Media female mutilation

Media female mutilation

: Reporter Misty Harris of CanWest puts together a disturbing trend against the nipple.

First, of course, there was Janet Jackson’s armored apex.

Then, I as I recounted, Pam Anderson said producers were taping down her nipples on her show (the first bad use for gaffer’s tape).

Now, Harris reports, Desperate Housewives is digitally erasing the nipples of two of its stars (nippleless sex is apparently ok).

And Victoria’s Secret introduces a bra to tamp down those pesky, independently minded nipples.

Oh, come on. Women have nipples. God made nipples. God bless God. What’s wrong with nipples? Are we letting fear of prudes turn us into a nation of sniggling 12-year-olds?

I told Harris that I think this is a case for the National Organization for Women, who should take umbrage at the notion that nipples corrupt, that nipples are bad for us.

Free the Anderson Two! Free the nipples!

  • http://chicagozoner.blogspot.com Cal

    “So how was work today honey?”
    “Great! I had to smooth out Teri Hatcher’s nipples!”
    SMACK!!

  • http://h2otown.info Lisa Williams

    OK, this made me laugh really hard. Thanks!

  • Franky

    The wingnuts won’t be happy until table legs are covered just so their upstanding men won’t get aroused.
    Why is that these cultural conservatives (and this is bipartisan stupidity) are so disgusted by the human body?. Why do they feel so out of control of their sexuality and their desires that they fear even the sight of a nipple will drive them in to some animalistic frenzy of sex?
    Grown ups should just stop paying attention to them – let them ban the human body in Alabama and the rest of us can move on to more interesting subjects.

  • Dennis Barnhart

    Nipples…titalating blog fare..Mr.Edwards..if you could get a hand on this nipple situation..because my idea sucks.

  • http://itinerantlibrarian.blogspot.com Itinerant Librarian

    That is a good question: why do these conservatives fear something that God clearly created and meant to be admired? Maybe NOW needs to take this up, since it seems these cons are just trying to not only turn things back, but send them to a mythical non-sexual time. As if sex did not exist? How the heck do they think we got here? Anyhow, a fuzz over nipples? Please. What child is going to be hurt because he or she may or may not have seen a nipple for what, less than two second in Janet Jackson’s case? These people need to find their little island somewhere, make their little theocracy, go back to the Stone Age, and let the rest of us and the world move forward, and yes, that includes having a little fun now and then.

  • Mike

    Yes, I remember the good ole days when nipples were all over the television screen!! Remember those days Jeff, you know, before this trend against the nipple started? Remember when MaryAnn exposed hers on Gilligan’s Island and Marcia poked through her T-shirts on the Brady Bunch? Yeah, those were the days!

  • Kim

    We see more flesh on screen now than in earlier periods of TV. Corporate america has pushed the envelope and it has become mainstream. That is reality. I have to say I got a good laugh out of this blog. I also have to say that I don’t want my underage daughter (or even if I had a son) exposed to nudity (in any form) on TV. It has gotten out of hand. While I am an adult comfortable with her sexuality that does not mean that nudity should be so readily available on TV. It exists for those who want to view porn or R rated films and magazines. It should NOT be on TV.
    Some would even argue that nipples are not “nudity” per se but where does it end? Most have witnessed the ass shots on NYPD Blue and other shows. Why should this be considered normal for the kids to veiw in plainsight? I don’t condemn the human body, I would just rather not seen it shown on TV so explicitly and I can even do without the half-naked photo ads in the magazines for tennis shoes or what have you.

  • http://michaelzimmer.blogspot.com/ Michael Zimmer

    And Victoria’s Secret introduces a bra to tamp down those pesky, independently minded nipples.
    Perhaps some women don’t want their nipples visible to the public. That’s not being prudish, just one’s personal preference.

  • Barry

    Kim, I understand your point and I’m not going to argue with an opinion, but I don’t get offended by spotting a nipple (or other brief nudity) on TV, so why should my TV watching be limited because you do?
    Why is it so difficult to just change the channel?
    I was a teenager when NYPD Blue started “pushing the envelope” and my parents’ solution was simple: “You’re too young to watch this show.”
    Yeah, TV has gotten wilder in the past 20 years, but with V-Chip technology, it’s not impossible to keep kids from seeing unwanted programming.
    ‘The Shield’ is my favorite show and I don’t think I should be kept from watching it, or the show itself should be tamed because you don’t like it.

  • rick_d

    C’mon Jeff, don’t you recall how the republic was nearly brought down by the “jiggle shows” two decades ago, e.g., “Three’s Company” and “Charlie’s Angels”? Farah’s nipples adorned the bedroom walls of several million teenage boys, a lost generation.
    Whew, that was close! Eternal vigilance, and all that.

  • alcibiades

    Those kinds of bras at Victoria’s Secrets aren’t new Jeff. They’ve had them for years. The assumption being professional women don’t want their nipples showing in professional situations.
    Given the amount of harassment and such that can occur at work, some of it unconsciously driven, these bras are about the negation of titillation.

