I don't get it.

[den]

Janet Jackson left exposed on TV

Apparently her breast was a bit exposed during the Superbowl half time show.

"CBS quickly cut away from the scene but was still flooded with calls from angry viewers about the half-time entertainment, produced by MTV. "

Angry about what? A bit of boobies? If that happened over here most people would be laughing and cheering, and scorning those wowsers who think people don't have naughty bits.

Comments

[tygermoonfoxx.livejournal.com]

It wasn't the fact that the anatomy was exposed; it was the manner in which it was done. The US has strict rules about what can and cannot be shown in certain time slots. Without a parental discretion advisory, the network is not allowed to show naughty bits at all and I seem to remember from my journalism days that naughty bits are strictly off limits during what they call prime time --- the hours when families are most likely to be watching. Since that would have aired as early as 5 PM on our west coast, chances are there were a lot of young children watching (Super Bowl is largely a family event here).

Then there's also the manner in which it was done. The lyrics were themselves highly sexually charged and explicit. You could also tell from the look on Janet Jackson's face that the move had NOT been pre-rehearsed or approved by her. So, instead of an exposure of naughty bits America ends up watching one celebrity sexually assaulting another in public.

So, no it's not the boob exposure that has people riled. It's the fact that it happened without warning (if it was planned) and/or the fact that one of the people involved may have been an unwilling participant.

Re:

[hopeforyou.livejournal.com]

Could you enlighten me on one bit? It's my understanding that it is okay to show a breast that has been pixellated (digital blocking) or has a pasty on it during primte time hours -- but not a totally bare breast with nipple exposed?

I find it bizarre at times that...well, young children aren't supposed to see a naked woman's breast when odds are that, well, they were sucking their own mum's teat only a year or two ago; grabbing for them and staring at them all the time.

I also find it odd that there is...fuss over the female nipple when there is no such fuss over the male nipple. That the female nipple alone has become so sexually charged, when it's the source of mother's milk and only a man's nipple can be thought of solely as a potential erogenous zone (and believe me, I've met men whose nipples are very sensitive to stimulation). Amazing what a mound of body fat and tissue beneath a nipple can do...that's all that's required to be controversial in some circles...

Re:

[tygermoonfoxx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, as bizarre as it sounds, that's pretty much the case. I'm not a nudity prude myself (far from it) but I can understand; we're going to be foster parents and I can see how this could have led to some real problems. Parents try hard to supervise what their kids will see ---or at least we do, and that's the crux of the matter --- and no one had any indication that there'd be nudity or simulated violence (both of which have to be marked with our decency rating system....they even do it for National Geographic things). I guess that's my beef with it; if we'd had chidren in our home who had already been traumatized, since I had no expectation of seeing such at the Super Bowl, I'd have had no way to bar them from seeing the material or getting them to leave the room.