It’s all about expectations. If network TV were known for showing naked female breasts but not for showing cops shooting people, then my hippie parents would have had a justified complaint if they’d plunked me down to watch Naked Soccer and in the middle of the show they’d pantomimed a cop shooting a criminal.
Daniel
You answered the question just fine. However, people asked you a follow up question. However, while doing so, you revealed that you hold a certain P.O.V., whether you realize it or not, to wit:
:rolleyes: It’s the plain meaning of what you said, and the consequence of your answer.
I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am not answering here (for I think it is a much more difficult question) how we decide whose viewpoint gets reflected in what is and is not permissible to show on television. I am saying that we have decided that there will be no nudity or sexual acts past a certain fuzzy boundry on primetime television, in particular the Superbowl for this case. I think that parents should be entitled to rely on that in determining what their children may watch, and it is not up to Janet Jackson to decide to set her own standard for the community over the standard the community has already set.
I fully agree that if you do not want your kids to watch pornography, you do not order the Spice channel, make it generally available for family viewing, and then bitch and rant about the fact that your child saw a nipple. You exercise control and keep your child from watching it. However, in raising our children, we need to have certain standards in order to know what we can allow our kids to do. I can send my child to the grocery store without fear that he is going to see some couple copulating in the parking lot. It is a societal standard, and in this particular case, it has been codified. If you wish to copulate in the parking lot, it is not your right to say, “I don’t care what you think of your child seeing people have sex in public, get over it. Don’t send him to the grocery store if you don’t like it.”
Primetime television is supposed to be equivalent to the grocery store here. Ripping off someone’s breast cover (for lack of a better word, for I don’t know what in the hell she was wearing that included break-away breast covers) is not part of the expected viewing for that show. If you want to tell me before hand that it will happen, I can exercise discretion and not let my child watch it. But I can’t exercise that discretion if you force it on me by surprise.
SlyFrog, I have not been involved in this discussion so far, so I hope you’ll approach my question freshly. Having read this thread, I still don’t understand what the harm might be from the point of view of certain parents. Pretend I’m really stupid if it helps.
Assuming you are a parent who has decided that it would be harmful for your child to be exposed to images of a pair of unclothed mature human female breasts, including an unobstructed view of the nipples, what is the harm you seek to protect your child from?
I understand the point about letting a parent decide what is right for his or her own child, but that’s not an answer to this question.
:rolleyes: No, it’s not.
Take a minute. Breath. Good. Now, it is entirely possible that people are fitting to into a republicans believe “x” category. However, is it possible that you in fact believe “x”, and that no one is leaping to your defense because you have no support beyond a belief that you do not hold “x” opinion?
Stop being fucking condescending, you pompous ass. You have no idea what mental state I am in, and suggesting that I am hyperventilating is simply insulting.
I responded to your incorrect statement. Because you disagree with my response does not mean that I am frothing at the chair of my computer. I understand that once again, you may need to categorize me that way in order to better order your world, but I do not appreciate it.
You keep repeating that you answered this question, but I just don’t see that answer. That’s very possibly my own fault, but could you please answer it again.
I think I’ve already answered this, but at least you’re being reasonable. Once I get a chance (I’m in a hurry now), I’ll come back to it.
tomndebb gave a post reference previously. I still intend to respond to acsenray, but here’s a quick repeat of my post #40:
But it does matter why one viewpoint is respected and not another. The problem is the FU to the parents’ values, right? So to placate the (at most) one dozen parents (presumably, although some of them may not have been), we (through an agency that purports to represent us) have levied huge fines and demanded that networks ensure that nothing like this could ever possibly happen again. All for a half-second of broadcasting something you would could just as easily miss as see. Not only is it not the first time there has been nudity on network television, it isn’t even the first time for the NFL (an Oakland Raiders cheerleader popped out of her uniform during a honey-shot segue to a commercial break in 1971).
Right, and I would be much more concerned if my kid walked down to the grocery store and there was a shootout.
I don’t think that’s quite it. I think the problem is that they were not supposed to do X (nudity, which regardless of what most of the people here seem to think, is a big deal for our society). I don’t think in this case that it matters that it is a FU to the parents’ values, I think that is the reason it is prohibited. But what matters is that it is prohibited. That’s why they got the huge fines.
