No Ifs, Ands, or Butts
Pardon me, by "Butts" I meant "Lady Butts."
The FCC recently fined ABC affiliates a total of $1.4 million for airing images of a lady's butt on broadcast TV. This particular 2003 episode of NYPD Blue wasn't the first time a naked butt was broadcast to the American public, but it may have been the first time that a pretty lady's naked butt was shown. You can watch the 42 sec lady butt scene in question, and mull over the inherent sexuality in Charlotte Ross' posterior. Then put your brain on rewind, and drum up some images of NYPD Blue's Dennis Franz, whose naked man butt was broadcast to America nearly 14 years ago without inspiring the FCC to fine anyone. Does his butt not possess a similar sexual potential?
We're dwelling on the sexuality of butts here because the FCC's rationale for last week's belated fine was that the NYPD Blue scene in question depicted "sexual organs," namely the buttocks. Sure, lady butts could be used sexually (we recommend buying us a drink before you breach that subject, cowboy), but in this particular scene, Charlotte Ross' butt was not engaged in any sexual activity. In fact, I would characterize it as a non-sexual butt, since the FCC once made a distinction between sexual and non-sexual uses of the word fuck. Contrary to this, the FCC mysteriously maintains that Charlotte Ross' butt is sexual, despite it not being involved in any sexing. Feds, pray tell: when is a butt merely a butt?
If a non-sexual lady butt is against the rules, but a non-sexual man butt aired nearly a decade earlier is ok, what does it all mean for the cartoon butts of today?
Follow this link for more FCC hijinks.
Photo via
Liz, you will probably enjoy this, a flier that infiltrated the local high school and caused a minor stir...
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/djrijk/?action=view¤t=DamHaus7_28_2007.jpg
Posted by: DJ Rick | January 30, 2008 at 02:41 PM
Mulling....mulling...mulling..mulling.mullingmullingmullingMULLINGMULLING...ahh......
Posted by: Muller | January 30, 2008 at 02:46 PM
I think spectacularness had something to do with it.
Posted by: Ann Onymous | January 30, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Homicide had better asses.
Posted by: murcuryvapor | January 30, 2008 at 03:01 PM
um...but man butts can be used for sex too, and i'd speculate more often, or at least equally.
FCC be retarded.
and not to offend the retarded, which the FCC is even more retarded than.
Posted by: zombot | January 30, 2008 at 04:43 PM
After careful scrutiny of the video I conclude that at :17 and :28 the crotch, underneath the buttocks and between the legs, is just barely but titillatingly visible for a moment. Though I would be hard pressed to identify the area of focus as pubic, labian, or vaginal. What can one say about the Republican/conservative imagination. Could they have been thinking about the sexual anus when they saw butt? If so, somebody has to be punished for the thought.
As for the acting, it is a trifle better than the average porno movie. I think it could have been improved if the kid had dropped his eyes and exclaimed "WOW!". Of course that would probably have trebled the fine.
Posted by: drporno | January 30, 2008 at 05:18 PM
So are they going to start blurring out people's mouths, too?
Posted by: Craig | January 30, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Abolish the FCC. Fines for airing content that people choose to receive is nothing short of violation of free speech.
Posted by: Max | January 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM
'we recommend buying us a drink before you breach that subject, cowboy'
classic. i'd even buy 2 drinks if that were the case.
Posted by: Steve PMX | January 31, 2008 at 09:01 AM
Perhaps they should start blurring pumpkins, old socks, electric toothbrushes. Or maybe if old socks and soupcans are in the same shot they should each have to have one foot on the floor. I don't see though what the butt could add storyline. I don't watch TV so much but I suspect there was no dialogue in this show to the effect of "Where was you bare ass on the night of the 12th?" Maybe a point system would work where each show is allowed a certain percentage of butt time and shows with no use for butt shots could sell off their butt points to other shows.
Posted by: bartleby | January 31, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I know it's sophomoric, but the phrases 'lady butt' and 'man butt' still make me giggle. Just say them out loud.
Posted by: JMet | January 31, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Howza'bout Man Can or Lass Ass?
What about forcing that poor boy to look at Ms. Ross' va jay jay? That's like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, no? Sounds like a criminal charge. I'd better get back to the 17 and 28 second marks now.....
Posted by: Dale Hazelton | January 31, 2008 at 04:45 PM
It is filmed in a smarmy fashion. You are being disingenuous in suggesting that the camera angles, lingering shot on her posterior, between the legs shot, and return to her naked body several times do not constitute something "sexual." It would be better if the FCC did not get involved of course, but it would also be good to avoid dishonesty.
Posted by: Rick | February 05, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I don't understand any of it. I don't understand how video footage of someone's butt requires classification.
I'm serious about that. It really stumps me.
Posted by: Zorbonk | February 10, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Um, if anyone is seriously interested, there is an actual strip club list of places in Chicago.
http://www.chicagostripclubslist.com
Posted by: Georgio | May 27, 2008 at 01:45 AM