  • Angelos

    Kim, what are your kids doing up watching NYPD Blue? Because you have no control over them, you try try to deprive me of Dennis Franz’ ass… um wait, nevermind.
    Sex sells. Do you know why? Because we all want sex. All of us. I started noticing the naked ladies when I was 6, and found some Playboys. Good times. Playing doctor with the girl next door? Check. Enthusiastically discovering masturbation, and completely overdoing it? Check. Come ON! The repression is what drives you crazy in the end.
    Living in Greece, and traveling Europe in my teens, I saw a vast difference in attitudes and practices, and it gave me a much healthier outlook. Hey, there’s an ad for a bra. Where do bras go? Over the breasts. Odds are, you’ll see some (at least partial) breast action. And guess what? Nobody died! Imagine. Hey, there’s a newscast. Did you know the Carnival in Brazil started? Here’s some footage. Wow, there are a lot of topless chicks dancing around in funny costumes. Excellent… And I survived!
    Yes Mike, and Lucy couldn’t use the word “pregnant” on TV too. I guess that’s because sex is involved in the process, and good Americans don’t have the sex. The American Taliban would have us return to some Golden Age that never really existed. Please, spare us all.
    You’re absolutely right Franky and IL, the American Taliban would have us under their own version of the Sharia. You know, because when we see a woman’s ankle, or knee, or shoulder, we just have to rape her. We can’t help it really. Anyway, she’s asking for it.
    That is religion and censorship in a nutshell. “I am a moron, protect me from myself.”
    Here’s a hypocrisy test for you: when red-state blue-hairs start complaining about the sex, murder, duplicity, and whatever else in DAYTIME soaps, then come talk to me about propriety, and the faintest hint of a nipple behind a blouse, or ads for condoms, etc. Actually, never mind, I’ll still laugh in your face.
    And I’ll think of the lovely religious freaks who want the drug companies to NOT develop an anti-HPV vaccine. You know, because your daughter’s a slut and she DESERVES cancer, even though she is using a condom.
    And I’ll think of the 51000000 utter morons who voted to keep these people in power.
    But then, I’ll think of nipples, and I’ll calm down. Mmmm, nipples.

  • Angelos

    And yes Jeff, those bras are practical, not prudish.
    My fianceÈ has a need for nipple-dampening bras.
    Teaching 2nd graders, cold classrooms…
    A regular bra and a blouse just wouldn’t cut it. Or cover it.

  • Mike

    Barry,
    Not to chime in for Kim, but when Jeff writes about this stuff it generally concerns public TV that is available to anyone with a television. You know, the channels that are regulated by the Government. Currently, I am all for keeping the current standards on the public channels, but will fight tooth and nail to keep them out of anything I pay for.
    Essentially, your Shield is safe as long as this fight is focused to stop Congress from extending its regulatory arm.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    When it comes to their bodies, this country already IS a nation of sniggling 12 yr olds.
    The popularity of a show like Howard Stern’s
    is proof.
    Anyone living or whose simple spent a bit of time in a part of the world where nude is still the natural way to swim or sunbath, most likely finds all this stuff of little interest.
    In these places, whether 12,16 or 50 years old, one would probably not find it worthwhile to stroll to the window even were a parade of thousands of totally naked men or women to march by, ….. since it is an everyday view.
    Even 12 year olds in such places would find Howard Stern’s wet t-shirt on female guest antics etc. – a huge yawn.

  • http://afish.typepad.com AF

    Marylin Monroe used to put small marbles in her bra to be sure people saw her nipples. Or marbles.

  • Franky

    Kim,
    I understand your point but I think it’s incumbent on parents to stop their children watching tv. I think we got on to this argument that parents can’t control what their children watch, so let’s make sure that every hour and second of television, night or day, is safe for the youngest of children. I think that’s the wrong approach – the parents should supervise what is being watched.
    Everyone wins – adults can enjoy their programing and children will inevitably watch less television as their parents will switch off the tv when they are busy to monitor their children.

  • Kim

    Angelos-
    Your ranting to what I said are interesting. You have taken my opinion and turned me into some right wing soccer mom who fails to watch her own children. WOW!! I am a strong independant female trying to raise two daughters. I promote and uphold a woman’s right to choose, and I talk openly with them both about life, sex, men, jobs, and politics and the future.
    I let them watch almost NO TV, and talk to them about what is going on in this world on a daily basis.
    My point was……I agree that we are all sexual beings, there is no denying that. What we expose kids to younger and younger in MSM is over the line and I believe it has gone too far. Can you really say that there are not many more sexual inuendos in your average sitcom today? Or even Disney movies? Give me a break. I have a teenage daughter (18 and on her own) and another pre-teen. I have seen plenty of kiddie flicks and they get racier over time.
    Sex sells, I am all too aware of that but where is the line drawn? What about all those other parents out there whose kids watch TV nonstop and don’t have any parental rule? Same goes with the internet and movies? You cannot watch your kids all the time, but you can talk to them. Today’s society doesn’t have time to do that….that is a big problem.

  • Rachel Cohen

    Natural nipples wax and wane, so to speak. Plastic ones, like Pam’s, are always erect, even though there’s no actual feeling left in them. You could twist ‘em off and she’d never feel it. So gross. (I’m not advocating twisting women’s fake nipples as either a form of sex play or torture.)

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Thank you Jeff for bringing out attention to a major problem. We really need to make sure no one is airbrushing nipples … okay, couldn’t keep it up, laughing too hard.
    At the Assateague (yep, that’s right) National Wildlife Refuge, home of the Chincoteague wild ponies, VA, there is a nude beach. The town fathers regularly boat down to the area off the beach and stare at them nudists with binoculars to make sure they’re still offending all the ponies. And moralize about it in their meetings. What else do you suppose they can do for fun, free?

