Perhaps because I am so tired of these things, I didn’t give as much consideration to morality (which is so often seen in terms of sexual shame) in my post on liberalism as I might have.
But I do wonder, despite all the attention paid to the matter, how many Americans believe that Janet Jackson’s Superbowl breast is the biggest “issue” facing the nation — or even that it represents an underlying major issue. There is continued interest by some people though, who seem to view the breast as a major showdown in American politics.
Is it?
Or is this another one of those things which will only further alienate the common-sense majority? Sure, lots of people don’t want their children seeing breasts at the Superbowl. But they aren’t going to turn it into a huge cause, and I don’t think they appreciate people who demand that they do, and threaten to write them off as immoral (or “desensitized” by the evil MTV) if they don’t.
Let me confess, I did not watch the Superbowl or Janet Jackson’s breast. Sure, I would have been surprised had I seen it. But traumatized? Desensitized? Desensitized from what? From seeing the human body? Don’t we all have one? From where comes the idea that we’re supposed to be shocked? Or is the “violent” way in which the breast was exposed the issue? It’s hard for me to see a staged performance as any more violent than what goes on in most contact sports, because after all, in both cases the parties are consenting adults.
Anyway, I am not shocked, nor have I been desensitized as far as I know. To become “desensitized,” first there must be an underlying sensitivity. It strikes me that, because we all have bodies with genitalia and we’ve alll seen other people naked, sensitivity to nudity would have to be taught. Now, I am as much of a prude as anyone else about not wanting to be stripped of my clothing publicly, because I value my privacy. But that doesn’t make my own nudity shocking to me, nor does it make me shocked by the nudity of others.
While I hesitate to judge others based on my own reactions, still I wonder how shocked they really are. Might not some of this be as staged as Janet Jackson’s breast? I know they’re yelling at everyone about how “desensitized” we’ve “become” but has anyone stopped to ask first, whether this is true, and second, whether such underlying “sensitivities” are necessarily good things?
When I was in Cyprus I saw a statue of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus. A huge, larger than life, bronze nude that they’d just dug out of the ground and stuck in the museum. I was not allowed to photograph it, and the museum sold no postcards of it. I walked around the local kiosks, and found that there were no postcards for sale. The local Cypriots, unaware of what a great treasure they have, actually seemed ashamed of the statue when I asked about it.
I think they are ashamed of the statue; one of the best Roman statues I’ve seen. It’s barely mentioned at all on the web, although I found this reference (no pictures, of course….):
The towering bronze statue of the Roman Emperor Septimus Severus is an outstanding work of Roman-Cypriot art; and a fine example of the self glorification of the Roman Emperors. the nude emperor strikes a pretty pose
I wonder what the emperor would say. I think he’d be shocked, and a little amazed, for obviously he was proud of his body and didn’t mind displaying it. Not that Janet Jackson’s breast ranks with Septimius Severus (or other emperors without clothes), but why is there such a wide gulf between the moderns and the ancients over something so universal and natural? Why the modern shame over something which was a source of ancient pride?
I recognize that there are modern sensitivities, but I have a problem with being told that I have been “desensitized” so I think it’s in order to inquire about precisely what that means, because I am unaware of ever having had such “sensitivity.” While I see nothing wrong with time, place and manner restrictions which take into account sensitivities (recognizing that other people have them), I do wish they wouldn’t scream and yell so much, and act as if there is something wrong with people who don’t share them.
Perhaps I am in need of sensitivity training here. (People can be trained to respect each other’s sensitivities; maybe “civility training” is better terminology.) Just don’t expect me to be shocked or ashamed, because such things have to be felt.
Sexual shame is like fear of snakes; you either have it or you don’t. It is illogical, however, to assert that not having a feeling necessarily means that one has been “desensitized.” Studies have shown that infants have no innate fear of snakes, and that adults have been taught to fear them. While adults can be trained to overcome such a fear by a gradual process which includes, ultimately, handling harmless snakes (this can properly be called “desensitization”), it is as unreasonable and illogical to assert that all people who lack fear of snakes have been “desensitized” as it is to make that assertion about those not shocked by nudity or pornography.
This may touch on mutual respect for the differences between people; something sorely lacking everywhere. I’d be willing to respect the sensitivities of others if they would respect the fact that I don’t share them. It’s like, “I won’t wave my snake in your face as long as you don’t yell at me for liking them and stop trying to pass laws telling me I can’t own them.”
But is Culture War (in this case between the “sensitive” and the “desensitized”) really the answer?
It can be carried too far….
Comments
13 responses to “The sensitive versus the desensitized?”
So what was it about Septimus Severus that was so impressive? Shold Colin Farrell be cast in the part for the forthcoming biopic?
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/6443
Personal biographical details are, unfortunately, in short supply (and even contradictory). Interesting accounts here, here, and here.
Why not Colin Farrell?
“Sexual shame is like fear of snakes; you either have it or you don’t.”
