(Long Island, NY) There’s a comedy-quiz program airing on Comedy Central that recently featured a group of nudists brought onstage to make the contestants hilariously uncomfortable as they tried to answer questions about geography and movies. The two contestants had to share a British-style phone booth with one or more naked people. Needless to say, the tactic worked; there was much discomfort to go around.
A curious thing happened during the show—when the naked folks took the stage, those watching on television were naturally treated to optical censoring. Everyone’s naughty bits were ‘fogged’ for ‘sensitive’ TV audiences. The women had two blurry circles, one on top, one on the bottom. When the men were shown, however, they only got one blurry circle; the one obscuring their below-the-belts, their nether regions, the “naked parts”.
In short, the women had their breasts obscured. The men did not.
Some will take issue with saying (in print, no less!) that men have breasts, but I insist that if a man can have a breastbone, or wear a breastplate (Gladiator, anyone?) then men at least QUALIFY to have that center mass where the pectoral muscles live designated as breasts. To the point; the men were allowed to show off their breasts uncensored, while the women were not. Does this sound unequal to anyone else?
Not that I am advocating the wanton sexing-up of broadcast television, not in the least. As long as society reacts to naked breasts in an overly sexual manner, it’s probably for the best to err on the side of modesty when it comes to television.
Or is it?
I remember some very interesting things said in hearings about nudity during congressional testimony about rating music. Back in the 1980s, then senator Al Gore’s wife Tipper was part of an activist group that sought to give rock albums warning stickers for explicit content. Tipper Gore was made fun of for her role in the attempt to ‘sticker’ the albums. Later on, record companies started putting the stickers on CD’s anyway. Maybe it was a reaction to KISS guitarist Gene Simmons, who said it was a great idea because it would sell more records. He felt that advertising the ‘naughty’ content with a warning sticker would turn into a huge boost in sales. Tipper and her Washington friends succeeded in a push to get congressional hearings about music and what they considered obscenity.
That interesting thing said in the congressional hearings came from the mouth of Frank Zappa, who testified that not only was stickering a bad idea, but it opened the music industry up to unnecessary regulation by what he called “bored Washington Housewives.” His comments included the idea that since ‘obscenity” is in the eye of the beholder, there is no way to have a single standard regulating it.
Closer to the point of this article, (was there one in the first place?) Zappa made a great observation about breasts, and nipples in particular, during his testimony to the Maryland State Legislature; “I think that when you’re a baby, one of the first things you get interested in is that nozzle there. You get to have it right up in your face. And then you grow up to live in the state of Maryland where they won’t let you see that little brown nozzle anymore.”
In light of those comments, why DO we have such a hang up about exposed nipples? And why are we so hypocritical about them? They are OK for men to show, but not so for women—WHY? They look nearly identical on either gender, don’t they? Well, almost. Maybe in Maryland they look REALLY different.
If we, as a society, agree that one set of breasts is NOT OK to show on television, shouldn’t we cover up ALL the boobies? It would, after all, level the playing field, create more equality and start a whole new line of fashion concerns for men who suddenly must cover up for modesty’s sake.
If we let EVERYBODY ‘fly the flag’ as it were, and show off the uppermost portion of the torso freely and without shame, haven’t we (in a few hundred years) eliminated an entire avenue of harassment, embarrassment, and saved millions of dollars in clothing expenses?
Instead, we get a continuing double standard. The men get to flaunt their chests in the coolest spring breezes, while the ladies must retreat behind acres of fabric, support foam and sometimes padding. It is just plain unfair to let the guys strut unabated. Shouldn’t we at least cover up to give the children—the CHILDREN—some sense of consistency and fairness? We are robbing future generations by encouraging men to be free and easy with their upper areas. On television, at least you’d have the luxury of knowing that some doofus TV technician wouldn’t accidentally let one set of breasts slide because they got momentarily confused over who was who.
The least they could do is censor the man-zones the same as they do the women. It’s only fair. If we’re truly interested in saving the children, we should censor ALL the boobies.
