Boobs!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. --Blanco Meow

What you seem to be saying is that TV stations shouldn't have the right to control their own content, or that they have the right but shouldn't exercise it. Isn't that the same thing as censorship, only in reverse?

But i do think that our absolute rejection and constant attempts to hide truths - such as sexuality - from our children simply isn't healthy.

I'm not in favor of completely shielding children from sexuality. I am in favor of TV and music NOT being the places children learn about sex though. Sex is an important, private, moral decision, and it has no place in the media when it comes to children. Especially considering the media's agenda; not morality, but to make money. A child should learn about sex from his/her parents, and possibly school, and likely friends who also learned from their parents. Not from dancing-girls baring their private parts during football games.

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.

This is a very weak argument, for one thing because you assume that drinking alcohol and such things are 100% likely to happen. Sex is a part of life, yes. People should be educated about sex, yes. Promiscuous sex, however, is NOT a given in life. Sex on TV is promiscuous amoral fantasy sex, 99% of the time. Janet Jackson ripping her clothes off is not teaching a healthy attitude towards sex. Controlled introduction to girls acting like whores on TV teaches what exactly to children? Nothing I'd want my child to learn, in any case.

Alcohol is not a given in life. I don't drink alcohol. Many people don't. I would argue that it is GOOD for people not to do it, and I would never teach my child to do it, just like my parents never taught me to do it. We don't need a world full of drunkards. If someone later in life decides to get drunk, that's their choice (albeit a bad one), and hopefully it's a choice they make knowing the consequences. If a teenager decides to get drunk as an act of rebellion, then that teenager is acting like a moron, and his or her parents should do a better job of keeping him or her under control.

"It's wrong but unavoidable, so let kids do it!" is just terrible. What other things that are wrong should kids be exposed to? Prostitution? Prostitution will likely NEVER go away; should kids be taught how to pick good whores? How about drugs? Some kids will do crack someday; should we accept crack as a given, let kids do crack in our houses, show crack on TV, educate kids about how to do crack the right way?

I don't believe that people are so weak-minded that if you say "Don't do X", they immediately will do X. Teenagers will do that kind of thing, sure, because teenagers are morons. We shouldn't cater to the inexperience and naiveté of teenagers; we should teach them values.

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? --Shadow Nexus

I think most people object on principle rather than because they think their brains will explode if they see a nipple. I mean what's next? If we allow girls to flash their breasts for a second, maybe we should allow it for a minute? Maybe full-frontal nudity? Maybe outright sex acts after our Sunday-morning cartoons? We're getting closer and closer to that point as time moves on, and if MTV and whatnot could get away with showing something liek that, they absolutely would. I don't think people can come much closer to being totally naked in their music videos these days. They just keep pushing the envelope further and further. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

And I agree that it seems to be very unlikely that it was an "error". It was likely staged, and what kind of message is that sending? There are probably very young impressionable kids out there who like and admire Janet Jackson (God only knows why), and if they see her waving her boobs around on TV and no one cares about it, what are they going to think? "Being a whore is great! It'll make me rich and popular!" Sure, a parent can say "Now honey, just because she's a whore doesn't mean you should be one", but why should a parent even be forced to teach that to a child? There's a time and place to learn everything, and the Superbowl halftime show is not the time to learn such things.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
I'm not in favor of completely shielding children from sexuality. I am in favor of TV and music NOT being the places children learn about sex though. Sex is an important, private, moral decision, and it has no place in the media when it comes to children. Especially considering the media's agenda; not morality, but to make money. A child should learn about sex from his/her parents, and possibly school, and likely friends who also learned from their parents. Not from dancing-girls baring their private parts during football games.

---

The problem is that parents don't do that and they wait till the schools teach it too them and leave it to them. By that time it is usually too late and the kids have been over exposed to sex in the media. If the parents took action earlier and taught their kids about anything then the problem with sex in the media wouldn't be as great because the younguns would have an informative background and understanding(at least some) of what they are doing and things like that.

A tit on TV wouldn't be that big of a deal then because the kids would already know about it. But low and behold the parents can't do a damn thing to teach their kids anything or even watch them. They just sit them in front of the TV and look at the TV rating instead of taking an interest in what their kids are doing and finding out if what they are watching is actually approcriate.

I say it is all the parents fault and they just want to be lazier so they at someone to do something so they don't have to.

