Nipples on TV

[djugurba]

On last night's ABC news w/ Peter Jennings, they did a story on the AIDS drugs that are causing some controversy in Africa. During the story, they showed some scenes in Africa, including a prolonged look at a bench full of women with children on their laps. One woman's breast was exposed, nipple and all, for all the world to see.

I'm wondering why there is no outcry today regarding this. If it is due to a National Geographic "natives in their natural habitat" theory, that's pretty pathetic. These are not tribespeople whose culture dictates a topless wardrobe. Seems a horrid statement about the way the US regards Africa that this is no big deal but Janet was. (I'd rather none of it be a big deal, btw)

[MTI]

I did not see the interview segment, but are you sure you want to use this as a cultural "gut check?" I'm reasonably certain that the woman and child in the news piece didn't rehearse the scene to gain international press attention while collecting a wheelbarrow full of money from MTV, CBS and the NFL.

Last night, the biggest shock was on "According to Jim" when Belushi pulls up the sweatshirt and pulls down the pants of his brother in law to reveal a holiday themed speedo (one of the perils of having HDTV) . . . then having the sister in law character say ". . . that reminds me, I have to pick up the holiday ham . . ."

[djugurba]

Originally Posted by MTI

I did not see the interview segment, but are you sure you want to use this as a cultural "gut check?" I'm reasonably certain that the woman and child in the news piece didn't rehearse the scene to gain international press attention while collecting a wheelbarrow full of money from MTV, CBS and the NFL.

right, but it didn't seem to me that the outcry was contextual. A nipple on prime time family TV = bad seems to be what the message was... so, is this non-egomaniac African woman's nipple somehow diminished because she's in the 3rd world?

[MTI]

The outcry on the Superbowl fiasco was completely contextual, failure to recognize that may be the problem.

I still don't see what makes a nipple exposure of any variety more objectionable than the outrageous violence shown on prime time TV every day. Just like every eruption of the anti-breastfeeding contingent after some woman gets chased out of a mall or bookstore due to 'indecent exposure', I'm left scratching my head about the whole thing.

[djugurba]

the context was a bare breast on early evening family hour TV.

People freaked out that it could be allowed to 'slip by' and now there is a delay on live Monday Night Football. The News piece was in an edited story segment, that could not have just 'slipped by'. Are we supposed to expect to see breasts on the news, but not during halftime? Why do they not show breast cancer sufferers exposing their breasts in US hospitals? plenty of stories there...

I don't care if there are breasts on TV; I thought the Janet thing was an enormous waste of time and energy... but, I'm wondering why this is different. And what sorts of unconscious attitudes define that difference.

what is this key contextual dichotomy by which a rich performer's breast is bad and a poor AIDS patient's breast is ripe for the lookin', when both appear at about 7pm on the same channel?

Fuddy Duddy's don't care when or how they show the breast just as long as no breast is shown. I recall some group having a fit about the TLC program that chronicled child delivery's like Webwench I'm left scratchin my head.

At least it's OK for people to kill each other on prime time TV, our children surely couldn't live without that.

[boneheaddoctor]

I think womens nipples are good things.....we need to see more of them....

[MTI]

Could it be because we live in a sexually repressed society, where anything sexual is deemed "bad" or "dirty" by a morally confused, dogma driven, fire & brimstone education? Nah.

Originally Posted by djugurba

what is this key contextual dichotomy by which a rich performer's breast is bad and a poor AIDS patient's breast is ripe for the lookin', when both appear at about 7pm on the same channel?

Serious answer? I would think it has to do with the perception that one benefits from showing her breast, while the other got no gain from it (and possibly even suffered more or was more humiliated by it). Showing your breasts for personal gain is probably closer to prostitution than many people are comfortable with. Showing and receiving no gain, or being punished for it, is just another version of a morality play.

[sfloriII]

I didn't see the news piece, but it seems pretty simple to me.

This is a news story and in that context it's okay. It likely wasn't about the nipple so much as the story about AIDS. I think it's safe to assume the story wasn't sexual in any manner, and if anyone got-off on it, they need to have their head examined!

