The Great Nipple Hunt continues

The Great Nipple Hunt continues

: We’ve been dutifully reporting attacks of prudes on tipples and now here’s another case of national mammarophobia:

Teen actress Lindsay Lohan’s breasts have been digitally reduced for forthcoming Disney film Herbie: Fully Loaded, to avoid offending family audiences.

Test screenings for the new movie, the fourth sequel to the 1968 film The Love Bug about a Volkswagen Beetle car with a mind of its own, indicated that some parents felt Lohan’s character Maggie Peyton was too raunchy for a children’s film.

Disney technicians were forced to plough through numerous scenes – especially those showing the busty actress jumping up and down at a motor racing track, reducing her breasts by two cup sizes and raising revealing necklines on her T-shirts.

The director denies it.

The problem these days — when grown people make news hunting down nipples — is that you can’t tell the parody from the truth.

And then again, let’s not forget the surgical speculation.

All of which leads to just one conclusion: In America, breasts are news.

: SPEAKING OF WHICH….

  • GCW

    To be fair, this wouldn’t have come up if Ms. LL hadn’t had some plastic surgically implanted in her torso, right? It’s not like they’re asking natural women to bind their breasts. Plus, this is a kid’s movie.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    GCW’s got it right.
    I heard that she had an augmentation after principal shooting was done. The studio needed some re-shoots and Ms. Lohan was an er…BIGGER star, if you know what I mean.
    They just wanted her to match the earlier footage.

  • John Clements

    This is probably my first comment here though I frequently pass by to read your news and views on political and media matters. I may have been moved to post something very positive several months ago when you were one of the first to tell off Juan Cole for slandering Iraqi bloggers.
    I’m posting now because I disagree with you about the concern over gratuitous sexuality in children’s entertainment.
    “Tits ‘n’ ass” are used near universally in the media to get people’s attention and to sell things, to add “spice” to any presentation. THIS SUCKS!
    This tells young girls growing up that they are supposed to strut their stuff. Strutting your stuff is beautiful, natural and fun in the right context. But children are prevailed upon to strut stuff they don’t even have because they see it all around them.
    Now there are good and bad, appropriate and inappropriate ways of stopping the sexuality madness in media for children just as there are right and wrong ways of exposing breasts in media. I don’t pretend to know enough about the cases at issue to venture an opinion about them.
    But the overall tone of your comment does not seem to take into account the very real problem of the sexualizing of media produced for children.
    I live in the UK so we are exposed to different media than in the US, but let me tell you about Children’s BBC. There you have various programs hosted by two young people – usually one young woman and one young man – perhaps in their 20s or perhaps late teens. The man is dressed pretty normally in a shirt and trousers. The woman is nearly invariably dressed in something that emphasises her breasts. At various points during a show she will lean forward and a shot will linger over her that way (without closing up) – this does titilate the kids, of course.
    The content is nearly always music videos alternating with cartoons. The videos are not what in the profession would be called raunchy but they are sexier than little kids know anything about from anywhere else than the sexualizing media itself – stuff this sexy is not naturally part of their lives the way it is for teens. This programming goes on day in and day out throughout the year. For kids who watch hours and hours of TV this is a large proportion of what they watch. Ours don’t want to watch hours and hours fortunately, and I don’t stop them from watching this because it is so mainstream that they would feel deprived if they were denied it.
    But I would like the programmers to realize what they are doing and pull back on the sexualization of little kids’ lives.
    Maybe then fewer children would have gotten into Michael Jackson’s bed – whatever he did with them.

  • http://www.12sides.blogspot.com Horatio

    Since when were kids in danger of being “harmed” by breasts? They suck on those things, you know.

  • GCW

    My point is that the breast “obsession” didn’t start with “mammarophobia”–it started when Ms. Lohan put plastic under her skin and wore clothing to call attention to the twins.
    She went out of her way to make them bigger and more sexual–why is Jeff surprised when some people think she’s gone too far (at least for kids’ consumption)?

  • Mike

    Once again Jeff, this is much ado about nothing. I’m just shocked that there isn’t any Howard Stern reference in your post.
    And since when is gearing a film, in any way, towards children and family by removing anything one person may find to sexual censorship?? Disney is making this decision in the hopes of appealing to(or at least not turning off) more families in an attempt to make more money. How is that censorship or part of a great nipple hunt? Seems like good business to me. For christ’s sake, this is supposed to be a children’s movie.
    Have no fear Jeff, I’m sure Vivid Entertainment is still making spuerb use of women’s nipples and breasts! If need be, I can send you some of those movies from my own selections. But really, think about who and what you are condemning here, it’s a kid’s movie, this makes you look insane.