  • Rich Drees

    I was surprised when there was a nipple joke in MUPPET’S WIZARD OF OZ last week. Maybe it got because it was Gonzo’s nipples being referred to. It was a funny bit too…

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    Nudity itself is benign. Using nudity to titillate the masses is not.
    It’s tough to avoid titillating a nation of sniggling 12 yr olds.
    It’s one of those chicken and egg situations.

  • http://www.grafyte.com Brian Weaver

    Reminds me of the Monty Python rant about nipples on men!

  • http://corante.com/flackster Michael O’Connor Clarke

    Such prudery says much more about the minds of the censors than it does about the producers of shows such as Desperate Housewives.
    Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. Only those whose own personal morality rests on shaky, questionable foundations could possibly perceive “nipple show through” as offensive. Most well-balanced people probably wouldn’t even notice.
    Bonus links:
    http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/coveringupjustice.htm
    And, on a much more encouraging note, this:
    http://softer-ware.com/

  • jeremy in NYC

    It’s sweeps week at buzzmachine, isn’t it?

  • Angelos

    Kim, only the first sentence was really directed at you. The rest was general opining.
    You’re doing your job of parenting, and that’s commendable. But way too many don’t. People who don’t have time for their kids shouldn’t have them.
    I don’t want my artistic, musical, and media worlds censored because of them. I want to pick and choose for myself. If it’s crap, it’s crap. Not because of the f-word or some nudity. Because of my own standards. However they may differ from yours, Jeff’s, etc., I demand the right to make the choice for myself.
    Yes, I know that even at 8:00, sitcoms have a lot of innuendo. If it’s offensive, it’s because it’s always the same tired jokes they’ve been recycling for years. Some originality would be nice. The American version of “Coupling” stands out as a recent example. Inane doesn’t even begin to describe it. Sure enough, it died a quick death. THAT’S choice, and millions of people made it.
    Words won’t kill us, any more than actual nipples. We can’t censor the world.

  • rcjordan

    “a woman’s ‘sexuality disrupts everything that men try to accomplish.'”
    Well, I know I’m, ummm, *disrupted* a lot –but I try to make the best of it.

  • Brian H

    The decay of literacy continues, all due to Spellcheckers. “Sniggle” is indeed a word, but it means:
    “snig?gle
    v., -gled, -gling, -gles.
    v.intr.
    To fish for eels by thrusting a baited hook into their hiding places.
    v.tr.”
    I shouldn’t snigger, or snicker, but . . . .

  • Dennis Barnhart

    New show ideas based on old shows.
    Gilligans Nipple
    My Three Nipples
    Leave it to Nipples
    I Dream of Nipples
    Life With Nipples
    Little Rascal Nipples
    Howdy Dutie Nipples
    sorry!!

  • http://www.lexalexander.net Lex

    ‘Twas ever thus. A friend of mine entered the Miss Atlanta pageant in the early 1980s and reported to me that each contestant was issued two Band-Aids for purposes neither God nor Johnson & Johnson ever intended.

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    Women have body hair too, and no one wants to see that either.

  • Angelos

    Excellent commentary on the Family Movie Act, and how they don’t just want to block the boobies and the f-words, but anything that could be perceived as offensive, regardless of context. What are people afraid of?
    Link is maybe Not Safe For Work, as Nerve.com has adult-oriented content. Not porn, but grown-up.
    Read the “Hurricane” example, and think about that for a bit. Gee, why was this black guy so distrusting of cops? Gee, maybe IF YOU WATCHED THE MOVIE!!!!!
    I’d like to watch “Lethal Weapon” on a ClearPlay machine. What would that take, 15 minutes?
    Depressed cop. Cut-cut-cut-cut. Christmas dinner. Happy cop. Cue the dog.
    Hell, I could probably watch ALL 4 movies in 15 minutes.

  • http://www.theanchoressonline.com The Anchoress

    I don’t remember people making this much of a fuss over Jennifer Aniston’s near contant headlight-flashing for all those years on Friends! For a while I wondered if the girl was putting sharpies in her bar.

  • http://http://www.aol.com exhelodrvr

    The problem is that these shows are not limited to “prime time”; they are on TV virtually 24 hours a day via reruns. This falls into the same area as the magazines that are available in supermarkets. It is impossible to limit childrens’ access to them, or to TV shows that you disapprove of, unless you chain the kids to your arm.

  • http://wordvirus.blogspot.com Vincent

    Amen. I love nipples. More nipples for all.

  • http://submandave.blogspot.com submandave

    Itinerant Librarian: “[W]hy do these conservatives fear something that God clearly created and meant to be admired?”
    – Upon what basis do you assert God meant nipples to be admired? They clearly serve a utilitarian purpose and most certainly may be enjoyed by one other than their owner, but projecting your personal admiration of nipplage upon the Almighty is a bit presumptuous, isn’t it?
    Kim: “Some would even argue that nipples are not ‘nudity’ per se but where does it end?
    – I tend to agree with the concern, if not the degree. Perhaps it is a factor of my gender, but it bothers me much less to see Jennifer Aniston’s high-beams than, for example, if David Schwimmer were to come into the room with an obviously turgid member. (no pun intended with the verb)
    Angelos: “[T]he American Taliban would have us under their own version of the Sharia.
    – I’m not sure whom to name it after, but there must be a correlary of Goodwin’s Law that calls an argument closed once anyone evokes an equivalency with the Taliban. A little less foam at the corners of the mouth would impart much greater legitimacy to your point.
    As for me, while I’m always ready to stand up for nipples I’m even more pleased with those that stand up on their own.

