« The New Collection | Main | 4-Day Disconnect »
February 3, 2004
The Breast
Update: February 5
Reuters is reporting that Janet Jackson's invitation to appear and introduce a tribute to Luther Vandross at Sunday's Grammy Awards has been retracted. Justin Timberlake remains on the 'entertainment' roster -- he is a Grammy nominee.
Granted, Jackson admitted that it was her idea and also stated that it wasn't 'intended to end the way it did.' (I suppose giving the benefit of the doubt to her statement is out of the question.) To make things even more ludicrous yet amusing, the BBC included this column: US Apoplexy Over Jackson Flash -- I can only imagine the LA-based journalist ringing up Robert Thompson, director of the Centre for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. 'Hello?' ... 'uh, yes, um, I'm a correspondent for the BBC phoning to inquire about the daft display of cerebral hemorrhages your countrymen are currently spouting. Care to comment on that?" Mr. Thompson's response wasn't what I expected, but it's accurate:
arguably the most obsessed about sex of anybody else in the entire planet and at the
same time the most uptight about it."
It may have been Jackson's idea in the first place, but it's not like she ripped open the top herself. Bad idea or not, she wasn't alone in its execution.
-----------------------
America Sees a Breast for the First Time
Never before has one breast affected so many people at one time. I am amazed. I am stunned. I am wondering if there isn't anything better to do these days.
The breast from Super Bowl Sunday made the evening news last night. There it was, protruding like a broken bone amid reports about the economy, Iraq and the stock market. Americans flooded the CBS television network and the FCC with phone calls about their outrage over the bared breast. Singlehandedly, (single-'breast'edly?) this runaway breast 'corrupted family values' and, after the network showed a tape of the Britney/Madonna kiss, went on to say that a line needed to be drawn with these "R-rated stunts." The message: a bared breast is not appropriate for family television viewing time.
I suppose America wasn't watching when Lil' Kim displayed her nipple-covered breast throughout the VMAs (1999 Video Music Awards/MTV.) Her breast didn't cause the furor that Sunday's breast did. At the time, the big news was that Diana Ross reached over and bounced Kim's breast. Though that particular breast incident happened on cable television, why is it all such a big deal? It's just a breast.
While everyone is busy carrying on about the breast, it makes you wonder if anyone other than the football players remember that a championship game was played. In a matter of seconds, the game went from the Super Bowl to the Breast Bowl. America, you've been boobled. Get over it.
Cindy
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dustingmybrain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/239
Comments
Uh, I beg your pardon. I was watching when lil Kim bared her nipple for all to see. I even had binoculars. And a 200x zoom. And a video capture unit in place.
Dont tell me I wasnt watching.
heh heh heh....
Brain matter deposited by: mr helpful on February 3, 2004 11:14 AM
it wasn't so much The Breast that caught my attention but what was clamped on it, the alarming ressemblance between janet jackson and her brother michael, and the incredible amount of make-up that she was wearing.
oh, and also the way The Breast was pushed up by janet's bustier to unsuccessfully point at the stars. it looked horribly uncomfortable.
Brain matter deposited by: zed on February 3, 2004 12:48 PM
Greg, you KNOW you did not see her nipple as it was covered with a floral pastie.
Zoe, you mean to tell me you don't have one of those clamps on your breasts? Geez, I thought all us women folk clamped our nipples. ;-)
Brain matter deposited by: Cindy on February 3, 2004 1:46 PM
Sorry but with a typical outsiders view - what exactly is the problem? She didn't breast-feed on stage? Most of her clothes were on. She certainly was wearing more than the average beach-chick in summer. Given the poor quality of the talent and the music how many people would have really noticed? Besides it was covered up with some sort of doohickey (technical term) anyway. All the complainers out there: grow up and get real.
I am a parent and I would not be thrilled for my (young) kids to see that BUT I wouldn't let them watch MTV or this type of entertainment anyway (even if we had a TV). Football, yes (but real football please). Cr*p music, no.
Brain matter deposited by: Ozguru on February 3, 2004 2:59 PM
Oz -the big deal here is the exposed breast on television. The fact that the nipple was covered doesn't make a difference. I agree that you can see less at the beach, no matter where in the world you are - but this is all about television and what is deemed 'appropriate' by the FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) for its viewers.
Ultimately, this is not about the performers or the music or even the game. It's about the human body. My friend Marcus wrote me, "showing 'forbidden' parts of the human anatomy is some nasty deed, and may be deemed as shameful."
And isn't that the point - it's an outrage here because it is (to some people) the equivalent of something shameful.
Brain matter deposited by: Cindy on February 3, 2004 4:55 PM
I think the FCC and other "outraged" folks need to visit tribal parts of Africa where bare breasts are the norm for unmarried women. As a teenager I could have been forgiven for believing that womens nipples were black and star shaped - that was the only way "men's" magazines were allowed to show topless photographs. This was in South Africa in the 60's and 70's and fueled by Calvinist moral ideas - which broke down as soon as you drove out of the towns and passed rural African villages with all their young maidens displaying their assets!
We do get some funny ideas about our bodies don't we? A girl friend who went to a Convent school wasn't allowed to wear patent leather shoes by the Nuns. One really does wonder about a mind like that!
Brain matter deposited by: The Gray Monk on February 3, 2004 5:47 PM
GM: Your comment brings to mind the National Geographic covers featuring bare-breasted women in Africa. I guess no one here saw those, and I'm curious to know if NG received complaint letters about the bare breasts.
As for the convent school, I'm not surprised about the patent leather shoes. Most likely the shoes represented something too flashy for the penguins (heh, just something I called them when they taught me for 8 years.) ;-)
Brain matter deposited by: Cindy on February 3, 2004 6:00 PM
I believe the patent leather shoes shine and are somewhat reflective. Mental picture of the RSM checking the regimental state of the Scot's Guards required at this point .....
The point about what should be on TV is that maybe the line should have been drawn BEFORE the ENTIRE performance - rather than just over the relevant 5 seconds (see I am keeping abreast of the situation). Basically the performance (based on reviews) had little (if any) artistic merit or quality so why not complain that the whole thing could have been replaced by something more entertaining (like the lingerie-clad female football match)? [That was said very firmly tongue-in-cheek].
Seriously, if I got to the footy, I want to see the footy. Yeah I'll stand up for the national anthem at the start but I don't want mindless irrelevant entertainment in the middle. Best bet is to have kiddies games or something.
Brain matter deposited by: Ozguru on February 3, 2004 6:14 PM
My daughter was in the half-time show. The first phone call I got from her was asking me if I'd seen Janet's boob.
She's a high school senior with boobs of her own, of course... :0)
Brain matter deposited by: Kat on February 5, 2004 12:39 PM