That’s the crux of the biscuit: people who have it are trying to make sure everyone else has it, and are frightened by those who don’t. When they scream about people being “desensitized,” what they’re really worried about is people losing the fear and shame that rule their lives.
Do you know Eric, I was half expecting to see as your link the Simpsons episode where Marge lobbys to have a pair of pants put on Michelangelo’s “David”:)
I’d forgotten about the destruction of the Buddhas; well,they’re gone forever. But hey, we’ve got radical Islam, and that’s much, much better. (sarcasm)
It seemed to me at the time of the titty-flashing that a whole lot of people who were angry about it were motivated much more out of disgust than any kind of sexual shame.
And not disgust of titties, either, but disgust with pop entertainers like Justin & Janet who think that kind of stunt, a calculated provocation, has such important artistic merit that deserves respect and national, uncensored, prime-time exposure.
Why the hell shouldn’t people be angry about that kind of condescending, cheap-shot sensationalism? Especially coming from callow rubes of their stripe.
What I really want to know is just who in the hell did Picasso think he was anyway? That son of a bitch went out of his way to contravene every convention of representational art. As far as I’m concerned he can shove those damned cubes of his up his ass. Decent folk don’t cotton to it.
TWN, you have a point there. I’m so disgusted by the poor quality of entertainment that I hardly watch television. “Respect and national, uncensored, prime-time exposure”? I’m not arguing for that at all. But when guys like Robert Knight blame Howard Stern and the homosexuals for abu Ghraib, when people tell me that I am responsible for something I have no interest in, I get a little annoyed.
I have no argument with anyone being disgusted — even out of sexual shame; I just wish they’d stop claiming that those who don’t feel the same way have been desensitized, or that the breast flashing justifies America being called the Great Satan.
Well, that I agree with, Eric. I’m a little off topic.
I don’t think that people like Rober Knight actually represent what really upset most people about it. It wasn’t so much the sight of Janet’s (unexceptional) breast. It was the implicit attitude of the performers towards their audience, which seems to amount to a kind of contempt — as if they felt the lumpem masses deserved some shocking zinger to sting them into awareness.
Of course, that’s probably giving them way too much credit — more likely they’re just vulgar performers who lack imagination & couldn’t figure out a better ending.
As for Pablo P., well, he had actual talent. And it’s not as if he made a sandwich board of the Demoiselles d’Avingnon and paraded around the Place du Concorde, grabbing his crotch. Leave that stuff to Dali.
“A tit is an infamous thing.”
-the Marquis de Sade, “120 Days of Sodom”
This whole episode reminds me of the day, back when I was in first grade, when I pulled down my pants in the lunchroom because another evil kid offered me a banana. har! har! My Mama spanked me for it.
The federal government did not get involved in that affair.
If I, as an adult, were to stand on the sidewalk and pull down my pants, the police here would arrest me. I wouldn’t get a spanking but I would get a fine and some time in jail. So far as I know, every state and city has laws or ordinances against indecent exposure.
Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake should have been arrested under the _local_ laws against indecent exposure. There is nothing in either the First Amendment or the Tenth Amendment that authorizes the _federal_ government to set up a censorship bureau. This kind of issue must be left to the states and local communities to deal with. Just let the _local_ police enforce the _local_ laws regarding proper time, place, and manner of expression. That’s the Constitutional solution as I see it.
That last comment by me was addressing the issue from a Constitutional-legal standpoint. From a deeper, cultural, spiritual viewpoint, I think that for me the issue is the tension between the licentious libertinism libertinism of the nude or quasi-nude and the forbidding of that, which makes it all the more arousing. The more forbidden, the more taboo, it is, the sexier. Suggestive. There’s a special passage in “The Fountainhead” that I always love to quote on the high tension of passion, made all the more intense by its denial.
For this reason, I have become increasingly turned on by Tammy Bruce, whom Arthur Silber (a VERY interesting man!) called “a puritan Lesbian”, ever since she demanded a crackdown on that nude breast. In the context of her call for punishing Janet Jackson’s infamous tit, she wrote this:
“Now let me make something clear here?I have not been possessed by the ghost of a nun who is shocked at the sight of flesh. But there is a time and place for everything. I happen to think, as I hope most of you do, that a woman?s body is a beautiful thing.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12030
She is a Lesbian and knows that a woman’s body is “a beautiful thing” — but she wants its display carefully censored, hidden away, out of sight, taboo. Reminds me of Dawn. Her _style_.
To me, the word “Conservative” always connotes Lesbianism. It is so feminine-looking a word, so encircling, so tight and enclosing, so captivating.
licentious libidinous libertinism
Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma vs. wicked Wanda….
….Dawn’s Blues and Reds. Norma’s Reds and Blues. Wanda’s Green and Purples….
Isn’t it possible for someone to be shocked by pornography but not shocked by nudity?
And isn’t it also possible that someone could not be shocked by pornography but by shocked by a display of it at a family event?
The Jackson & Timberlake half-time show could be considered pornographic.