  • http://4rwws.blogspot.com/ Tim

    I work all day without seeing a single (is that even possible?) nipple trying to do the Poke-Through on a blouse. Yet somehow on TV, it’s a regular Nipplenasium.
    Gee, I wonder if an environment where nipples are destined to Go Pokie is intentionally created on sets.
    I think the first acctress with taped nipples was that gal on Welcome Back Kotter, n’est-ce pas?

  • ndh

    To those that think it’s “unfair” that they should be deprived of their blessed nipplage just because a bunch of prudes get uptight about it:
    Tough titties. :-)
    You alone don’t comprise the marketplace. Advertisers want eyeballs, and they don’t care whether those eyeballs are attached to a fundamentalist Christian or porn star (or both)—assuming both might be interested in their product. So unless you personally start funding the production budgets for your favorite spankfest, you’ll have to excuse them if they tone it down a bit to appeal to a wider audience.
    Now having said that think that the FCC is too heavy-handed about this stuff. And really, they don’t need to be. The outrage over Janet Jackson’s breast (as the straw that broke the camel’s back, frankly—that whole halftime show was a sleazy piece of trash) was loud and clear. The FCC didn’t need to amplify it.

  • ndh

    Excellent commentary on the Family Movie Act, and how they don’t just want to block the boobies and the f-words, but anything that could be perceived as offensive, regardless of context. What are people afraid of?

    Excellent my ass.

    What concern is it of yours “what they are afraid of?” The Family Movie Act enables individuals to make a wider variety of choices about the content they watch. Before, they had a choice: watch a film in its entirety or don’t watch it at all. Now, they have a third option, without depriving a single person of their own choice. Since when do people actually object to people having more choice in this country? Would you have people tied to their chairs with their eyeballs propped open Clockwork Orange style?

    As for the indignation from artists, producers, directors: spare me. They don’t complain in the least when a movie is cleaned up for viewing on TV or airplanes.

  • anony-mouse

    That is a good question: why do these conservatives fear something that God clearly created and meant to be admired?
    Yet another reason to go to Sunday School, evidently. Try Genesis 3 — shame was learned at the same point the man and woman, in effect, told God to take a hike. Thus the goal of mankind ever since has been to unlearn shame, except that those awful, awful conservatives keep nagging yer conscience by bringing up the issue…

  • Clark

    Perhaps I missed some of the background to this story, but I wonder why so many of the commenters suggest that this nipple phobia reflects the concern of “red state” bumpkins or religious theocrats. I don’t see warrant for drawing that conclusion. For example, the story in the Canadian newspaper that Jeff links to reports that Victoria’s Secret stores, in providing the nipple hiding bra, are responding to the requests of their own customers, not outside critics.

  • Bob

    Or should that be “perky, independently minded nipples”?

  • Bostwich

    The joke is on anyone who takes all this seriously. Bozos.

  • Otis Wildflower

    I, for one, welcome our perky overlords!

  • rgb

    There’s a time and a place for erectile structures, and both kinds of us have them.
    When they’re up, they send a message.
    But if it is sent all the time, the message is meaningless.
    And it becomes boring … or even annoying.
    There’s a time and a place for everything, and flaunting turgid nipples needs to get a rest when it honestly has nothing to say.

  • Angelos

    As for the indignation from artists, producers, directors: spare me. They don’t complain in the least when a movie is cleaned up for viewing on TV or airplanes.
    Ah, but they get to do the work themselves. They shoot alternate dialogue, cut a couple seconds here and there of cleavage, and boom, PG. Many of them have said, fine, let ME do it. Pay me for my time, then you can program your player away. I think Steven Soderberg was one of the first to volunteer. He supports the copyright infringement suit, but has made it clear that he’s willing to work along the makers of these products.
    (As an aside, is there any movie funnier than the Breakfast Club on TV? “Damn you.” “No, damn YOU!” When the mouths are clearly saying something else. I’ve never even seen the movie theatrically, but if I stumble upon it with the clicker, I have to watch a few scenes.)
    Can you watch Hurricane without seeing the cops taunt him with violence, and nigger this and nigger that? No, you can’t. Can you watch Private Ryan without the opening scene? With half the gritty dialogue excised?
    Some guy in Utah gets to make those choices?
    It is my concern, when adults are afraid to watch a movie with strong content. I wonder how these people survive day to day life. And I worry about the laws they try to pass to encroach on me. They’ll argue that this is about more choice, but behind the scenes they really want less. And they want me to have less.
    If you’re watching a movie with the kids, get a family movie, not an R-rated movie with half the scenes bastardized or skipped entirely.
    If it’s a movie night for the parents, jesus, grow up! No, no, not the f-word! Aaaaaaah my ears!
    If these people visit the Uffizzi with their kids, do they not let the kids look at the Statue of David? How about Masaccio’s “Expulsion from Paradise” or Boticelli’s “Birth of Venus”? The ceiling at the Cistine? Nipples and dicks everywhere!
    Anony-mouse, shame is an invented concept (are kids born with it?), and the Bible is fiction. Get over it.
    Subman, read this. The Taliban analogy is entriely accurate.
    Evangelists, Dominionists, etc. They want to rule you like the extreme Muslims rule their people.
    “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy says. “As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”

  • Reese

    I was giving serious consideration to most of Angelos’ comments until he called me an “utter moron” and aligned me with “religous freaks.” I didn’t vote for the current administration on the basis that one of its members wanted to drape a statue.
    Also, for now (until we find a more appropriate name) we should call the invocation of Taliban comparisons “SubmanDave’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law.” I will toute-suite try to find if anyone else has previously proposed this corollary (but I won’t try very hard).

