Originally posted by: dpopiz
the janet thing got me thinking about this again, because it was noted that her nipple was "covered":
this has confused me my entire life: why is it totally acceptable in america to have exposed boobs, but not exposed nipples? nipples are apparently extremely offensive, yes?
Because, frankly, corporate America needs to keep pushing the envelope, and the religious, family-values political types need to pretend they are "fighting the good fight". Over the last century, we're getting down to the point where there's not much left to compromise over. Panties & shorts are up giving people visible wedgies, and we've got about a nickel's worth left of coverage on female breasts.
(bitter voice)
It's nice to know that greed still wins over principles. The good news is - everyone wins in this case! Corporations win because they get to show 95% supermodel nudity, with "shocking" ads, movies, and TV shows. This creates a pop-culture standard of beauty that is impossible for 95% of the population to live up to, which spawns off a huge beauty products industry (more corporate money!) At the same time, women get to feel more liberated & free because, hey, they don't have to wear full-body swimsuits anymore! And men smile because they get to see nekkid wimin'
(/bitter voice)