On February 1, pop singer Janet Jackson opened the half-time entertainment at the 2004 Super Bowl (the US football grand final) in Miami, singing her hit song "Rhythm Nation", which refers to a number of social injustices, including racism.
During the finale of the half-time entertainment, Justin Timberlake ripped off part of Jackson's outfit, baring her right breast for a few seconds. The incident, seen by millions of television viewers, led to expressions of outrage from "shocked" media commentators and right-wing Christian organisations. They labeled the incident "obscene", "offensive" and "deplorable".
After receiving some angry calls, Super Bowl broadcaster CBS, and MTV which hosted the half-time show, apologised.
Despite its contrite media statement, MTV did not hesitate to promote the incident afterwards. CBS and MTV are both owned by media giant Viacom. The day after the incident the stock price of Viacom rose more than 1%.
CBS, which refused to air an anti-Bush commercial during the Super Bowl because it wanted to "avoid controversy", is now facing an investigation into whether it violated broadcasting decency laws.
Legislation has been introduced in the US Congress to increase by 10-fold the maximum fine for indecency — up to US$275,000. As a result, another US station felt pressured to cut a 1.5-second shot from a medical drama series ER where a breast of an 80-year-old woman appeared in the background.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 520 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The new US inquiry into the lies justifying this obscenity has been mothballed until after the presidential election in November.
In contrast, the chief US government regulator of broadcasting, Michael Powell, has ordered a "thorough and swift" investigation into Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". As one Hollywood wag noted, "We don't know where the WMDs are, but we do know where to find Janet's breast!".
Why are public displays of women's breasts considered obscene? Men show their bare chests all the time without causing a controversy. Could it be because men's breasts are lacking in any "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" (as the US government censors define obscene sexual conduct)?
In Australia the advertising industry is "self-regulated". Complaints about advertising are determined by the Advertising Standards Board. Among those on the board are Catherine Lumby, author of the book Bad Girls, in which she claimed that using breasts as a means to sell a watch wasn't sexist, just "sexy".
The hypersexual representation of women, particularly evident in the music industry, is used to persuade people to consume more, to oppress women and make people feel guilty and confused about what is a right and should be a pleasure.
The only difference between proliferating sexist advertising and Jackson's stunt is that the latter was not planned by the companies paying for it.
Why else, when we are bombarded with fetishised pictures of women's breasts every day in the media, are women still criticised or hassled for breastfeeding in public? Last year, a Victorian MP was ejected from parliament for breastfeeding her baby.
Jackson's right breast isn't obscene. What is obscene is the enormous amount of wealth and power dedicated to warping and narrowly defining women's sexual expression.
Nicole Hilder
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, February 18, 2004.
Visit the