  • ndh

    He supports the copyright infringement suit, but has made it clear that he’s willing to work along the makers of these products.

    Good for him. Because he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the case anyway. Eventually the technology will be copyright legal: for example, some will actually leave the original DVD untouched but will allow people to download “cut sheets” if you will to automatically skip around as desired.

    (As an aside, is there any movie funnier than the Breakfast Club on TV? “Damn you.” “No, damn YOU!” When the mouths are clearly saying something else. I’ve never even seen the movie theatrically, but if I stumble upon it with the clicker, I have to watch a few scenes.)

    Yes indeed, I think that kind of thing is funny. Though while we’re on an aside, I think that movie was pretty fun, you should watch all of it. Uncensored of course.

    Can you watch Hurricane without seeing the cops taunt him with violence, and nigger this and nigger that? No, you can’t.

    Why not? Sure, it’s a different movie, but why can’t I? Because of a loss of artistic quality? Well, sure, there is that, but why shouldn’t I be able to choose to do that?

    Can you watch Private Ryan without the opening scene? With half the gritty dialogue excised?

    If I want to, sure. I for one wouldn’t want to, but that’s not the point. You and I don’t get to decide for someone else.

    Some guy in Utah gets to make those choices?

    Don’t be silly. No guy in Utah is forcing his choices on anyone. If a consumer wants to watch an uncut version of a movie, nothing is stopping them. But if a consumer wants to entrust the editing to some dude in Utah, more power to him. If they don’t like the choices he makes, maybe there’s a guy in Indiana who makes better choices. Or maybe they both suck and they decide to fend for themselves again. SO WHAT?

    It is my concern, when adults are afraid to watch a movie with strong content. I wonder how these people survive day to day life.

    Maybe you should worry about your own life and mind your own business.

    And I worry about the laws they try to pass to encroach on me.

    And you have yet to establish that this law will do so. In fact, I argue that this law does just the OPPOSITE, because it will allow artists to worry less about what the Mormons think about this or that specific choice they make in a movie.

    They’ll argue that this is about more choice, but behind the scenes they really want less. And they want me to have less.

    You have zero evidence that this law does that.

    If you’re watching a movie with the kids, get a family movie, not an R-rated movie with half the scenes bastardized or skipped entirely.

    And you’re the one arguing that people are trying to take away your choices? That’s rich.

  • AST

    Come on. If nipples weren’t erotic they wouldn’t be covered. I don’t think it works well to have every male in sight getting aroused all the time, although some women seem to think differently.
    I think that we are drowning in sex. It has replaced love. Desperate Housewives is exhibit one. How about a program about the effects on the children of adulterers and divorcees? The problem with this libertinism is that it doesn’t depict this stuff realistically. The media seem to have decided that the way to make money is to treat us all like 13 year old boys.
    What’s wrong with modesty? I mean once you show all you have, what’s left to discover?

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Thank heavens we’re interested in really serious issues… 48 comments!
    Actually, I wish I could give you date and time, but there was an extensive report on porno outlets nationwide not more than 6 months ago showing that they were evenly distributed through red and blue states. Don’t recall but think it was a 60 minutes report.
    Well, for heaven’s sakes gents, who’s into whether nipples are ‘showers’ or ‘growers’, and is anyone confused about what we’re talking about there? funny enough Janet Jackson’s nipple was covered up, not exposed. So we’ll never know.

  • ndh

    Actually, no, it wasn’t covered up. It had a piece of jewelry on it that obscured a fraction of the aereola. But trust me, it was out there :)

  • Name Withheld

    I don’t have a problem with people using some program to cut away parts of movies they don’t like. People should be able to do whatever they want with movies they bought or rented. I do have a problem with people cutting away parts of movies and then selling them to others without the offending parts.
    But I should also be able to remove stuff I don’t want like cutting away commercials with my TiVo. And if I wanted to add hardcore scenes to Mary Poppins then I also should be allowed to do that too.

  • http://www.15grant.com/mrsizer/blog/ mrsizer

    There’s a subtext running through the comments that no one has made clear, although “rgb” comes close: Nipples, nudity, etc… have CONTEXT. A scene in which an ongoing dialog continues as one partner gets undressed and goes to the shower is just that: a scene. As a locker room scene, it’s realistic. However, “the media” uses sexual imagery out of context. Showing a bare ass, or nipples, just to encourage the titilation factor, i.e. prurient interest, is the problem. Showing a bare ass, per se, is not (usually).

  • Scott from Oregon

    My girlfriend has ALWAYS had the most outragious hint of nippledom showing through her shirts, sweaters, blouses, steel chest encasements….
    Glory be to me for getting to discover the true delights of the underworld…
    Brian H. These are NIPPLES we are talking about! And you’re concerned with the misappropriation of an adjective? My my my….

