10 Years Ago, We Were Talking About a Breast
Yesterday's Super Bowl was awful. The Broncos were terrible and the game was as one-sided as possible. I didn't have a horse in this race, so I was rooting for a good game, and I didn't get my wish.
Exactly 10 years ago today, the post-Super Bowl chatter was all about one thing: Janet Jackson's breast. Here's what I wrote then.
As we all know by now, Justin Timberlake had the audacity to rip Janet Jackson's dress during the Super Bowl halftime show yesterday, exposing her right breast. Everyone is claiming this was an unplanned accident, but we know better.
I just read the Federal Communications Commission has released a statement concerning the exposed breast. Chairman Michael Powell has "instructed the commission to open an immediate investigation into last night's broadcast". From what I've read, a number of people are most unhappy. There is outrage in the United States over Janet's boobie.
I'll be the first to say the Super Bowl halftime show probably isn't an appropriate venue for such a stunt, but aren't we going overboard just a little? For reasons I'll never understand, Americans are far more comfortable watching someone open fire killing a dozen people than they are seeing a brief glimpse of a woman's breast. Blood and gore is fine but nudity of any kind is strictly forbidden on over-the-air television channels in the United States. Here in Canada, we're slightly more relaxed on the issue. CTV will run "The Sopranos" uncut and CBC will frequently air movies with uncensored nudity. City TV practically airs pornography some nights without a problem. I think this is a healthier approach to the naked body. It can be a beautiful thing, why treat is so severely?
A little boob exposure here and there won't kill anyone. Consider me pro-boob.
Only 8 comments? C'mon, we can do better... Leave a comment above and let's keep this conversation going!