Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Pick Two (aghrivaine) wrote,
Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Pick Two
aghrivaine

Indecency and Censorship

In continuing fallout from Janet Jackson's criminally bared breast at the Superbowl - ER censored last night's episode. There was a scene in which an 80 year old woman was being resuscitated. The image of her chest was blurred with an obvious and intrusive digital filter, like unto Richard Hatch's flabby ass on Survivor.

Now, I'm not a doctor, but I'm guessing that normally people, regardless of gender, are normally resuscitated with shock-paddles without a shirt on. Call me nutty, but I suspect that anyone would rather be alive than decently covered and dead. Further, I submit that a medical drama that regularly and tastefully addresses all sorts of emergency medical conditions should be trusted to portray such things in a non-prurient way.

Now, I speak as something of an expert in prurience. Namly, I'm a big fan of bare breasts. I love 'em. Yay boobies! However, I have zero interest in seeing the bare breasts of an 80 year old woman. I wouldn't pause it on TiVo. I wouldn't seek it out as stimulating. I'm quite positive that, had the digital filter not been used, I wouldnt' have even noticed that breast.

The message being sent by this flurry of censorship and outrage is that women's breasts are criminal and indecent.

I vigorously disagree. I think that women's breast are wholesome and wonderful. There absolutely should be a non-sexual context in which breasts are apparent in day-to-day life. Breasts give life. Breasts nourish and nurture. Beyond their appeal as a secondary sexual characteristic, breasts have a very utilitarian purpose. And beyond a certain age - breasts are just sort of there, neither to be extolled or avoided.

Why won't America grow up? Why must our attitude towards breasts (and human sexuality) be more like that of a fifteen year old boy, than an adult person? While it would perhaps be inappropriate to have graphic sexual content on prime-time broadcast TV, nothing of the sort has happened. And to raise a wholly separate point - why is graphic violence acceptable for all ages, while graphic sexuality is not?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; we've got it all backwards. We should have less fighting, and more fornicating! If you watch a graphically violent movie and get all charged up, you can't very well go home and get it out of your system without committing a felony, can you? But if you want a graphically sexual movie, you certainly can! And you ought to! People like sex, and it's a great thing for two people to do together, provided they are mutually consenting and cautious.

I'm distressed at this turn of events; for some reason women's bodies are considered indecent. I, personally, find them wholly decent. Ironically, the very people most outraged by Ms. Jackson's bared breast are the ones actually making them indecent. If they'd just deal with the whole thing with a laugh and a wink - her breast would be relegated to CBS' Bloops and Blunders, instead of contributing to the moral decline of our society.

So, in short: people are stupid, breasts are great, violence is bad but sex is good. I think my thesis here is the Anti-Zardoz.

And that can only be a good thing.
Zardoz. ::shudder::
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 10 comments