  • Sue

    To me this really illustrates the challenge of one the earlier threads–what happens when citizens practice journalism? Blogging creates the potential venue for great dialogues on relevant topics and the potential freedom to create a wealth of diverse opinions on issues that have no clearly right or wrong answers. Instead, the most active threads relate to topics like this one. The thing I find most amazing is that in countries where casual nudity is accepted–the issue isn’t a big deal. In Japan, frontal nudity in daytime soaps was acceptable back in the 70s and no one spends any time discussing it. From a personal speech and behavior perspective we are one of the most free societies in the world and yet we manage to get lost in issues like nudity censorship that more culturally structured societies don’t waste time legislating. It is an interesting contradiction.

  • Corky Boyd

    Anyone who read the first few years of Playboy Magazine will remember nippleless women. Also they lacked pubic hair in the days before waxing and shaving. Was all done with the airbrush. The mores and laws of the era required pasties for strippers in many locales. Hence Hefner’s ladies were bereft of nipples.
    I’ll never forget the the first issues with Playmates with nipples. Talk of the town!

  • rosignol

    Blogging creates the potential venue for great dialogues on relevant topics and the potential freedom to create a wealth of diverse opinions on issues that have no clearly right or wrong answers. Instead, the most active threads relate to topics like this one.
    If humans weren’t predisposed to be interested in sex, there would be a lot fewer of us around.
    Why is this a surprise to anyone?

  • Dave F

    I don’trget the need for the actual elimination of a covered pair of nipples. It is a common sight in the street and offices, never mind the suburbs. Men usually have a certain prominence in the jeans, so are they to be emasculated on TV? In any case, boobs are apparently also considered sexy, so perhaps they can render Teri Hatcher flatchested just to make sure.
    It’s all hypocrisy and moral panic. America seems to be returning to the prim safety of the 1950s as fast as possible.
    For God’s sake, most of us were sucking on nipples from our earliest years. I can assure the terrified that their underage kids have absolutely no concern about seeing the evidence of their original source of sustenance.
    Get a life, Mother Grundies.

  • HA

    Jeff,
    Free the Anderson Two! Free the nipples!
    As long as we’re liberating body parts, what about the humble and long-oppressed P-ENIS? After all, in spite of anti-nipple crusade, nipples are perking and cleavage is jiggling just about everyhere I look – and oh boy do I look! On TV, on the street, in parks, at restaurants when some supple young waitress bends over to take my order.
    But what about P-ENIS? They’re nowhere to be seen. Do you see them on TV? Nope. Do you see them on the street? Nope. Do you see them in parks? Nope. Do waiters flop them out when taking your order? Thankfully, nope. In fact, on college campuses they are being arrested and imprisoned while VAGINAS go free!
    http://nationalreview.com/comment/sommers200505020808.asp
    http://www.rwucr.com/testaclese/
    How did America become so anti-P-ENIS? How is the P-ENIS any different than the nipple? Sometimes they’re up (science has proven a high correlation in the presence of nipple), sometimes they’re down(science has proven a high correlation with the absence of nipple). Sometimes they produce bodily fluids(science has proven a low correlation in the presence of nipple, and a high correlation in the presence of vagina). Just like nipples, they almost have minds of their own!
    So, Jeff, I hope you can spare some righteous indignation for the long-suffering P-ENIS! You can start by allowing the word P-ENIS to be posted on your blog without a dash in it to get past your filter! After all, I can write VAGINA without a dash. I can write NIPPLE without a dash. I can even write TESTACLE without a dash. But P-ENIS? Not a chance.
    FREE THE P-ENIS!
    FREE TESTACLESE!

  • HA

    Sue,
    The thing I find most amazing is that in countries where casual nudity is accepted–the issue isn’t a big deal.
    I agree. I encourage you and ALL women to engage in casual nudity every chance you get. One question though. While you are casually nude, would it be OK for a stranger like me to look at you and enjoy your nudity? Or would I have to feign disinterest?

  • HA

    Jeff,
    One serious point. A number of people have commented on the supposed hypocrisy of right-wingers who want to censor nudity and sexuality on television. I don’t think hypocrisy has anything to do with it.
    The fact is that children form their conceptions of a healthy and desirable sexual relationship from examples and role models they observe while growing up. I hope you will agree that Desperate Housewives does not provide such an example.
    As a straight, healthy, red-blooded male. I love to see (and fondle!) nipple any chance I get. But as a husband and father, I understand that exposure to unhealthy examples of sexuality can have a harmful impact on my childrens’ sexual development. Consequently, I want to limit their exposure to positive examples when I feel that their maturity level is appropriate. The hyper-sexualization of television and popular culture makes that extremely difficult.
    There is not necessarily any prudishness or hypocrisy in any of this. Just good parenting. For example, I would like to be able to watch the Super Bowl with my children without being flashed by Janet Jackson. But after the kids are asleep and I’m in bed with my wife, errr, FREE the nipples AND the p-enis! It is perfectly normal to compartmentalize these parts of our lives. I have no problem with nudity and sexuality on television. I happen to enjoy it! I’d just like it limited to times when my children are normally asleep.
    That is why Desperate Housewives is so popular in the Red States where REAL men still roam the Earth, while the emasculated, childless, blue-state, metrosexuals are whining about hypocrisy.

