blargblog

just curious kev, I know that the whole Iraqi thing is ludicrous, and evil, but doesn't it seem like perhaps it is the wrong thing to be comparing outrage against when talking about a MAN TEARING CLOATHING OFF OF A WOMAN OF COLOR IN A BLATANT APPEAL TO THE SEXUALITY OF DOMINANCE AND RAPE? or you know, that whole nipple thing.

One could argue for such an interpretation. But that is not the source of the woman's lawsuit. Nor is it the source of much of the hyped "outrage." People are complaining that their poor, poor children saw a woman's bare breast. Some folks have noted the rest of the Super Bowl was pretty crude and lewd, too, and for them, The Breast was just the last straw.

But I watched the game. I saw the half time show. The nipple was on screen for less than two seconds before cutting to commercial. My friends and I were admittedly surprised. "Was that...?" But offended? The Bud Light commercials were horrible. Janet, however, was in total control.

As for your suggested interpretation: I don't think it applies. It was her show. She and Justin, her guest, were singing seductively to each other (granted, his song), but they were clearly choreographing some sort of come on to one another. Mutual consent, and all. No rape. Not by a long shot. Besides, how else might one interpret a number that includes an older black woman seducing a younger white man? With these lyrics from "Rhythm Nation" (as reported by Lee Ballinger) :

With music by our side
To break the color lines
Let's work together
To improve our way of life
Join voices in protest
To social injustice

In the end, it's just a tacky musical number. Not worth even this much discussion. But it's the disproportion between the outrage attendent this non-event and the real scandal of war and deceit that boggles my mind.

hmm...i've seen that piercing jewelry before. maybe everything's been ultra-appropriated by now, but the last place i saw it was in a radical feminist lesbian magazine. this was in the 1980s though. maybe everyone has them now...i'm too chicken to get mine done though. tattoos are quite enough.

it makes me laugh how sheltered people are. i wonder how they'd react to seeing an old survival research labs performance piece, with robots built out of dead animal parts and flame throwers shooting into the audience..........

Being the prude that I obviously am - I know I've successfully hidden this from you Kevin :-) - I am much more shocked at all that male ass grabbing that goes on by the players on the field, and am I to believe that the QB isn't copping a little feel every time he sticks his hands in the center's crotch waiting for the ball (and just hjow suggestive is that word in that context I ask) :-)

But what if you were watching with Owen? Don't you realize that the sight of a breast will permanently and irreversibly damage the mental psyche of your still-breastfeeding son? Don't ask me to explain why. I used the word "psyche" in my sentence therefore it's entirely scientific and above criticism or even a single fucking thought.

Granted, I didn't actually watch the half time show, the reports that I have been reading of it though, are like this:
a surprise guest appeared on the stage, none other than Justin Timberlake. Timberlake sang his song, "Rock Your Body," and danced provocatively with Jackson to lyrics such as, "I like the way you move, so go ahead girl, just do that ass shaking thing you do." After a few minutes of bumping and grinding, Jackson and Timberlake stood next to each other for the end of the performance. As Timberlake sang the last line of his song, "Better have you naked by the end of this song," he reached over and pulled off a piece of Jackson's leather costume, giving the 72,000 fans at Reliant Stadium and the estimated 1.3 million viewers a view of Jackson's right breast,

Granted, the lawsuit was about showing a breast on tv, utterly stupid. But I still think that an action, while consentual and choreographed, that consists of a man tearing off a woman's shirt (or part there of) while singing utterly ridiculous lyrics which assume, pretty much that women can't resist some prick, is itself sick, and wrong, and contributes to continual gender stereotypes and general male feelings of superiority (maybe not you, but I'll bet that many of those "Nascar dads" out there sure got a kick out of it). I feel that this action being choreographed lends a certain false validity to similar actions which take place without consent or choreography- more frat kids will think that it is cool to humiliate a woman, and geeze, it's not such a big deal anyway, it was on prime time tv and SHE had to apologize for it. The frat boys do enough on their own. thanks.

Therefore, I feel that the true atrocity was not that her breast was shown on prime time tv, but that such a blatantly male chavenistic act was ever choreographed, much less shown on prime time tv, breast or no breast. I personally feel that that is the true comparison that needs to be made here, not that of a breast to thousands dead and thousands wounded, which is really a much different subject, and an entirely different battle.

No offense intended, Kev. Just disagreeing with you.

Sorry, just one more thing Kev, then I will let this die, becuase really, I don't mean to tick you off, just try to represent an opposing view point... so yeah

Have you ever been raped Kevin? Have you ever known a rapist? Have you ever been sexually abused? Have you ever known a perpetrator?