This whole situation is being way over blown.

i never said anything about the media controlling or not controlling its own content - i was merely explaining that i used censorship to mean "the general control of content for public decency." i make no value judgment on a station's choice to show nudity or not; that's their own prerogative.

i also do not mean that our public media is in any way supposed to teach things like sexuality to kids. The media will do what it wants; it's the job of the parents to teach. My whole point was that this situation is a continually unhealthy cycle: people hide children from certain realities for fear that they'll abuse them; suddenly one of those realities pops up on television, trying to push the envelope, take on a more mature subject, or simply rile people up; and instead of taking it in stride people clamor for more and more restriction. All it does is create a greater and greater tension over the issue, becoming the very cathexis people are attempting to prevent.

Unne, to say that healthy introduction to something like alcohol or sex is the same as "teaching people to do it" is a misinterpretation of the argument. You act as if i'm proposing we should do things like get our kids drunk and tell them to enjoy themselves; or send them out to find prostitutes, which is absolutely not the case. To introduce something like alcohol (which is simply a similar example, not a mandate) in small amounts and show by example responsible drinking habits is absolutely the best thing you can do for a kid's future with alcohol. Everyone will experiment eventually, but it instills far more strongly the idea that alcohol is a pleasure to be enjoyed responsibly than any law. And to introduce the ideas of mature sexuality - not, in this case, by example, but my point stands - will fare far better than outright restriction.

My parents, for example, hardly ever let me have sweets or soft drinks growing up. At the time, i hated it, and took advantage of any chance for sugar i could get. But once i grew up a bit more, i quickly fell out of that, and it's because they taught me not to gorge. Rather than denying me entirely of such things, they only let me indulge in them sparingly, and solidified their status as indulgences. It's a similar case for any of these other topics, be it sexuality or alcohol or whatever you happen to be dealing with. Some form of controlled introduction to teach responsibility by example will always carry the most force.

You're making straw men out of my arguments; i said nothing about how we should just irresponsibly throw kids into the adult world. To me, this outright restriction is less responsible than the active presentation of responsibility through experience and example. It's easily the most powerful way for a child to learn.

i'm also not saying any parent has to force anything on their child - obviously, bringing up that child is a matter of the parents' own philosophy. i mean simply that, if i ever have kids, i would rather allow them small sips of whatever beer or wine i might happen to have every so often to reinforce that it's to be taken in small doses than anything else. And at the same time, i would rather introduce them to a responsible view and understanding of sex than a hard-coded restraint, because that teaches a true and mature responsibility rather than seeding more of that "forbidden fruit" mentality.

But it's also my opinion that if more people brought up their children this way, and more people learned a real-world responsibility over adult issues rather than a hard-coded and inhuman restriction, all of this media obsession would die out as well. Our entertainment is soaked in these issues because folks know we as a culture respond to that. We know our own odd obsession with these issues. If that obsession dies, there's nothing off of which to play anymore, and the media accomplishes nothing by focusing on sex and etc.

My ultimate point is that this constant restriction is more counterproductive than anything else. People need to learn that maturity starts in the home, and learn the most effective ways to teach that maturity. Harsh cultural lawmaking isn't it.

My whole point was that this situation is a continually unhealthy cycle: people hide children from certain realities for fear that they'll abuse them; suddenly one of those realities pops up on television, trying to push the envelope, take on a more mature subject, or simply rile people up; and instead of taking it in stride people clamor for more and more restriction. --Blanco Meow

Children should be allowed to be children. No one should be forced to learn the harsh realities of life just because TV decides to show it. There is a time and a place to learn everything, like I said. I'm all in favor of teaching kids responsibility and keeping them informed about sex. But when and where a child is ready to learn it should be up to the parent. When boobs are being shown during football games, that takes the choice away from the parent.

I'm not in favor of "hiding" information from people to keep them from doing something bad. I am in favor of teaching things at the appropriate time. Children aren't ready to understand things like sex until they grow up a bit. Before they're ready or even capable of understanding it, then yes, it should be hidden from them, to keep them from being confused or getting the wrong ideas.

Unne, to say that healthy introduction to something like alcohol or sex is the same as "teaching people to do it" is a misinterpretation of the argument. You act as if i'm proposing we should do things like get our kids drunk and tell them to enjoy themselves; or send them out to find prostitutes, which is absolutely not the case. To introduce something like alcohol (which is simply a similar example, not a mandate) in small amounts and show by example responsible drinking habits is absolutely the best thing you can do for a kid's future with alcohol.

The best thing is to teach kids not to touch alcohol period, and make sure they don't. There is no such thing as "healthy" introduction to something unhealthy. "Healthy introduction" may not be teaching people to do it per se, but it IS teaching them that it's acceptable to do it. I don't believe in accepting that a child is going to do something harmful and just letting it go on and trying to minimize the damage. That's bad parenting.

Everyone will experiment eventually, but it instills far more strongly the idea that alcohol is a pleasure to be enjoyed responsibly than any law.