  • John Clements

    Since when were kids in danger of being “harmed” by breasts? They suck on those things, you know.
    This is facile and not thought through. Or else it’s just making a straw man with breasts! What is harmful is the sexualization of children’s entertainment. Breasts are breasts. Breasts viewed sexually can be entirely natural – but not when pumped into entertainment aimed at young children.
    You may disagree with this but I hope I have at least made it clear that breasts as what babies suck on are not what is being discussed.

  • http://chicagozoner.blogspot.com Cal

    Barbara Walters is offended by women breastfeeding on planes? Does she realize that parents do not decide when infants will be nursing? If I’m on a plane and an infant starts whaling, by all means, give it a booby.
    I’m offended by her mulitple plastic surgeries, cheesy personality and banal interviews.

  • S

    You know Jeff, there really *are* things more important than nipples. I know you keep saying that but you say it so often that it seems like nips are important to you. Look at something important to me. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002667.htm

  • Andy Freeman

    I thought that Jarvis just wanted MSM to be able to show boobs. Now we find that he’s also annoyed when they don’t.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    You may disagree with this but I hope I have at least made it clear that breasts as what babies suck on are not what is being discussed.
    Truer words have never been spoken. They are arguing apples with oranges, and most don’t get the difference.
    Those who don’t need to gather up the family and spend a week at a wholesome family nudist resort. Then their naturalist arguments would make sense, and how Hollywood uses breasts would no longer hold their interest, or be profitable for the moviemakers.

  • John Clements

    Yes, Lynn, exactly. Yes to breast-feeding on planes. No to sexualization of children’s entertainment.

  • http://www.12sides.blogspot.com Horatio

    I hear you, John, but your “Yes to breast-feeding on planes. No to sexualization of children’s entertainment.” assumes one thing: breasts = sexualization.

  • John Clements

    Horatio, you say:
    No to sexualization of children’s entertainment.” assumes one thing: breasts = sexualization.
    You have no evidence on which to base that assertion. In my first post on this thread I described incidents of sexualization of children’s entertainment — one of which was emphasizing breasts in a sexual way. I think I actually used the expression, in quotes, “tits ‘n’ ass”. Can we let “tits ‘n’ ass” stand in as shorthand for sexualized presentation of the body?
    I don’t see any place for “tits ‘n’ ass” in children’s entertainment. Yet it is there. That is not good for children. Do you disagree with this?

  • Jos Bleau

    Its good to see that new media can be spun just as easily by fake ‘censorship’ controvercies as the old media. This smells a lot like the Michael Moore ‘Disney quashed my movie’ scam from a year ago. Just like Moore’s scam this one depends on a breathless press that simply can’t ask tough questions of people who say bad things about someone they don’t like.
    Jeff I love your blog but you’ve got to ask the toughest questions about the ‘stories’ that seem to be telling you what you want to hear.

  • rick_d

    Hey Jeff, what is it with Disney and boobs (or is that the boobs at Disney)?
    I’m sure you, like me, remember Annette’s miraculous blossoming. Somehow it didn’t derail her career, given that she went on to make countless kidflicks:
    http://www.spectropop.com/femme/hfunicello1.html
    What you’re describing seems absurd, but I suppose we’ll not be able to judge for ourselves until they release the “director’s cut” DVD in 2013. I’m still trying to satisfactorily explain to my daughter what happened to Bambi’s mom…damn you, Disney!
    BTW, I’ve not read any of the kafuffle on miss Lohan’s “controversial” weight loss that’s sprouted everywhere recently. Has she announced to the world that she had surgical augmentation, or is that an idle presumption on the part of certain commenters?

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    In related news, did you know that Janeane Garofalo got surgically reduced at the start of her career? Shocking, horrifying, but true.

  • paladin

    Regarding the “Lactivists”: Come on people, you’ve all been in the sardine cans they call “airplanes”. Lots of stuff is “natural”—pooping, pissing, farting, screwing, lactating, etc. but do we really want to sit next to anyone doing any of this stuff on an airplane when we can’t get away from them? This is one of the problems with the “rights” advocates—-we are forced to endure them exercising their “rights” or we are branded as some sort of bigot. Hey, rights people, how about a little consideration for the rest of us who don’t want to endure you being “natural”?

  • John Clements

    Well, breasfeeding is not always silent, but it usually doesn’t last too long.
    Farting, on the other hand, should bring immediate ejection from the aircraft! They should put a fartmeter under each seat, and if the concentration of gas gets too high, the seat would just descend through the bottom of the plane with the offending occupant in it.