FCC: Men's butts are not sexual but women's are!

The gender bias is noteworthy, but my first take on the story was that it's just another example of a self-appointed imperative to redefine things on an arbitrary basis. I am trying to think of some substantive real world examples (as distinct from Orwell stories), but in their absence, have come up with the idea behind 'Freedom Fries': replacing 'French' on the presumption that it would somehow make the food more patriotic. (Sorry I haven't come up with better.) In the case of NYPD Blue, the issue is about redefining female buttocks as a sexual organ. Never mind what biologists say. For broadcast purposes, the FCC is in a position to arbitrarily and inconsistently dictate such things on its own terms. For me, the worrying thing is that they are unnacountable.

Maybe the FCC needs to distinguish between reproductive organs and sexual organs. After all, even the FCC couldn't justify the categorizing of buttocks as reproductive could they? And can you imagine any part of the body that isn't somehow sexual, if by sexual we mean contributing to sexual response or arousal? Certainly they wouldn't stop the broadcasting of images of hands, would they? Or flashes of any exposed skin? Perish the thought!

Of course I don't think that the showing of nude bodies is indecent in the first place.

And as for accountability, Latest Visitor, I share your concern. The accountability has to come from us!

__________________________

...because public space really matters!

Elizabeth

I think the 'reproductive angle' for lack of a better term ~ and let's face it, visual concept help *wink* ~ is what's the issue here...

There's long been a rule with comedy:  Pants a man = funny; but never pants a woman.  The difference is percieved vulnerability.  A woman sans pants is deemed easier to access, if not use; but a man is considered unlikely to force.  This, of course, isn't the complete truth; men can be/are raped.  But the nakedness of women has a long history of use to convey vulnerability and fear ~ as well as arousal (there is a link between fear and arousal).  And men cannot help themselves from being aroused at female nudity; only women can exert such control.  Sexist, yes; however this leads us back to the male arousal at female bums is more 'proof' of female vulnerability.

I think the bottom line here (pun intended) is one of vulnerability.  'She' naked is vulnerable; 'he' naked is in control. 

Context is key here, and that's not exactly the FCC's forte.

__________________________

I run Sex-Kitten.net.

...with the FCC .

"I compare my local folder to the album, one picture at a time. Want to know what picture they found offensive?"

"That’s right. A photo of a 2000 year old Roman piece of art is offensive because it depicts a naked acrobat’s butt."

 

Those darned porn moguls at the British Museum, exposing us to naked butts.  What is the world coming to? 

__________________________

Kisses,

JanieBelle

Dream a little dream of me.

...with the FCC :

 

Police, saying they were responding to citizen complaints, carted away two large promotional photographs from the Abercrombie & Fitch store in Lynnhaven Mall on Saturday and cited the manager on obscenity charges.

Adam Bernstein, a police spokesman, said the seizure and the issuance of the summons came only after store management had not heeded warnings to remove the images.

The citation was issued under City Code Section 22.31, Bernstein said, which makes it a crime to display "obscene materials in a business that is open to juveniles." He did not say what was being done with the pictures and when the manager, whose name was not released, is scheduled to appear in court.

The images in question?

The other image is of a woman who is topless and whose "breast is displayed with her hand covering just the nipple portion," Bernstein said. "You could still pretty much see the rest of the breast."

 

HT: The Information Paradox

ABC News is reporting however , that on Monday, Virginia Beach PD dropped the charges.

Posters of scantily clad youths that were seized by police at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in a Virginia mall this weekend may be inappropriate for young children, but they are not obscene, according to legal experts.

Virginia Beach police apparently have agreed. On Monday, they dropped charges against the clothing company that markets to prep chic teens through sexually charged imagery.

I guess the question now is did they drop the charges for reasons of sanity or expediency? Hopefully, somebody in charge pulled their collective heads from their collective butts obscene place, but I suspect that the real reason is that the local DA told them they'd be on the losing end of a very expensive First Amendment suit.

Was the police response to the store an overreaction? Yes, according to legal experts. Though local laws can vary, courts require that the image show sexual activity or a "lewd display" of genitals, says Lawrence Walters, an Orlando, Fla., lawyer and First Amendment specialist.

"There is not a chance any jury in America would find the photo obscene under these standards," he said.

__________________________

Kisses,

JanieBelle

Dream a little dream of me.

but no.  :(  My book isn't finished.  I just kind of burned out and needed a day or two off.  I've got a fairly long passage that just is not making me happy, and it's nagging me so I can't get on with the story until I've dealt with it.

Plus, there are health-care crises running rampant throughout the FCD household.  :(  

I've been keeping an eye out here though, both through the RSS feed on the bottom of my blog and through my shiny new RSS reader for FireFox. 

__________________________

Kisses,

JanieBelle

Dream a little dream of me.