Basically, I think that if the FCC states that clown rape is okay for network television, and you don’t like clown rape, you should keep your kids from watching television (and are perfectly free to lobby to have clown rape prohibited on network television, but not claim to be violated because you let your kid watch TV and there happened to be clown rape). The issue here is that it is prohibited, and I think people have to have the ability to presume with certain things that if it says, “No X allowed,” there will be no X.
Now I think the reason “No nudity allowed,” exists in this case is because most Americans have the belief that there sexuality and the naked human form are special subjects, in some cases taboo or at least sensitive. That may be right or wrong, but if you disagree, the answer is not to start throwing metaphorical bombs at people you disagree with (e.g. flash a nip at half-time), but instead to lobby and press for change (petition the FCC, write your congressman, give public speeches about the topic, etc.).
And yet the FCC had very clear guidelines about prtraying violence. They were not eliminated through lobbying (as a general rule, the FCC is loath to say something is prohibited before it is aired), but by simply airing violent shows. There was public outcry, but no draconian crackdown. In the same way, the sexual content permitted during prime time has changed considerably.
The axe that I have to grind (no pun intended: see below.) in this has to do with a movie I saw just about one year ago. AMC was showing a slasher flick, whihc I was watching because I happened to remember seeing it in high school. A young woman was taking a shower. and stepped out only to be cut up, screaming, by the psychopath. AMC, in the interests of decency, burred out her breasts, no one’s children would be exposed to anything unhealthy while they were watching a young woman hacked into pieces.
Then perhaps American culture does not mind violence as much as it minds sex. You may think it is stupid, but it is what it is.
As for the FCC not cracking down, two wrongs don’t make a right. If they had very clear guidelines regarding the portrayal of violence, they should have enforced them. Who knows, perhaps today’s culture might have been changed somewhat if they had. I’m not sure we can ever be clear whether the television is reflecting the culture, or the culture is reflecting the television.
But that is not what it is. Janet Jackson produced no more than a dozen unique complaints, as has been posted above. I spoke to more than a dozen people who gave me unique responses to the effect that they couldn’t care less. The entire crackdown was based on a coordinated campaign by a tiny minority. They did not represent the majority, only themselves. If they did, they wouldn’t have used form letters and chain e-mails. They would have trusted that enough people would shocked without prodding them.
OTOH, there is no one (until now, anyway) I’ve met who isn’t creeped out by the AMC slasher story.
I think you are confusing the number of people who cared versus the number of people who wrote the FCC. I spoke to a lot of people who did not care. I also spoke to a lot of people who gave sighs and saw it as yet another messed up example of societal decay.
Do they really have shampoo commercials on regular TV with full nudity?
Sorry, I couldn’t get past that.
And you stop letting your emotions drive you to make inappropriate comments in this Forum. If you need to call people names, open a Pit thread.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Usurpation of a parent’s right seems to me to be a perfectly good answer to a different question. You can (and have) drawn the circuitous connection that undermining parental authority is a bad thing, but that did not answer the direct question regarding the harm a child would suffer from seeing a nipple (given that the question was stated in more general terms than whether there was harm in having a woman’s nipple displayed on broadcast television, which had only been used to set the stage for the discussion and was not intended to be the point of the discussion).
In later posts than the ones in which you began to get hostile, you did more directly answer that question, but you probably need to realize that you had not connected the dots until well into the thread. Your answering a different question than the one asked has led to a fair amount of confusion. based on your post #40, I do not want to see anyone claim that you have ignbored the direct question, but the earlier comments are a direct function of the fact that you were addressing the issue of parental authority in the specific case of the show while the direct question addressed the issue of exposed an exposed breast in and of itself, regardless of context.
I’ll just be done then. The moderation on this board has changed it from what it was when I originally signed up, and not for the better . The fact that you have no issue with people making insulting posts toward me, but have decided several times to call me out on false grounds (or making a relatively innocuous defense to condescension and patronization), including statements regarding my hostility for not answering a different question than was originally asked (as I pointed out, and you seemed to miss), is enough.