![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jlh*headdesk*
Okay, for the benefit of the non-Americans on my flist, I'm going to say this one last time, here, unlocked and uncut:
During the entire f_s flap, one thing that people complained about was expecting us, the writers, to act in loco parentis for all these kids surfing around. This was an absolutely valid argument, and in fact, if you look to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivy_blossom's post about the matter, she had done everything one can do to keep someone from stumbing upon her work, including registering her sites with the ICRA so they will be blocked by appropriate software. Doing this gives parents the tools to make their own decisions about what their children see.
Now. Currently, on American broadcast television (that is, not cable, so Friends, the OC, Smallville, but not Sex and the City) there is no nudity. It is part of a community decency standard enforced by the FCC--that is, it is a matter of law. It is why the networks have a department called Standards & Practices. There is some nudity in particular shows that air after 10pm (such as NYPD Blue) but those shows typically have a quick warning notice for each airing.
Now, if I were in another country, then of course the community standard would be different and no one would care about the breast because they would see them all the time. You can argue with whether Americans are horrible prudes, and that there should be plenty of nudity on American television. But the actual point is, this is the current standard. With this, responsible parents--the kind that we were calling for during the f_s matter--decide what they feel comfortable letting their children watch. Note that nothing here would prepare a parent for seeing a naked breast in a sport event at 8PM. THAT is the point. It is the unpleasant surprise--not the breast per se--that is at issue.
Snark away, but know that your snark is completely irrelevant.
Okay, for the benefit of the non-Americans on my flist, I'm going to say this one last time, here, unlocked and uncut:
During the entire f_s flap, one thing that people complained about was expecting us, the writers, to act in loco parentis for all these kids surfing around. This was an absolutely valid argument, and in fact, if you look to
ivy_blossom's post about the matter, she had done everything one can do to keep someone from stumbing upon her work, including registering her sites with the ICRA so they will be blocked by appropriate software. Doing this gives parents the tools to make their own decisions about what their children see.Now. Currently, on American broadcast television (that is, not cable, so Friends, the OC, Smallville, but not Sex and the City) there is no nudity. It is part of a community decency standard enforced by the FCC--that is, it is a matter of law. It is why the networks have a department called Standards & Practices. There is some nudity in particular shows that air after 10pm (such as NYPD Blue) but those shows typically have a quick warning notice for each airing.
Now, if I were in another country, then of course the community standard would be different and no one would care about the breast because they would see them all the time. You can argue with whether Americans are horrible prudes, and that there should be plenty of nudity on American television. But the actual point is, this is the current standard. With this, responsible parents--the kind that we were calling for during the f_s matter--decide what they feel comfortable letting their children watch. Note that nothing here would prepare a parent for seeing a naked breast in a sport event at 8PM. THAT is the point. It is the unpleasant surprise--not the breast per se--that is at issue.
Snark away, but know that your snark is completely irrelevant.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 11:31 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:42 pm (UTC)But did you ultimately win?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 11:33 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 01:19 pm (UTC)The piercing, also, was a reason I thought it wasn't intentional. I very much doubt that Janet wanted the world to know about her piercing. She's not Pink, after all.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 11:39 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 11:57 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:07 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:32 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 04:06 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 04:21 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:39 pm (UTC)If you are breast feeding, that's okay, I think a lot of people will agree with that, mostly because the breast is desexualized. (Also, it becomes a rights issue--must I remain housebound while I am breastfeeding my child?)
If you have a 35 year old man sucking on your breast, well, that's an entirely different story, and the law says, get a room.
And I think we can all agree that the Halftime show was done in a sexual context.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 04:04 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 05:59 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 06:02 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 01:34 am (UTC)I'm totally with you; breastfeeding in public is about as sexual as somebody eating a hamburger. But I sense another problem here. Somebody at CBS has probably seen rehearsals for the show, while setting up cameras and stuff, so the sexual content was most likely NOT unknown before broadcasting, however live the show. This entire b00b debate somehow seems to obscure the fact that CBS won't broadcast anti-shrub commercials.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 04:16 am (UTC)In the current statements, it very much appears that this particular move was not done in rehearsals. The general content of the show (as Nancy and I discussed above) wasn't particularly family friendly, but I think that was the devil's bargain CBS made with MTV in order to retain young viewers. But in doing so, they have got themselves in hot water with the NFL, who didn't see a lot of the rehearsals and has announced that they don't want MTV to do another halftime show.
