Breasts don't leave ocular scar tissue

Houston, we have a wardrobe malfunction."\nAnd now, CBS has a problem. MTV has a problem. The National Football League has a problem. The Federal Communications Commission has a problem. And of course, the American Family Association has a problem.\nThe logic is simple. Premise: There was a breast on network television. Conclusion: The world is going to hell. Frankly, I think the worst we can expect is a 10-day stint in limbo for this one.\nI personally witnessed the episode from a comfy couch, and I would state under oath it wasn't that impressive. The stage encompassing shot, i.e. far away, lasted for a few seconds at most. Centered in the frame, Justin Timberlake yanked at Janet Jackson's D-cup until, by some miracle, it came off in his hand. A 12-year-old boy's dream-come true.\nAnd herein lies the problem. There were millions of 12-year-olds in attendance. In response, outraged parents "flooded [the CBS switchboard] with angry phone calls," according to ABC News Online, in an attempt to salvage their children's virgin eyes post facto.\nTheir complaints were over-the-top by any standard.\n"That was the most disgusting thing that I have ever seen at a sports spectacle," baseball coach Tommy Lasorda told the BBC. "They just absolutely ruined the fact that it was one of the greatest Super Bowl games that I have ever seen."\nOh please! When did a glimpse of a woman's body ever ruin a guy's day? I certainly hope Lasorda never once looked at the cheerleaders -- his entire week would be destroyed!\nAnd people complained about more than the tumbling tit. The American Family Association details all of the show's sexual offenses in its rather indignant Web site. It lists, in order, "Janet Jackson grabbing her breasts, Sean P. Diddy repeatedly fondling his crotch, striptease cheerleaders, gyrating transvestites (gyrating transvestites!?), simulated lesbian sex and Jackson and Timberlake groping each other."\nIn a footnote, it also condemns the Bud Lite chimpanzee for making advances on his attractive female owner. Bad monkey!\nSomething seems incredibly backward about this.\nI simply cannot understand America's aversion to sex when it simultaneously embraces violent entertainment. Why do parents choose to expose children to senseless, counter-productive violence over enjoyable, wonderful sex? Why prefer hurtful acts to the greatest physical pleasure in nature?\nI have a suggestion. Let's listen to Europe and company for once -- they figured this out long ago. Across the big pond, a harmless breast is just that -- harmless. But you certainly cannot keep an AK-47 in your flat with a $10 collector's permit.\nTo exemplify the difference in mindsets, I hunted the Internet for a photo of what Janet actually bared. There were plenty of pictures on reputable American Web sites, but they were all covered before or after shots. In fact, I had to go all the way to New Zealand to find an uncensored close-up of the offending orb.\nThey printed it in the newspaper.\n America needs to stop kidding itself. Sex is about as natural as it gets, so don't worry about it so much. Just because a child sees a body part on television does not mean he or she will lead an any less moral life than they would otherwise.\nPlease don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating slipping a porno into the child's VCR. What I am asking is for parents to re-evaluate their priorities. Watching a "Lord of the Rings" slaughter on a 50-foot screen will damage your child more than an inch-wide, middle-aged breast on a two-foot television ever will.