Becuase if you have you probably know that it is about power. You also probably know that many men feel emasculated with women gaining more power in the non domestic world. You also probably know that these men feeling powerless and unable to control their world (also being ill adjusted to that fact) take out their power trips on women. You also probably know that those men look to things like this, where that woman was "really put in her place for being such a tease" in fact "she wanted that to happen the entire time, she meant for it to happen, in fact it was her fault that it happened" for validation. You also probably realise that by changing the focus of this performance from the act of tearing off a portion of her costume to the fect that her breast was showing, and was "obscene" to some extent tells many people that it was not the action but the breast that was obscene.

And that cultural impression that we so willing sweep under the rug is what I am pissed about. And truthfully, it does tick me off that when something is so blatantly in our face about what is wrong in our society concerning gender relations, so many people shrug it off, and say "it's just a breast, man."

I think the power relations in both Justin's song and Janet's performance with him are more nuanced and balanced than you suggest. The song itself, like so many dance come-ons, involves a negotiation of seduction, plea, assertiveness, a back and forth between coming on and pulling back. That's what gives the song tension. Note, too, that the lyrics don't make quite as much sense without the melody and the arrangement, which are both funky, sexy and full of tension. This is no Led Zepplin "I wanna give you every inch of my love" macho thing. This is a guy who wants to dance with the pretty girl and maybe get laid.

As for Janet's performance: She was in some heavy dominatrix gear, she was the center of the focus for most of the time, when not ceding the camera to her guests (Nelly, Kid Rock, etc.) and like I've said, she was in charge throughout. Her interaction with Justin was a bit more balanced in deference to his being a star of near equal calibre to her (or eventually will be; the boy's got the goods—who knew?) and was conducted along the lines of a mutual come-on.

Why they chose to inject the bra-ripping bit at the end, I have no idea. They both contend it was a last minute decision. I guess they thought it was to add some "passion" as if they were both overcome with "lust" or something. Who knows?

But rape? No, I haven't been raped, thank goodness. Half the women I know have been victims of rape or some form of sexual abuse. The other half have probably come close or lucked out. I'm pretty aware of our culture of dominance and how it perpetuates itself. But as I see the Janet-Justin interaction, the negotiation of power was between equals; even the possible imbalance at the end is still pretty far from suggesting rape, at least in my view. Rape is pretty serious stuff. I don't think Janet or Justin would want to play around with it.

You also probably realise that by changing the focus of this performance from the act of tearing off a portion of her costume to the fact that her breast was showing, and was "obscene" to some extent tells many people that it was not the action but the breast that was obscene.

That's true. That's not really Janet & Justin's problem (you know we're on a first name basis, right?), but a problem that arises through cultural reception and transmission. The problem for J&J, especially Janet, is that they are held responsible anyway. For most people, the sight of the breast was the shocking bit. Because it was part of the choreographed spectacle, the action itself is only a means to the end. The breast was the thing. Granted, much of the controversy seems to ignore the rest of the sexist crap in the game and the commercials. Yet the offense is taken from the final act, the exposure of the breast. The gender relations you see—a man ripping off a woman's clothing as an expression of his dominating her, putting her in her place—is overlooked and/or disregarded because of the power dynamics between the specific performers involved. Janet has been a major pop star for three decades now; she takes care to control how her image carries with the public. Maybe there was a "wardrobe malfunction" as Justin says, but Janet gets most of the heat because she is seen as running the whole show.

Not that I think she deserves the heat. One reason I have been saying, "It's just a boob" is that I think we are far too sensitive to the sight of the female breast. The male nipple gets a pass, but not the female. Why are we so squeemish? Of course, there's no pee-pee on tee-vee, either; maybe there should be. We might be a bit psychologically better off as a culture if we could accept body parts for what they are: body parts.

(Okay, then there are questions of discretion, mystery, the proper place for exposure, how eroticism requires something hidden, and so on. But those are matters for another time.)

I'm surprised that yahoo was able to find a lawyer to press such a frivolous lawsuit. Then again, there are conservatives who'd think that wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, but the one by the family whose two young children (including a 10-month old baby) were pepper-sprayed by Portland's thuggish cops, is frivolous.

I'm going to try to sic the FCC on CBS for airing the Bud Light commercials, particularly the horse fart one. MoveOn's ad wasn't appropriate, but horse farts are?

And Mike Ditka, you've disgraced yourself.

I once went out with Kev for beers. He messed with my glass for a second but I didn't think anything of it. I woke up the next morning with Justin Timberlake's hand down my shirt. You are right to distrust these two men.