Ever since I learned to read, I've read everything I could get my hands on. At the age of seven, I knew that most breakfast cereals contained BHA and BHT, either in the cereal itself or in the packaging, as a preservative. It wasn't just the back of the cereal boxes I read, but every word on every side. What else was there to read at the breakfast table, that wouldn't get me yelled at by my siblings and my parents.

So it's no wonder that I read the Time magazine my mother subscribed to, from the age of 7. And even when I was 7, I realized that they would run a story involving nudity every three or four weeks in order to be able to run the accompanying photo. People subscribed to National Geographic because they could leave it on the coffee table without embarassment. Those pictures of naked natives from all over the world were socially acceptable, because National Geographic was educational. Crotch shots of pantyless celebrities exiting their limos was not.

Bill-O, The Clown

There are a lot of people in the media who heap criticism on Bill O'Reilly for frequently featuring salacious photos on his Fox News show while talking about how destructive these photos are to the public morality. Yeah, he's being hypocritical, but so are they. They're looking for a good reason to slam Bill O'Reilly, and while Bill O'Reilly does a lot to be slammed for, this is particularly transparent - and besides, in showing how horrible Bill O'Reilly is, they get to display the nudity as well by showing a clip from "The O'Reilly Factor".

There's a lot to criticize O'Reilly for, and being hypocritical is hardly his greatest fault. If he wants to show nekkid wimmen, and obviously he does, he needs some excuse to include it in his pseudo-news program. I like to show nekkid wimmen, too, the difference being that I don't have to make excuses. I figure it's OK to post a picture of a woman showing off her shapely rack, and simply say, "Wow. Ain't that a tattoo on her left ankle cute?" Or better yet, ploint out that it's sure been raining a lot, and she's wearing the perfect raingear: skin.

There's a difference between nudity and sensuality and sexuality, and they all strike us as just fine. But just as we find sex to be fun, and sometimes funny, rape is a different matter. It was pretty obvious that Janet Jackson displayed her breast, including interesting piercing jewelry, during halftime on purpose. It appears that the nude videos of Erin Andrews were made without her knowledge and consent.

Peddling It

Selling is legal, George Carlin pointed out, and sex is legal. Why, he asked, isn't selling sex legal? Well, some say, it's because prostitutes are invariably "white slaves", oppressed by their pimps. To that, I'd respond, "Take a look at most jobs! People put up with all kinds of crap from their employers in order to provide for their families." And in Nevada, where brothels are legal in most counties (although not in the major cities), prostitutes don't appear to be "white slaves." Because they are not violating the law, they feel free to call the police if they are abused.

It's no secret that television shows succeed largely because viewers find the characters appealing. Gregory House, MD, is misanthropic. You wouldn't want to work for him, nor with him, nor have him work for you, and he rarely sees patients, and you have to think that the patients would prefer it that way, if only they knew what House was like - but he's a funny character. I'm not a sports fan, and a few days ago, I had no idea Erin Andrews even existed, but I was well aware that they employed females, all of them beauty pageant attractive, to decorate their sports coverage. Erin was, to be blunt, peddling it - but she was pedding a "family-friendly" version.

Erin Andrews certainly could compete in beauty pageants. From the clothed photo shown here, she either has an extremely good bra, or a spectacular rack. From the video still, it would appear that it's an extremely good bra and a rather nice pair of hooters. And neither you nor I, nor ESPN, nor Ms. Andrews, would argue that she would have that job if she looked like Janet Reno. (And that's not to say that Janet Reno is repulsive. Considering her health problems, Reno is exceptionally appealing.)

Gift Versus Theft

I don't think Erin Andrews is upset at the nudity so much as that her privacy was violated. It could be that I'm projecting, of course. I'm not modest. If you were to nicely ask me to disrobe, and there was nobody present who would be offended, I'd be happy to do so, even if you're a man. If I were to walk downstairs and find you wandering around my living room, and you'll need to talk awfully fast to avoid having a baseball bat swinging at your head.

I don't understand rapists. I can't imagine anyone deriving pleasure from harming someone. Even if I find you wandering around my living room, as I swing that baseball bat at your head, I won't be thinking "Oh, goody, I got him", but rather "Oh, damn, will I be able to get the blood splatters out of the couch?" Even with sadists and masochists, where pain is part and parcel of the sexual experience, the pain is enjoyable to the parties involved. In my experience, most women seem to feel the same way; the tension of the social intercourse in a sexual relationship is that each of us is more concerned with giving pleasure than getting pleasure. I don't know about most men; I haven't had sex with men since I was about 5 years old, and I was unconscious during most of that experience.

ESPN, The White Knight

It's taken me a long time to get to the gist of the post - like that's unusual? - but ESPN has jumped in with both feet. Their lawyers have been aggressively working to get video clips taken down from internet sites. They've asked news outlets to not publish these intrusive stills. (The one I have above was taken from a Chinese news site.) And when the New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, the same as Fox News where O'Reilly's show airs, published stills from the videos, they cast the newspaper into Coventry.

“In light of the New York Post’s decision to run graphic photos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews," Chris LaPlaca, ESPN’s senior VP of communications announced, "we have decided to stop utilizing Post reporters on any of our outlets.”

I don't see a chilling effect on news coverage. It certainly didn't stop me from posting that still above. What I do see is a company respecting their employee and defending that employee vigorously against an outrage.

That may not end it. The New York Daily News says the video may have been shot by a fellow ESPN employee. The video was initially uploaded to a website in France; that website thinks the uploaded was a 49-year-old man. (Everything posted by that user has been wiped from their site.) Given that information, it should be pretty easy for ESPN to figure out what 49-year-old employee with the technical skills to set up a peephole camera was in the right city at the right time.

And fire him. "Andrews has been grievously wronged here," said ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz. "Our people and resources are in full support of her as she deals with this abhorrent act." So far, ESPN is off to a good start. Let's hope they prove themselves to be a good employer.

Other Bloggers On Related Topics:
Bill O'Reilly - employers - Erin Andrews - ESPN - hypocrisy - Janet Reno - National Geographic - New York Daily News - Rupert Murdoch - Time magazine