|
|
|
|
- No, it wasn't the smashing of family values that caused all the ruckus. It was simply that a woman's breast upstaged, eclipsed and crapped on that male holy of holies, the Super Bowl.
- G e n d e r G a p p e r s T M
PEEK-A-BOOB
 Despite
the Super Bowl's many crass commercials, including the oft-repeated blather
on erectile dysfunction, there was only one incident that caused an uproar.
A woman's breast was exposed during the Super Bowl half time
show.
We've seen breasts revealed on TV before. Remember Dagmar? Lucy Lawless? Why did this one cause such a stir? Even the FCC's Powell was so overcome by the sight that he vowed to investigate, fearing the affect on children. Trust the religious rychus Republicans to bring children into it. Remember how they urged the media to print every purulent rumor they could resurrect about Clinton and then screamed bloody murder about the affect on the children? Of course the children of Virginia have no problem with a woman showing one uncovered breast. It's emblazoned on their state flag which was chosen by men. http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/images/va_fil.gif But even this is hardly unique. TV and movies are full of examples of women's frontal nudity. It's all over the tube all the time and kids are quite aware of those mounds on a woman's chest. Most of us took sustenance from these organs following our birth. Many children have observed a younger sibling suckling. Children, sadly, are carefully taught to consider that breasts should be objects of shame and vulgar comments. Overall, men seemed to be more the prudes and damningly verbal with their shock and awe over this incident. It's really difficult to understand why. They've happily supported a culture that demands that women appear at formal events with extreme décolletage. That's French for everything but the nipples showing, with just a prayer keeping the small remaining portions of both breasts from springing free from the flimsiest of fabric to swing freely in the air. Then there's men's nearly universal support of places like Hooters. To say nothing of the naked women lap dancers men love to accommodate in sin with. Many women complained about the sudden exposure of Janet's breast also, despite the fact that they happily wear the bodice-challenged haute couture costumes designed by men. Was there some self-revelation, gained from this snatch and exposure act, that explained their preference for the bodice-ripping trash found in romance novels? Certainly there is good reason to deplore the song in the act where Justin sings, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song." And there should have been some suspicion initially at Janet's unusually well concealed bodice prior to the snatch. But the fact is, their performance was just what our culture has demanded of men and women for eons. Those who think the kids don't already know it are kidding themselves. "It's a little secret, just
the Robinson's affair.
On a day revered for brawn, the softer side of life intruded with all the finesses of a tsunami. In addition, it was not complete breast-ial nudity. The nipple was completely covered by a silver sunburst nipple shield. There is some justification for those who were upset, not with the bare breast, but with the violence shown as a man tore a woman^'s bodice -- life aping fiction. The raw intent of a carefully covered up cultural preference is sometimes difficult to watch. Of course, blame the woman won the day as usual. The rip-or attended the Grammys and was rewarded; the rip-ee stayed home. Ripping off a woman's clothes is still OK. The true villain, sinner, evil doer is the breast, and as always, the woman it rode in on.
2004-007 Copyright 2004 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@sover.net. |
