of sexual content shouldn't do so? Well, of course they couldn't, but my question is: Isn't it pathetic such a fuzz was made about an error that ended up showing a breast?

And as Blanco said, sexual repression tends to make this things more desirable. Just take for example the hypocrite actitude of the victorian ages. Sexual repression was so bad people were forced to act as puritans on the outside, and on the inside they practiced all kinds of sexual practices. Actually, I think the whole gold shower thing (Person peeing on other person) was one of the most common practices back then. Urgh, I wouldn't like anyone to pee on me.

[Juggla]

the thing i have to add is that it was not an accident. Janet Jackson was wearing a moon or sun or some stellar style nipple cover.

and i think ting in the street is abit extreme of an example and as far as televising funerals or death row inamtes being killed whats thats so far off as it involves exploting people. You should have just jumped staright to the child pornography.

[TheAbominatrix]

It wasnt a nipple cover, it was a ring.

And, even though I'm against freaking out over stuff, I think this stunt was just uncalled for and stupid. Especially for the time and place it was on... on network tv, during the Superbowl, which kids watch. I wouldnt let my kid watch something like that (if I had a kid) and the big fuss is that no one expected that to be on. If it were on Showtime or heck, even Mtv, it wouldnt have been such a big deal. Stuff like that is almost excepted. But it was uncalled for during the Superbowl, where the most you're expecting is scantily clad skanks.

And yes, it was staged. Celebrities do pathetic things for attention.

[Flying Mullet]

Yes, I'll thrid, fourth, whatever that the whole thing was staged. Janet has a new album coming out at the end of March, and pre-ordering opened for the album this week. And that's why she did it, to gain notoriety before her album's pre-order time started so pepole would buy it.