Janet Jackson's overexposure

Of course, when I have a wardrobe malfunction it usually means I lose a button or my hem unravels. It typically doesn't refer to somebody grabbing my shirt and yanking. That aside, does America need to know if there is a cover up over Jackson's uncovering?

A better investigation would be - just what in the world is that sunburst thing she was wearing? Is it a pasty or a piercing? How the heck does it stay on? And if the incident wasn't a stunt, is that really something that is comfortable to wear underneath your clothing? C'mon, inquiring minds want to know.

Then came the news that the duo was close to being banned from the Grammy Awards. While this might be considered tit for tat, does banning them really send any sort of message other than that they accomplished their goal to shock, titillate and keep water coolers abuzz for days? Continuing this investigation just adds fuel to the fire. Let it go and watch Jackson fizzle like her latest single.

Regardless of individual opinions of the peep show, it is difficult to believe that CBS and even the NFL are as completely floored by the display as they would have us believe. If you hire MTV to spice up your telecast and the network promises "shocking" moments, you can't really expect a Pat Boone tribute band. It is no different than when a San Francisco television station was recently slapped with a hefty fine after players from "Puppetry of the Penis" gave the home audience quite a look at what the show is about.

If America is to raise its eyebrows at the half-time show, why is it not also blushing at the thought of the much-hyped Lingerie Bowl? Or for that matter, other incidents throughout the year such as the Victoria's Secret fashion show? Add to that, some of the dresses worn to award shows. Anybody remember the infamous navel-bearing dress that Jennifer Lopez wore to the Grammy's or the Lil' Kim pasty number at the 1999 MTV movie awards? No actual nipple made an appearance, but it was close. At that point what really is the difference in an inch of flesh?

Besides, it is surprising that anything can shock the networks, or American viewers, for that matter. These are the same airwaves that now allow fairly lenient degrees of profanity and where blood splatters and dead bodies are the norm. And this is the same half-time spectacle that also boasted crotch-grabbing rappers, gaseous horses and commercials for erectile dysfunction. These are not good examples of American prudishness.

As for the breast? It is simply that - a body part. The dancing, the groping and the general innuendo of the song can be called into question as inappropriate for television. A piece of somebody's body should not.

It is called the boob tube, after all.

Michelle Durand's column "Off the Beat" runs every Monday and Thursday. She can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 104. What do you think of this column? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.