Previous Entry Share Next Entry
hot butts and boobies
i'm ready for my close up mr demille
soopageek
Location: Effingham, Illinois

I got parked for the day at 1:30pm CST. Life is good.

My cat is in heat and driving me nuts. I call her "hot butt" when she's in heat, 'cos all she does is hunch around rubbing her bottom on everything. I've gotta put up with this for another 2-3 weeks. :(

Also, I did it again, where I made a comment in someone else's journal (delicarose)that is worthy of being posted in my own, so, read my thoughts on the whole

I don't have any issues with casual nudity, but I guess the reason some people got bent out of shape over the Janet Jackson ordeal is due to the confines of our current broadcasting laws concerning what is indecent and obscene. I'm not going to make this an ethical discussion, since I don't see that as the point. The point is, that whatever one's ethics are, one can make reasonably safe assumptions about what one is likely to view on American broadcast television. The Super Bowl is the single most watched broadcast annually in this country. It's easy to be cynical about the commercials, but the fact remains that a broad sprectrum of people are watching, and the very presence of such mainstream artists as Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson speaks volumes concerning this. We can split hairs over the difference between a scantily clad model in a beer commerical and an actual naked titty, but I would venture to say that not one single person watching the Super Bowl expected to see a naked breast any time during the proceedings. It's not so much that the nudity was unacceptable, but the time and the place was in the context of 60 years of television precedent.

The envelope of decency has constantly been pushed since television's inception, whether it be Mike and Carol Brady sharing a bed for the first time, Bill Mahr uttering the word "sucks" on SNL two decades ago, Roseanne Barr getting some hot girl-on-girl action from Morgan Fairchild, or Dennis Franz's ass. Typically, however, the occurence is television catching-up to changes in American mores. Broadcast television, even in this age of specialty/niche cable programming, gangster rap, and an exploding porn industry, is still the last bastion of the American collective psyche, good and bad. It is a glimpse into the prevailing socials norms of a given era ruled solely by the power of the advertising dollar.

All the brouhaha over the flesh on Sunday will be forgotten and everyone will tune-in to the Superbowl just like always next year; no corporate sponsors will be lost, no corporate entity's consumers miffed to the point of boycott.

Yet the envelope was pushed once again. I would venture to predict that we will have non-erotic, non-gratuitous nudity allowed within the next ten years by the FCC and deemed acceptable by advertising sponsors and probably the erotic, soft-core variety within the next twenty in late-night time slots on broadcast television.

Cinemax and Showtime will be fucking screwed then.

  • 1
I really don't see the big deal with this whole Janet Jackson thing. I've watched Discovery Health's plastic surgery shows and they show nudity, no bones about it. So does National Geographic. Just because certain people find that kind of nudity less desirable, does that make it more acceptable? I don't get it. Also, as Howard & Robin pointed out this morning, didn't the Superbowl run commercials blatantly advertising "male enhancement"? I find the implied visual of Mike Ditka (sp?) with a hard-on for 36 hours more offensive than JJ's boob. But, that's just me. And I didn't watch it (I did, however, download it), so what do I know.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account