  • lulu

    Can we at least arrive at a consensus that any hint of camel toe be digitally erased? I once saw a photo of Rosie O’s and … yikes. (A few week back I read how Tallulah Bankhead would perform on Broadway without undergarments. Apparently, there were quite a few complaints. The audience wasn’t too keen on having Tallulah’s meat curtain flashed at them. That too is God Given but we as a society feel a need to curtail some artistic freedoms.)
    Jeff, are you okay with middle schools and high schools requiring young women’s attire cover titallating body parts? Would you be upset if a school administrator sent your daughter home with a note requesting she start wearing a bra? How can a father tell his precious little one to put some clothes on while chortling at the perky breasts on the tube?
    I know you have covered this ground but why can’t a consumer purchase a “family-friendly” cable package or have the ability to create their own cable package? Why is the onus on the consumer to buy gadgets to restrict their child’s access to programs and advertisements with sexual content?

  • http://www.lp.org p-dawg

    Why aren’t male nipples censored? I mean, we can see those on TV all the time. Is it just because the breasts of women tend to be larger? Would it be acceptable to show a flat-chested woman’s chest? What if you couldn’t see the person’s face or the rest of their body and thus couldn’t tell if the figure was male or female? Would it be wrong then, no matter which? Would it only be wrong if the person was female? And the most important question of all: Why does anyone care? If you haven’t ever seen a nipple, you’re probably blind. Either that, or you don’t ever get undressed. What’s the big deal? Who cares if you see a nipple or *gasp* an entire breast? Don’t you have a chest? Haven’t you seen it before? Criminy.

  • http://elgintyrell.com/ Esbiem

    As we say at elgintyrell.com, what would “Friends” have been without Jennifer Anistonís supple breasts and perky nipples, just another sitcom.

  • http://hubris.typepad.com Hubris

    I, for one, tape down my cock every morning before work.

  • http://bearhunter.blogspot.com Kai Kaapro

    Poppycock. I have twice the nipple in two months than the previous three-
    I am rather tired of the shape. I am moving on to shoulders.

  • http://bigdirigible.rubberdinosaurs.com big dirigible

    As a technical and historical note, the first bona-fide case of gaffer tape abuse was a long time back. The ealiest victim I’ve heard of specifically was Carrie Fisher in the first Star Wars – at least, according to Ms Fisher’s testimony.

  • scaramonger

    If nipple removal surgery becomes the next female craze, I will blame you and your blog.

  • http://www.striderweb.com/ Strider

    “In Japan, frontal nudity in daytime soaps was acceptable back in the 70s and no one spends any time discussing it.”
    Bad example. Japan has one of the most screwed up concepts of women in the world. Beyond objectification. Brrr….
    The big issue is that people object to the hyper-sexualization of society. People are tired of having it showed in their face (ahem) every time they walk down the street or turn on the “boob tube”.
    There _are_ (rarely) breasts on network TV. Anybody remember the show “Chicago Hope”? It was a hospital show up against ER (I think they both premiered the same season). In one episode, a woman’s bare chest was shown, for several seconds (no quick flash here), but it was apparently considered “acceptable” because it was a completely non-sexual context. The story in question (from memory here…) revolved around a woman who underwent a radical masectomy, and was horrified that she would disfigured for life. They did reconstructive surgery on here and the (dare I say “very touching”) scene involved the post operative unveiling and the woman looking at her restored breasts for the first time. It was well done, and for the vast majority of Americans (those who saw it, anyway), acceptable TV.
    Call it “tyranny of the majority” if you like, but most people want a certain sense of decorum in public life, including prime-time network TV. It’s the same reason we have nude beaches, but don’t allow the same on Main St. If I want to see titties I’ll watch Cinemax; but I have no desire to see Marge Simpson take it off.
    Now if we could just pass some law limiting how many @#$%^ new cop shows can be on the air at one damned time….

    Note to “HA” — Comment censor let “testacle” through because it’s spelled “testicle”. Oh wait, it let the correctly spelled world through too. Not to mention “titties”. Nevermind.

  • Eileen

    “Call it “tyranny of the majority” if you like, but most people want a certain sense of decorum in public life, including prime-time network TV. It’s the same reason we have nude beaches, but don’t allow the same on Main St.” …and the same reason we have red light districts and porn mags which are shielded from little eyes in grocery stores.
    Strider, this is one of the most succinctly stated truisms regarding this topic I’ve ever seen in the comment section here. Bravo. Nail hit squarely on head. It is for this reason that most of us don’t have a problem with the FCC regulating content on public airwaves during prime time and don’t consider it to be even in the realm of a free speech issue. It is the same reason most of us are disgusted by a Jackson flash, a Paris lather and gratuitous f words designed to shock or annoy.
    I believe most Americans love to see sex when it is tastefully presented, and when they don’t have to freak out about what their kids are going to be exposed to by ambush. It’s the raunch and efforts to tittilate and shock which most of us find offensive. What a few call ‘prudish’ or ‘evangelically based reactions’ the rest of us just call good taste.
    It’s those with no boundaries and no taste who have the problem here.
    I had no difficulty writing to Carl’s Jr. regarding the unwanted crotch shots and soft porn they’re dishing up in prime time, while permanently refraining from buying the rest of the garbage they serve.
    I hope that all efforts to rein in the raunch will continue via the FCC as well as market responses. Call it ‘revenge of the tasteful majority’.

