By Emily Reinhardt
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – Last Sunday, between commercials selling
erection-enhancing medication, beer, horse farts and other glories of
capitalism, a tit was shown. Between Vaseline-smeared, sparkling
cheerleaders, orgies of celebrity and a game brutally violent,
sadomasochistic and testosterone-laden, a bare black breast managed to
sneak out from a bustier. And it is the scandal of January.
“Indecent!” The moral tongues wag. “Shocking!” Grandmothers across
America cry. “Classless, crass and deplorable!” The head of the FCC,
Michael Powell, declares. The perps, Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake,
CBS, Viacom, MTV and the NFL, all stand to be fined millions of
dollars for a nipple. And no doubt America’s children will be scarred
for, oh, about five minutes over this.
Powell has said there will be an investigation. Nobody is
investigating Cheney’s energy meetings. We can’t get a hearing on
whether Bush lied to us about the war. There’s going to be an
investigation on WMDs and intelligence, but it sounds lukewarm at
best. Global warming, corporate shanghais, illegal detainees, abuses
of power… let's just ignore all those. What we really need is an
investigation into Janet Jackson’s breast.
The JJT (Janet Jackson’s Tit) investigation, promising to cost our tax
dollars, is actually an open and shut case. I’ve seen the videotape.
Timberlake’s hand goes to the clothed offender. He cups, he holds and
then he rips. And very quickly, she covers. No fourth shot from the
grassy knoll. No cake baked in the shape of a key.
The best thing about the many, many, many replays of this tender,
American boob on TV is that the song they were singing is muted. If it
weren't, I’m sure many, including myself, would call for a WAMTS
investigation (Why American Music Today Sucks.)
As stated above, the half-time snafu is being replayed, to the delight
of grandmothers everywhere, at least five times every ten seconds.
I've seen more of Janet Jackson's mammary than I have of my own in the
past few days, proof of the pudding that America isn't actually
offended. It is mock offended. It's faking. It's lying.
How can we be offended by a private part of which half our population
has not one, but two? Have we not all seen a breast? A nipple? As a
culture, we've been inching closer and closer to this moment of boob
liberation ever since we made men citizens. And didn't the boys really
get what they wanted this Superbowl? Not only well-padded men throwing
a pig's skin around and thrashing each other, not only the golden
nectar bottled in Milwaukee, but, finally, titties. One tittie. For
all of two seconds.
The cheerleaders, a vacuous bunch to be sure, can show it all the way
to the panties. Who cares if you don't see their nipples; the effect
is still the same. If the "offense" of the breast is sexual, the
cheerleaders are much more offensive than Miss Jackson. Her breast was
not a turn-on. If it was a clothing malfunction, I'm sure many
"shocked" women, deep in their hearts, can understand. We've all dived
into the deep end of the pool, came up, and found one hanging out of
the suit. Feel sorry for Janet: most of us don't have that moment in
front of hundreds of millions of people.
Miss Jackson is "nasty" but no one says a word about Timberlake.
Remember, Jackson didn't expose herself by herself; she had an
accomplice. It was Timberlake who actually did the dirty deed of
showing Janet's goods to the world. Timberlake has had a stellar
career of tasteless escapades, from being a part of that late nineties
abomination, boy-bands, to being the ex of a certain pop tart who
usually makes her elders like Jackson look demure. Timberlake, Spears
and that Christina woman are the most sexual Mousketeers to come out
of Minnie's who-ha. Walt is turning over in his cryogenic chamber.
This little white boy exposed a member of one of the most powerful and
bizarre African-American entertainment dynasties. To speak of the
racial aspect of Boobgate is more taboo than to speak of the sexual,
but it is a pathetic irony that the interracial duet ended with a
long-standing tradition of American racial relations: a black woman
being molested by a white man. Strom Thurmond and Thomas Jefferson are
giving thumbs-up from their graves.
Speaking of the Jackson clan, maybe it was out of family loyalty that
Janet pulled this stunt. It removed her brother's woes from the front
page, at least for a nanosecond. But Michael Jackson should be getting
more attention that one meandering breast. Indeed, if he showed more
interest in breasts, perhaps he wouldn't have the problems he is
facing.
But whatever the reason, purpose or plan of the incident, it's still
not shocking. I'm far more shocked by Michael Powell's father (that
would be Colin) and his cronies than I am about a lost breast and its
lost owner. America, of course, is a confused Puritan nation when it
comes to sexuality, as many have pointed out. It has its priorities
for what it finds shocking confused, too. We should pay attention to
the real shocks in our culture: war, economic hardship, disunity and
the boobs who have lead us to it.
[Emily Reinhardt lives in New York City.]
Emily Reinhardt encourages your comments:
.
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit for tat....Just for Dani |
14 Feb 2004 11:29:13 AM |
|
|
DaarkSyde <DaarkSyde@everywhere.com> wrote in message news:<38vr20l4tni7958m2q980ei6h8qfdlc22k@4ax.com>...
By Emily Reinhardt
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
Why is it "just for Dani"? She's the least of the fuckin' prudes from
America on this NG!
Get to know her Dark...she's actually great!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaarkSyde" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit for tat....Just for Dani |
14 Feb 2004 11:47:14 AM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2004 09:29:13 -0800, (bollogs) wrote:
DaarkSyde <DaarkSyde@everywhere.com> wrote in message news:<38vr20l4tni7958m2q980ei6h8qfdlc22k@4ax.com>...
By Emily Reinhardt
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
Why is it "just for Dani"? She's the least of the fuckin' prudes from
America on this NG!
Get to know her Dark...she's actually great!
WH
Not from what I have seen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit for tat....Just for Dani |
14 Feb 2004 01:48:53 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2004 09:29:13 -0800, (bollogs) wrote:
DaarkSyde <DaarkSyde@everywhere.com> wrote in message news:<38vr20l4tni7958m2q980ei6h8qfdlc22k@4ax.com>...
By Emily Reinhardt
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
Why is it "just for Dani"? She's the least of the fuckin' prudes from
America on this NG!
Get to know her Dark...she's actually great!
Awwww, thanks, Chris. You're great too!
Don't mind Daaark.. sometimes he's nice to me and others not. Guess
it just depends on the level of Daaarkness he's at on any given day ..
hehe.
Glad to see you around!
Dani
WH
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit for tat....Just for Dani |
14 Feb 2004 12:56:07 PM |
|
|
In article <38vr20l4tni7958m2q980ei6h8qfdlc22k@4ax.com>, wrote:
By Emily Reinhardt
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – Last Sunday, between commercials selling
erection-enhancing medication, beer, horse farts and other glories of
capitalism, a tit was shown. Between Vaseline-smeared, sparkling
cheerleaders, orgies of celebrity and a game brutally violent,
sadomasochistic and testosterone-laden, a bare black breast managed to
sneak out from a bustier. And it is the scandal of January.
“Indecent!”
<snip>
What's with all the bizarre characters - cut and paste messing up, or something?
Maybe you need to install a couple of new fonts? What?
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