[djugurba]

I think that would be a fair distinction, and perhaps something from which the FCC could proceed.... Promotion or prostitution bad, education or informational ok? Would a PSA about breast self-exams run during Springer be effective? yep... But, I think for so many people it was just the fact that it was a naked boob on network TV. The outrage! The indignation!

I remember the first Platex Cross-Your-Heart bra commercial that featured a live model. My mother was mortified, and called the station immediately, after shooing me away from the 'tube.

Now, my take on the news clip was perhaps a bit paranoid, but I got a bad vibe from the experience. It was as though it was ok for this candid shot to include this woman whose breast was inadvertantly exposed. As if she's less worthy of dilligence in preserving her modesty through the editing process. Conditioned by years of national geographic naked bushmen, it's become ok to perpetuate the 1/2 naked natives steriotype in reference even to city-dwelling single mothers afflicted with AIDS in africa. That woman, the horrors of whose plight I cannot fathom, was certainly deserving of the respect given to women anywhere else in the world. You can be sure that no white woman's breast would have been shown during a story profiling AIDS patients in Europe.

It takes active, considered measures to eliminate this sort of thing, and the news should at least make an effort.

?

I think there may be something to that, that we as a society view some people as less worthy of respect or even 'less human' than others. It explains why we get involved in places like Bosnia, but ignore massacres in places like Nigeria and Rwanda. It explains why National Geographic has been able to publish topless photos of nude 'native' women for decades without public outcry while television continued to show married couples going to bed separately in twin beds in their own homes. The farther away they are, the less like us culturally and in terms of appearance they are, the less we empathize with them.

Should the news make an effort to change how they act and react? Probably, but they have no financial incentive to do so, and certainky no moral incentive. The days of the crusading journalists are past, I think. On the other hand, the world's getting smaller all the time

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by djugurba

I think that would be a fair distinction, and perhaps something from which the FCC could proceed.... Promotion or prostitution bad, education or informational ok? Would a PSA about breast self-exams run during Springer be effective? yep... But, I think for so many people it was just the fact that it was a naked boob on network TV. The outrage! The indignation!

I remember the first Platex Cross-Your-Heart bra commercial that featured a live model. My mother was mortified, and called the station immediately, after shooing me away from the 'tube.

Now, my take on the news clip was perhaps a bit paranoid, but I got a bad vibe from the experience. It was as though it was ok for this candid shot to include this woman whose breast was inadvertantly exposed. As if she's less worthy of dilligence in preserving her modesty through the editing process. Conditioned by years of national geographic naked bushmen, it's become ok to perpetuate the 1/2 naked natives steriotype in reference even to city-dwelling single mothers afflicted with AIDS in africa. That woman, the horrors of whose plight I cannot fathom, was certainly deserving of the respect given to women anywhere else in the world. You can be sure that no white woman's breast would have been shown during a story profiling AIDS patients in Europe.

It takes active, considered measures to eliminate this sort of thing, and the news should at least make an effort.

?

I agree with you that it's a double-standard. It should be a non-issue altogether, but if it IS going to be an issue, then there should at least be consistency.

I hope that our society can eventually outgrow this ridiculous "fear" of nudity....Our society uses sex appeal to sell EVERYTHING, yet this same society lives in fear of seeing it on TV, or hearing about it on the radio??? It just makes no sense.

I wish we could adopt a more "European" attitude towards it, where it is just not a big deal. In much of Europe, Australia, etc., it is commonplace to see nudity on TV, in regular (non-porn) magazines, newspapers, billboards, on beaches, etc..... Kids there have not been "scarred or perverted" by it, and it has not been the "moral undoing" of society, as so many here seem to think of it.

Of course beatings, shootings, stabbings, rape, kidnapping, spousal abuse, child abuse, drug use, car crashes.....all of this is perfectly fine with the FCC and the general public. But heaven forbid we see a nipple!

It's completely absurd.

Mike

[sfloriII]

A little off topic, but I've noticed more than one show on HBO that airs all kinds of sexualy explicit stuff-- in the name of "news" or "biography". I think that's how they get away with it, though I believe cable TV can air anything short of penetration and get away with it. Technically.