  • Monadire

    I will shout it from the mountain tops once again. All the fuss, legislation and laws against women’s breasts and/or nipples is unfair and undue burden against women, only goes further the propagate inequality against women and perpetuates women and their breasts/nipples as sex objects. Any and all legislation/laws that puts extra burden on women to cover/conceal any part of their bodies that is not also not applied to male bodies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can bring up your legal smack to say whatever to justify bare female breasts/nipples as illegal but that stuff is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Frankly all this stuff is un-American and shameful.
    If you feel your children should not see bare female breasts/nipples then they should not be seeing bare male breasts/nipples.
    Get out or the dark ages you effin’ barbarians.
    Laters-Monadire

  • Linda Edwards

    Carl Jr’s ad is hardly porn. That’s a ridiculous overstatement if I ever heard it.
    Tasteless, yes. Porn, no. Not even soft porn. It occurs to me that those folks who insist on calling it soft porn … have actually never seen soft porn.
    If we insist on eliminating everything on TV that is sexually explicit, in bad taste, or outright annoying (can we say, erectile dysfunction … oh my God, I’ve seen so many of those commercials I can spell “dysfunction” without batting an eyelash), we’ll have nothing left on TV but test screen patterns.
    Although frankly, that would be fine by me!

  • ndh

    perpetuates women and their breasts/nipples as sex objects.

    Well, yeah, but they are. That’s biology my friend.

  • http://submandave.blogspot.com submandave

    Angelos: “The Taliban analogy is entriely accurate.
    Except for that part about how the Taliban violently took control of Afghanistan and ruled with a religious iron fist, whereas any changes the “Dominionists” try to implement would have to be debated and passed by Congress, signed by the President and then withstand the sure-to-happen legal challenges in the justice system. What made the Taliban loathsome is not that they were bone-headed medieval-minded blood-thirsty self-righteous prigs, but rather that they had the ability and will to violently force that upon others.
    Now, if these Dominionists were to take over a town and begin killing gays and stoning adulterers and doing all that other icky Christian stuff you seem to hate so much, I’d agree with you. But I will never accept an equivalency between the Taliban and any group of Americans peacefully exercizing their First Ammendment rights of freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Dominionists have as much right to be public fools as Nazis, Klansmen and Anti-war protesters.
    And for future reference, if you want to effectively demonstrate some “right” group as being extreme or dangerous or nuts, it is more convincing to more people of all political persuasions to link to source material from that group or organization with relevent examples than an obviously opposed article (complete with an illustration of the Evil GWB taking the cross from Lady Liberty) in a “left” magazine. Let’s just say that for fair, balanced, quality political commentary I wouldn’t pick Rolling Stones magazine as my first choice.

  • Eileen

    Linda,
    Read my comment. I said soft porn, not porn.

  • Linda Edwards

    Eileen,
    Read my comment, I also said soft porn. There were no males in the commercial, no nudity, just a skimpy bathing suit that covered the necessary parts (thank God). As I said, tasteless, yes, SOFT porn, no.
    I suppose the Parent Television Council would also consider “Cool Hand Luke”, to be soft porn, where there was a similar scene. I think Paul Newman sure would be surprised to hear that!

  • Eileen

    Excuse me Linda? These were your words: “Carl Jr’s ad is hardly porn. That’s a ridiculous overstatement if I ever heard it.
    Tasteless, yes. Porn, no.”
    That’s a rediculous mischaracterization and overstatement of my statement if I ever heard it. Pour me a glass of your wine while you’re at it, eh?
    In my opinion the ad IS soft porn NOT porn. And I’m not required to adopt Linda’s definitions for either.
    I do agree the ad’s also tasteless.

  • Mike

    Any and all legislation/laws that puts extra burden on women to cover/conceal any part of their bodies that is not also not applied to male bodies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can bring up your legal smack to say whatever to justify bare female breasts/nipples as illegal but that stuff is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    That is the funniest thing I have read in a while on this site. What’s next, are you going to say that urinals are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they allow men to stand while urinating, but there is no such thing for women??
    Give me a break! Newsflash Monadire: Men and women are not created equal, there are vast differences!! One happens to be sexuality.

  • Name Withheld

    Strider, I remember the episode of Chicago Hope with the naked breast. I also remember that the producers/writers of ER had decided to show the breast of an 80 or so year old woman. But the ep was to air just after the Janet Jackson episode so they removed it.
    And as long as the FCC is ruling as it does now, where you might be able to say fuck if it’s Saving Private Ryan but not if it’s Bono and you won’t know before the word have been uttered, I’m guessing hell will freeze over before you see a naked breast on a hospital show again, even if there is a lot of reasons to show a naked breast in context on a hospital show.
    On the other hand I saw an ep of Grey’s Anatomy (I like hospital shows) where there was a dead man lying in the morgue with his chest cut open with an ‘Y’ incision. Rather graphic. I’m finding it rather weird that that’s ok but they would never had been able to show it if it had been a woman….

  • http://rd.thex.com/ the english guy

    Long live the nipple!

  • tonynoboloney

    Jeff,
    Ha ha ha, 80 posts! I can’t remember the last time this number posted comments here. Just goes to show ya, sex sells.
    By the way, I love nipples on women. A pox on Band-aids, and bras that try to cover them. TONY

  • Karen
  • Mark