Janet Jackson's ``wardrobe malfunction'' last Sunday may have told
us how far she'll go to promote the release of her upcoming CD. But it
also says something about us -- that even after one of the most
exciting Super Bowl games in years, all we could seem to talk about was
the halftime show.
What it says is that more than three decades after the so-called
``Summer of Love'' and after endless episodes of Jerry Springer,
Americans remain deeply ambivalent about sexuality.
You can see it vividly in our tortured debates over sexual
orientation and, now, gay marriage. You can see it in a House
subcommittee's recent hearings to determine whether the Federal
Communications Commission can do more to ensure that broadcasters
adhere to indecency laws in the hopes of stopping what some fear is a
sexually provocative culture gone out of control.
In recent days, a lot of media chatter has asked what has happened
to standards, where the line of decency is drawn, and how our media
culture in general and television in particular have become more crude
and offensive than ever.
Media competition
Certainly, television wasn't like this in the past. In its early
years, Lucy wasn't ``pregnant'' but ``expecting,'' and didn't share a
television bed with her real-life husband. But network television has
so much competition now from movies, cable, DVDs, video games and Web
sites that it almost has to provide spectacle to keep our attention, if
only for a moment.
We also have to admit that many of us are drawn to sexual images,
that media culture is not just shaping our interests but also
responding to our more carnal desires. We might decry this reality, but
sex-based notoriety pays off for those seeking publicity. Consider how
much mileage Britney Spears and Madonna got from their ``unplanned''
kiss at the MTV Video Music Awards in August, or how much more famous
rich-girl Paris Hilton became from her unauthorized sex video. We may
complain, but we keep watching to see what happens next.
Clearly, we are torn. On the one hand, our culture of consumption
promotes indulgence and using whatever sells, especially sex, to turn a
profit. Yet we are still in many ways a society grounded in the Puritan
ethic of self-denial and influenced by conservative religious
movements. Many of us complain about how much sex we see in the media,
but can't look away.
We fear that kids now have too much sex, while some adults secretly
fear that they themselves are not having enough. We worry that
Hollywood teaches kids too much about sex, but rarely complain when
sex-education programs in schools teach them too little. We complain
about the proliferation of sex in popular culture, but fuel a nearly
$10 billion porn industry.
Our European counterparts -- at least those in countries where
topless bathing is ho-hum -- must be rather bemused at the fuss we've
made over a brief display of a breast. But it is an excellent example
of the American quandary about sex and sexuality: We all know it's
there, we think a lot about it, but we sometimes resent actually seeing
it out in the open.
Defining indecency
We have tried to regulate sexual standards throughout American
history in a battle against ``indecency.'' The trouble has always been
defining what indecency actually means. In a broad and diverse society
such as our own, it's nearly impossible to come to an agreement.
In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of obscenity that
``I know it when I see it,'' an assertion that rings true for many
Americans, but which is a difficult statement upon which to build legal
precedent. A 1973 ruling from the high court defined obscenity as
anything that depicts sexual conduct in a ``patently offensive''
manner, that using ``contemporary community standards'' appeals to
``prurient interest'' and that lacks ``serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value.'' That three-pronged test remains the
legal standard for obscenity today.
What's acceptable now?
The problem lies in defining ``contemporary community standards''
for an international Super Bowl audience of about 90 million people.
When sexuality is at issue, Americans seldom have been in agreement
about where the boundary of acceptability lies.
Was Janet Jackson revealing her breast any more obscene than the
provocatively clad halftime show backup dancers or the models for the
televised Victoria's Secret ``fashion'' shows? Any more inappropriate
than hearing about erectile dysfunction in pharmaceutical ads?
To some degree, the concern about sexuality isn't about the media at
all; it's about the shifting social mores that make many people feel
uneasy. Much of the concern surrounding sexuality in popular culture
swirls around female performers accused of being too provocative. Men
and boys have been expected to be sexually aggressive. When women
flaunt their sexuality they might not be branded with a scarlet letter
anymore, but openly sexual women are still often seen as a problem.
More than the brief nudity, perhaps it's the sight of a young man
ripping off a woman's top, without her protest, that caused offense on
Super Bowl Sunday.
KAREN STERNHEIMER (sternhei@usc.edu)
is a sociologist at the University of Southern California and the
author of ``It's Not the Media: The Truth About Pop Culture's Influence
on Children.'' She wrote this article for Perspective.
News Sports Entertainment Business Technology Lifestyles Classifieds Jobs Cars Homes 
