OK, I'm Slow. . .
Mar. 3rd, 2004 01:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qosThe Oscars were Sunday.
Today is Wednesday.
(It is Wednesday, right?)
(Well, probably not for![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-04 07:18 am (UTC)