I once again disagree with your premise that experimenting with alcohol is a certainty in life that should be accepted as a given. It isn't. Do you think that people are inherently depraved to the point where people can't learn right from wrong no matter what? It's a matter of saying "Don't drink alcohol; it's wrong", explain why it's wrong, and keep your kid from doing it, period, whether they understand the reasons at the time or not. There is no need to make sure that a kid drinks alcohol responsibly if you make sure your kid never drinks alcohol at all.

i'm also not saying any parent has to force anything on their child - obviously, bringing up that child is a matter of the parents' own philosophy.

I am saying that though. Parents should foce their kids to do the right thing, and at the same time teach them why; teach them the difference between right and wrong. That's the job of parents. It's less and less of a job as a child gets older and wiser and more able to make his or her own decisions, but still.

The "unhealthy cycle", to me, is shaving down your morals for the sake of convenience. "Kids will drink, so let's teach them to drink 'well'". "Kids will have sex, so let's make sure they do it 'safely'". That's a load of crap, in my opinion. There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to right and wrong. My parents never gave me compromise; if I did something wrong, they punished me and made sure I never did it again. They didn't try to make sure I did that wrong thing "healthily" next time in the future. I plan to do the same with my kids, if I have any.

To me, responsibility in these areas is all about preparation. i do agree that things like alcohol and sex aren't necessarily a given in anyone's life, but to look at the current cultural landscape and assume people can get by on a mere "don't do that" is foolish. Plenty of folks may work fine with general principle; many of my friends, for example, have no taste for these sorts of things. But to assume that, as a parent, is to take a serious risk. After all, many of these same friends only threw off their particular vices when some sort of bad (extremely bad, in some cases) personal experience hammered the truth of that vice home. Personal experience always speaks the loudest, and granting that carefully and watchfully in the home is the best possible place for it.

To me, it's better to prepare for a kid for such things in a controlled environment rather than simply decree law and hope for the best. No, i certainly wouldn't want my kids having promiscuous sex and getting drunk every weekend, but do i simply tell them so and hope it works out when they go off to college? No. That 'decreed' morality is the most distant brand thereof, and while for some, that's more than enough, education needs that extra level of personal experience to truly sit well. It's a far more stable moral education to present a respectable idea of what's out there, instilling respectable virtues in the process. People need to be prepared adequately for the world around them, because eventually they're going to live in it. And controlled introduction seems to me the most effective route.

And yes, there's a chance that my hypothetical kid could get to college and remember all my warnings, turning down this or that vice on general principle. But when i look at my own college campus and see folks getting drunk by the truckload on the weekends, at least a portion of whom will eventually come back with someone on their arm - either from the college or otherwise - for "a good time" back at the room, i can know for a fact that every kid is eventually getting some exposure to the more adult issues of the world. The question, then, is the choice he makes to either involve himself or stay out of it. And he may or may not partake, but he should at least be fully aware beforehand - because then it's something he'd be more likely to avoid.

It seems our debate has come to a diametric standstill of general principle, though. :)

To me, it's better to prepare for a kid for such things in a controlled environment rather than simply decree law and hope for the best. --Blanco Meow

I don't think that anything should be left to hope. I think that parents should instill in their children a sense of right and wrong. Children should respect their parents, recognize wisdom when they see it, and act according to what their brains tell them is right and avoid what their brains tell them is wrong. If they're taught that that's the way things work in the world, then they will do the right thing, or at least try to do the right thing. There is no "hope" involved. You speak as though it's impossible to teach a child right from wrong. Like we're all hopelessly stupid to the point that we will act randomly in any given circumstance, and that parents should realize and accept this as fact.

Plenty of folks may work fine with general principle; many of my friends, for example, have no taste for these sorts of things. But to assume that, as a parent, is to take a serious risk.

It is no risk at all if you raise a child to be a good person. You can't go around parenting on the assumption that your child is a hopelessly bad person. Your argument makes no sense at all to me because that seems to be your base premise, and I don't agree with it. You can't just accept that, or rather you can, but if you do, you're a terrible parent.

I can't find the quote or the url or anything, but someone really put it all quite nicely when they said something similar to how stupid it was that everyone gets all worked up over the showing of a single breast for ten seconds in the middle of over an hour of gratuitious (sp) violence.

EDIT: On a sidenote, can someone explain to me the harm of seeing a boob? I mean, women breastfeed in public on the odd occasion that they might need to do just that because they don't have a place to go straight away. I don't see the big deal about boobs. They're fascinating to me and a lot of guys because they have sexual appeal, but so do legs and a nice back, so what's the super harm?