Joseph has some great comments on the Super Bowl Half-time Show incident (and you don't need to ask "what incident?"!).
I was thinking how perverted those things were--those bags of silicone. In writing "perverted", I was thinking of the definition of pervert:
"to divert to a wrong end or purpose; to twist the meaning or sense of".
Maybe Ms. Jackson has kids, but I have never seen her with any or seen pictures of her pregnant. I suppose I would have at least seen pictures at the checkout line at the grocery if she had ever been pregnant--given her celebrity status.
I bring up the subject of motherhood and pregnancy since breastfeeding is what the breasts are designed to do. It generally occurs that a woman who is lactating usually is bigger when engorged with milk. This is nature's way and God's design. However, this silicone is a lie. It seems that in our society, sexuality has been completely divorced from reproduction. In the past this was not so. I do think men have always been attracted to pretty women (and vice versa). But, the ability to reproduce and bring forth an heir was always paramount.
Of course, sexuality divorced from reproduction is all our culture feeds us. It is a long way from the icon of the Theotokos Sweetly Kissing. Instead, the images we see, whether we want to or not (because they are even on billboards) are silicone enhanced twigs. We get the twigs because many of the designers of clothing are really not interested in women--they're interested in boys. Now the figures of boys aren't exactly images of femininity, so the models have to enhance, and then we get what we have now.
I would only add to Joseph's comment by saying this: Look, if she's wearing a pasty to cover her nipple, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was a planned event--apologies and denials notwithstanding. [Disclaimer: I know that my readers will not believe this, but I actually missed the event, so I'm going on what my guests/friends reported. Jeff and I were discussing the similarities and differences in Lenten practices between East and West when the incident occurred. I'm glad I didn't see it. I'm a visual guy and this sort of thing would be a test and a trial. Thank God for his protecting me.]
[Hmm. It occurred to me that this post might generate some interesting visits from the Googling crowd.]
Posted by Clifton at February 2, 2004 10:01 AM | TrackBackWow. Not realizing you posted this on your blog, I came to the same conclusion in my own recent posting — that it was intentional. I'm going to add a link to this article....
Posted by: ron at February 2, 2004 02:37 PMAs for me, I missed the whole stinkin' halftime show. I despise everything about such performances, musically and morally. So I jumped around the dorm instead listening to rock at top volume.
Posted by: Evan Donovan at February 2, 2004 02:43 PM"I'm a visual guy and this sort of thing would be a test and a trial."
I share this sentiment! Thank God for the annual Halo/X Box tournament i was immersed in!
Posted by: aaron at February 2, 2004 03:26 PMAhem, not to be too meticulous on the matter, but it seems not only uncharitable but inaccurate to describe Janet Jackson's breasts as "bags of silicone." The New York Times, in fact, noted: "Perhaps the one moment of honesty in that coldly choreographed tableau was when the cup came off and out tumbled what looked like a normal middle-aged woman's breast instead of an idealized Playboy bunny implant."
While the halftime show was pathetic, crass and a poor marketing decision, I don't think it's helpful for Christans to attack Janet Jackson's body as some symbol of all that is evil and fake in society. She is, after all, a real person, and there's little use in referring to her with words like "those things," as if the devil himself had designed her body. And, after all, they're just breasts, and nobody's making you watch the sexed-up halftime show to begin with.
Posted by: mesh at February 2, 2004 06:55 PMWhile it's tue that we don't know for sure (at least I don't) whether or not Ms. Jackson's breasts have been artificially enhanced, and while it's further true that our commentary ought not work to dehumanize her as a person, it is also true that sex and gender have been, in our society, separated from reproduction, and Ms. Jackson has cooperated with that separation.
Let's assume--though I for one do not believe it--that the baring of Ms. Jackson's breast was, indeed, an accident. Still, Ms. Jackson's attire was meant to accentuate her breasts in a non-maternal, non-reproductive way. And if, as I and others contend, it was intentional, said separation of her breast and its natural function was even more sexualized.
However, don't hear me as saying that women's breasts ought not be sexualized at all. I'm not proferring a prudish either/or. It's not the mere sensuality of Ms. Jackson's breast that is at issue, but rather the divorcing of it from its primary God-given function. But then any sensual attribute that can/could be attributed to a woman's--better, mother's--breasts is to take place within the private confines of a husband's and wife's marital bed . . . and not during a half-time show in which hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide can be titillated.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 2, 2004 08:16 PM