AS THE fallout over Janet Jackson's breast-baring incident at this year's Super Bowl halftime show continues to pile on, one must ask what the big deal really is. After all, Jackson's mammary gland has not physically injured or destroyed anything. Yet, the one second during which her breast flashed through millions of television screens around the nation may be the cause of millions of dollars in court and legal fees, as well as changes in current entertainment plans for companies such as CBS and AOL. Perhaps the fault for all this upheaval is not in Janet Jackson's questionable stunt, but rather in the prudish perception by the American people. Considering other staples of American entertainment, such as violence and sexual innuendo, Americans must honestly rethink what they consider to be indecent and obscene, and perhaps change their laws accordingly.
The hoopla over Janet Jackson's breast should never have been allowed to take on the level it has, where, for instance, NBC edited out a scene from the hospital-drama "ER" that showed an elderly patient's breast due to fear that it would receive similar reprisals as CBS has. Breasts are a natural part of the human body. Half the population of this country has them, and most every United States citizen has probably at one point seen one or sucked on one during infancy.
The indignation concerning this incident comes as a result of breasts being organs which are considered to be objects of sexual desire. Then again, with the diverse nature of human sexuality, it is hard to come by a body part that cannot be viewed as intrinsically sexual at some point. Lips, for instance, can be construed as being sexual, as kissing is a sign of intimacy and is often used to initiate sexual contact. Yet, no one cries foul when a person's lips are displayed on television or even when lips are pursed in such a way that they would emulate a kiss.
The basis for the taboo on showing bare breasts comes as an unfounded yet deep-seated notion that breasts are indecent. Indecency is defined differently by each society, but concerning the amount of money to be lost by the parties involved in this particular instance, Americans must reevaluate their definition of indecency. In several European, Asian and Latin American countries, for example, nudity is not considered to be a big deal. Magazines, television shows and movies which all show nude men and women are commonplace, and these societies do not appear to be particularly corrupted as a result.
It is almost hypocritical for the American people to consider this one instance to be obscene enough to warrant lawsuits. American media, after all, is rife with questionable content. From MTV to shows such as "Cops,, violence and sexuality are pervasive on television, movies and magazines. Many music videos, or Britney Spears and Madonna's liplock last year, are more sexually charged than Janet Jackson's flash. However, while these episodes go unnoticed or uncontested by America's vigilante "morality police," the one second showing of a natural body part is cause for severe concern. Even during the Super Bowl, as one journalist reported, "[a father who was watching the game with] his 12-year-old son said the Jackson dance passed uncommented upon, but he was caught short when the boy asked, 'Dad, what's erectile dysfunction?'" ("The Jackson Stunt, What Now," CNN.com, Feb. 6).
Although one of the arguments supporting the amount of indignation and possible monetary losses it could bring to several parties revolves around the fact that this stunt occurred during what is supposed to be a "family event," one must still question why so much fuss is being made. A breast should not be any more a forbidden image for a child than an arm or a leg. There are several worse scenes on television every minute which expose young minds to sexually charged or violent imagery than that one second at the Super Bowl.
The problem does not lie in Janet Jackson but rather in the perception of morality in American society. American parents, legislators and entertainment companies should reevaluate what is truly indecent and should be regulated, and rewrite indecency laws accordingly. If a breast, which is a body part that almost every citizen has seen and many possess, is considered more obscene than a music video insinuating sexual acts, clearly more thought must be done on this topic.
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
