Monday, February 07, 2005
There's more to Nipplegate than meets the naked eye.
Ace of Spades has a nice retort to Slate, but it´s not that nice as well.
Ace - small excerpt:
If Kaus Is Going to Re-Post About NippleGate, So Will I
"Flashing a nipple to children is okay, so long as it's empowering"
Liberals are cogenitally unable to call bad behavior by its proper name. They are in such a perpetual tizzy to demonstrate how broad-minded and tolerant they are that they simply cannot admit the obvious truth, to wit, that an aging and haggard lip-sync artiste shouldn't show her saline-bladders to unsuspecting, and unwarned, children during the dinner hour.
Or to adults, either, for that matter. It's not that nudity is per se bad. In the privacy of one's home, it can be just splendid. On a cable channel you've decided to purchase, with full warnings about the content which will be piped into your home, it's fine.
From movies to the back room of your video store -- I don't mind nudity or sexuality, so long as it is not unbidden. If an adult voluntarily seeks such material out, I could care less.
[several examples follow showing how Kaus is an idiot] plus:
Let's just suppose that Janet had pulled off Justin's clothing -- say, his codpiece, revealing his tumescent penis -- that would have been just fine, because it would have shown a strong woman actively making choices about her own sexuality.
Right?
My question left to Ace:
"From movies to the back room of your video store -- I don't mind nudity or sexuality, so long as it is not unbidden. If an adult voluntarily seeks such material out, I could care less."
So are you in favor of written child pornography?
Slate - Mickey Kaus:
Super Sunday reminder to Frank Rich and other righteous anti-FCCers: The big problem with last year's Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake halftime show was not that people saw Jackson's breast. It wasn't what Jackson did that was offensive. It was what Timberlake did. Here was a massively popular, relatively hip singer whose message was that it was a hip, transgressive thing for men to rip clothes off women when they feel like it (which is quite often). I watched the game with a group of non-evangelical, non-moralistic dads who were uniformly horrified. The problem for them wasn't sex--their kids see flesh all the time in videos--but a form of sexism, not prudery but piggishness.
Ace - small excerpt:
If Kaus Is Going to Re-Post About NippleGate, So Will I
"Flashing a nipple to children is okay, so long as it's empowering"
Liberals are cogenitally unable to call bad behavior by its proper name. They are in such a perpetual tizzy to demonstrate how broad-minded and tolerant they are that they simply cannot admit the obvious truth, to wit, that an aging and haggard lip-sync artiste shouldn't show her saline-bladders to unsuspecting, and unwarned, children during the dinner hour.
Or to adults, either, for that matter. It's not that nudity is per se bad. In the privacy of one's home, it can be just splendid. On a cable channel you've decided to purchase, with full warnings about the content which will be piped into your home, it's fine.
From movies to the back room of your video store -- I don't mind nudity or sexuality, so long as it is not unbidden. If an adult voluntarily seeks such material out, I could care less.
[several examples follow showing how Kaus is an idiot] plus:
Let's just suppose that Janet had pulled off Justin's clothing -- say, his codpiece, revealing his tumescent penis -- that would have been just fine, because it would have shown a strong woman actively making choices about her own sexuality.
Right?
My question left to Ace:
"From movies to the back room of your video store -- I don't mind nudity or sexuality, so long as it is not unbidden. If an adult voluntarily seeks such material out, I could care less."
So are you in favor of written child pornography?
Comments:
Post a Comment
