Mother Talkers

Butt Blues

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:05:21 AM PDT

As I was driving into work the other day, I heard something in the morning radio show that shocked and disgusted me. When I got into the office, I decided to investigate the matter a little further.

The Federal Communications Commission has cited 52 ABC affiliates $27,500 each for violating FCC indecency rules by running the Feb. 25, 2003, episode of "NYPD Blue" that prominently featured an actress's nude buttocks.

Get that? The FCC has cited ABC a total of $1.43 million dollars for showing an ass...BACK IN 2003!!! Doesn't the FCC have better things to do than to watch re-runs of a television show that hasn't been on the air since 2005??

The scene in question involved the live-in lover (Charlotte Ross) of Detective Sipowicz (Dennis Franz), who dropped her robe in the bathroom, revealing some parts of her breasts and her junk in the trunk (booty).  In the scene, Sipowicz's young son enters the bathroom and stares at her; she turns toward the camera and covers herself with her hands.

What gets me is what the FCC said to justify their actions.  

"The scene contains explicit and graphic depictions of sexual organs. The scene depicts multiple, close-range views of an adult woman’s naked buttocks. We find that the broadcast dwells on and repeats the sexual material. We have held that repetition and persistent focus on sexual or excretory material is a relevant factor in evaluating the potential offensiveness of broadcasts. Here, the scene revolves around the woman’s nudity and includes several shots of her naked buttocks. The material is thus dwelled upon and repeated."

ABC has issued a statement, in their defense stating that the scene in question was "not presented in a lewd, prurient, pandering or titillating way" but was intended "to illustrate the complexity and awkwardness involved when a single parent brings a new romantic partner into her or his life."  ABC has also stated that they feel strongly that the FCC's finding is inconsistent with prior precendent from the commission, the indecency statute, and the First Amendment, and intend on opposing the proposed fine.

I have one question...since when have buttocks been deemed a "sexual organ"? Have we become so "puritanical" that we can't have a bare ass on television for fear that it might "turn us on"? Do we REALLY need to give any European country any more reason to make fun of us? What do you think? Is ass on television...dangerous?

  • ::

Tags: NYPD, Butt, television, FCC, ABC, Indecency (all tags)

Permalink | 22 comments

  • Geez (0 / 0)

    I might be a minority here, but I don't really see nudity on TV as a big deal and frankly, I don't care if my kids see it.  Context is important... I'd rather my kids didn't see people having sex on TV.  But a butt here and there... not a big deal.  

    I'd rather they saw that than some of the gratuitous violence that I see on network TV.  I think that is way more damaging to viewers than nudity.

    Mom to Grant, 8 and Madeline, 5 1/2

    by 1plain1peanut on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:13:15 AM PDT

    • I am totally with you (0 / 0)

      There is a lot of horrific violence on primetime TV, but nobody gets fined for that.

      Butts can be used for sexual purposes, but I don't think that makes them sexual organs, any more than tongues or lips are sexual organs.

      • and hands...and feet... (0 / 0)

        ...shoot, just about ANY part of the body can be a sexual organ. :-)

        MotherTalkers moderator and mom to Maya, a 3.5-year-old firecracker.

        by Erika on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • Agree with you both (0 / 0)

        The FCC has its priorities screwed up. Shows for adults should be able to show a little booty in proper context without fear of big brother coming down on them.   I would be far more concerned about shows on MTV and such that show women girating around in practically nothing but where their butts are covered (although I guess the FCC doesn't regulate cable, right?).  Objectification of women and violence on the evening news are worse.  

        What does that say about FCC regulators that they consider the butt a "sexual organ"?  

    • Absolutely (0 / 0)

      I'd much rather my kids see a naked butt than see someone get shot.

      I was glad my kids were in the showers when Janet Jackson got her top ripped off, but it was the fact that a guy ripped a woman's top off that bothered me, not that her nipple showed.

      Mom of twins, DD and DS, born 12/96

      by Lisa in Austin on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • yes, absolutely! (0 / 0)

        The only media critic I really like, Dan Kennedy, ex-of the Boston Phoenix, pointed that out at the time, that everyone was getting worked up about the nip flash but that nobody commented on the body language around - the aggressive grab and rip, and JJ's choreographed defensive cover-up. It was awful and so haunting.

        OT slightly, but am I the only one to notice that Justin Timberlake has this underthread of sexual violence and violence against women throughout his solo career? I can't stand to watch the video he did with Scarlett Johanssen (sp?), in which he slaps her around after finding her cheating on him.

        That's the real obscenity, people.

  • pathetically Puritanical (0 / 0)

    My daughter walks around naked on occasion. So do we, if we're just out of the shower. But if a butt or a nipple pops up on TV, I'm supposed to gasp and quickly cover my daughter's eyes? WHY? It's a human body. It's healthy. As long as its not soft-core porn or anything more explicit than that, my kids seeing nude bodies is A-OK with me.

    My kids watching blood and guts and shooting, on the other hand, is not OK with me.

    And I really don't get why the FCC is bothering with this 5 years after the fact.

    MotherTalkers moderator and mom to Maya, a 3.5-year-old firecracker.

    by Erika on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM PDT

  • i remember that episode (0 / 0)

    i was fan of the show.  and the explanation given behind ( so to speak ) the use of nudity in this particular scene totally came through to me.

    i don't mind nudity,although i get very annoyed with just female nudity.  

  • The new boss at work (0 / 0)

    is named David Caruso.  I work in a seriously groove doggy place since no one got my NYPD jokes.

    By the way- he looks nothing like that other David Caruso.  Really.

  • Maybe someone has already asked this (0 / 0)

    But when NYPD Blue showed the asses of the male actors, was ABC fined for showing "sexual organs"?  

    And yes, I'm still trying to figure out, besides leverage, how my butt helped create my babies.  Was my sex-ed class wrong?

Permalink | 22 comments