So you see, it is actually internally consistent. I'm pretty annoyed that they wouldn't show the anti-Bush ad, but I am very unsurprised.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 05:24 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:41 pm (UTC)Figures.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 04:02 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 05:22 pm (UTC):P
Yuk, yuk, yuk.
....unless you're breast feeding of course.
wacka wacka wacka
Can you tell I'm having a week today?
Must start packing soon.
Oh, and from the news, it looks like it's snowing in Nevada. wheeee!
Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 03:58 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 04:12 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 09:42 pm (UTC)If you look at this picture, you can actually see that the black leather bit, at least, is indeed detachable. Note the gap in the costume almost exactly at the middle of the bottom.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 06:52 am (UTC)*This* was a sexualized context. I didn't actually see the halftime show and didn't know about other performers' songs about pimping, or their crotch-grabbing, and in that context, any sensible parent shouldve called for an extended ice cream break through the start of the 2nd half, but independent of that, I don't want my son to see anything that sexualized, period. He doesn't watch mtv, and while he's heard older stuff from Brittany and a range of things from christina and madonna, etc., and it's not because of the breasts, but because the context of the content presents an image of women that it, on first glance, and second, and third, sexist and negative. While I understand that the women in question claim it's empowering or they're reclaiming their sexuality, etc., kids don't have the base context in which to reasonably place those claims, so they see it as what it is.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 12:08 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:29 pm (UTC)And, after a brief intervention from a streaker, the enthralled crowd were then treated to a free-scoring fourth quarter, which made the NFL finale the fifth highest-scoring in history.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 01:12 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 01:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 01:53 pm (UTC)I know having my kid see a breast wouldn't really faze me too much on anything- but had it been something else somewhat taboo- *is trying to think of an example. Can't think of one, but I get where you're coming from*- yeah, it's kind of startling, and I can see why it shocked people. *nods*
~Jess
Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-03 05:10 pm (UTC)And that's really all I have to say about that. :D (At least, it is at 1am).
no subject
Date: 2004-02-04 10:27 am (UTC)British American".
*cannot figure out why he's getting so riled up about bosoms anyway*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 01:09 pm (UTC)Anyway, in any critique of America you don't count as much, you Yank you. *muah*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 01:13 am (UTC)Anyway, in any critique of America you don't count as much, you Yank you. *muah*
Hey, self-criticisms, man. I really have been in China too long. :D
no subject
Date: 2004-02-04 11:58 am (UTC)The point, for me at least, is why can't they direct their ire at a more worthwhile cause? And yes, perhaps it's excusable because we as a country are trained to be prudes from birth... which is just plain pathetic. Plainly put, the sight of a boob should not be that offensive. It's only offensive because people let it be.
Rae
Re:
Date: 2004-02-04 01:16 pm (UTC)Sexuality, on the other hand, is highly contested in American culture. There is absolutely no consensus about when it is appropriate, or how much, or in what context. Note that some of the problem Heidi has with the naked boob is not that she was naked, but that there was a man ripping her clothes off. Look at the hot political topics--gay rights, abortion--it's all about sexual freedom for people other than straight men. So the bar is set very very conservative by commercial networks and the FCC in order to avoid offending anyone. It isn't even the average--it's the far conservative.
And therefore, countries with more homogenous cultures, like most European countries, can be a bit more adventurous about the sex in the culture because of this. Here, unfortunately, it's still pretty adolescent. I hate it, but there it is.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-04 03:03 pm (UTC)You can't say, "American's shouldn't be prude anyway, so breaking the law is okay," because that's not true. The law is the law, and whether you like it nor not is unimportant. In theory, the government tries to make laws based on what they percieve as the moral values of the American culture. Those principles of morality vary from person to person, so naturally you can't always have your way. The truth is that no matter whether you agree with the values represented in the law, you have to obey it, or else you are punished.
The laws are there to maintain order and set social boundaries. When that order is broken and those boundaries are crossed, people get really nervous, even if the law is stupid. As you said, it is not important whether Americans are all prudes who just can't deal with a bit of nudity, because that is not the reason that most people are upset. They are upset because it was an unanticipated violation of the law that was forced upon its them.
Ooh, man, that was long. Sorry for taking up so much space. :(