For many years I have been familiar with the image of Liberty as depicted by Delacroix.
I first saw it, however, not in the painting, but in another work that was inspired by it: the flag that was carried by the Texians at the Battle of San Jacinto.
This battle-torn flag has hung in the Texas State Capitol for many years. During all that time, the bare-breasted figure of Liberty has, to my knowledge, never offended a soul. There has been no attempt to remove the flag, or to cover the breasts of Liberty, or to expurgate it in any way (as was recently done when Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the bare-breasted statue in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice to be covered).
On the contrary, the San Jacinto flag is, and always has been, greatly venerated, and the breasts of Liberty have always been understood to symbolize, not something prurient, but rather, the nourishment we, the People, derive from Liberty.
The goddess Liberty, as depicted in the San Jacinto flag and the Delacroix painting, is an image of strength--noble, powerful, and defiant, holding the flag high, while leading the charge against Tyranny.
However, the image of a man aggressively ripping off part of a woman’s clothes to reveal her breast is not an image of strength. It is not noble; it is ignoble. It does not convey power; it conveys powerlessness. And it is not defiant; it is degrading.
Had the female singer in the Super Bowl halftime show exposed her breast of her own accord, without assistance from her male partner in the duet, then it might have conveyed a message having to do with Liberty.
She would have seemed to be leading the charge, rather than passively accepting her fate, like a slave denuded in the marketplace.
People would have complained had she done this. No doubt about that. But, at least, the display would have come closer to portraying Liberty, if that was the intent.
Was that the intent? Was this some kind of message about Liberty meant to be decoded by a select few?
I do not know. But I know this:
Liberty--true Liberty--is not for the select few; it is for the many. And the message that the many received from this performance had nothing to do with Liberty.
The message, for instance, that millions of young girls received was that they are not worthy of the respect of men; they are weak and lowly and exist only for the pleasure of their masters.
And millions of young boys were taught in that Great Moment of Broadcast History that women are to be won, not with affection, tenderness, and respect, but by behaving like brutes. Want to see a tit? Rip off her shirt.
If this broadcast was meant to strike a blow for Liberty, it failed in another way--and a very important way.
To understand why a thing happens, we must often wait to see the results. And what were the results of this tawdry episode?
First, the “conservative” pundits began to squawk, complaining about immorality on television and the need for censorship. This empowered the FCC to launch an investigation, and also led the television networks to announce that they will now institute broadcast delays at both the Grammy and Academy Awards.
Thus, we will probably never see another truly live broadcast in this country again; from now on, we will all be protected, not only from the “unplanned” sight of a woman’s breasts, but from any unplanned political speeches at the Academy Awards as well.
Like most crises, then, this one was contrived by the elites, who had the “solution” ready--the solution in this case being Censorship.
And that is not the only result. The television program ER, which had by “coincidence” planned to show a woman’s breasts in an upcoming episode, has now been forced to censor the scene.
Which will cause the “liberals” to squawk: What’s wrong with a woman’s breast? Why can’t we see a woman’s breast on television when we can see violence all the time? Give us the freedom to see women’s breasts! Stop censoring women’s breasts! Squawk, squawk, squawk.
And, after they have squawked long enough, and loud enough, they will get the freedom to see women’s breasts. We will, eventually, get to see women’s breasts on television all the time. And everyone will be happy, thinking they have won some great freedom, when in fact they have won nothing.
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote: "As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator ... will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate."
Viacom’s MTV, which produced the halftime show, has long been at the forefront in the mainstreaming of kink. Oh, how free we all will be, when at last their noble cause succeeds. We will not have the freedom to speak our minds, the freedom to bear arms, the freedom to live without fear of unreasonable search and seizure, or any freedom that is worth a damn. But, at least, we will have the “freedom” to choose between rubber and leather, AC and DC, Sadism and Masochism, or spike heels and handcuffs.
Or, to put the mainstreaming of kink in Orwellian terms: We will learn that Bondage is Freedom.
