OK, I'm Slow. . .

[qos]

The Oscars were Sunday.
Today is Wednesday.
(It is Wednesday, right?)
(Well, probably not for toesontheground.)
It's taken me this long to come to this befuddled observation.
(Hey, I've been preoccupied by more pressing matters.)

Janet Jackson accidentally (or not) exposed her nipple during that All-American Family Tradition, the Superbowl Halftime Show, and half of the U.S. went into hysterics.

Billy Crystal appeared fully naked (hands cupped over his genitals) in the Opening Act of that *Other* All-American Family Tradition, The Academy Awards. (One step removed on film, but all that flesh was showing.)

And no one has said a thing about indecency.

How is it that 99% of Billy Crystal's naked body is less objectionable to delicate Puritan sensibilities than the one inch summit of Janet Jackson's breast? Is it something to do with female flesh being inherently more wicked? Or is it only because it was her - ohmigawd! - breast?

Of course, to look for a *reason* for the difference implies that those making the distinction are reasonable, does it not? Which may be too much to expect.

Comments

[toesontheground.livejournal.com]

I know where you are coming from - but I have to say that for my money there is a disproportionality about the taboo impact of public nudity: I would be much less comfortable seeing Billy Crystal completely covered in black latex - except for his genitals - than if I saw him in, say, a black latex g-string (BTW I didn't see the Oscar show except higlights). I don't think that's an unreasonable distinction, although I don't doubt there's a bunch of hypocrisy and man/wman inequality going on. Breasts...are ambiguous I suppose, in that they are baby feeders and sexual bits (apoligies for my lack of the right terminology). Is that bad? (That's an honest question, not rhetorical).

[ex-mommybir.livejournal.com]

Naked Billy Crystal? I am *so* glad I do not watch awards shows. (But I was very happy for RotK and Peter Jackson and the gang.)