A new fight against indecency that’s anything but ‘secret’

The far right was none-too-pleased when CBS aired the “Victoria’s Secret Lingerie Show” in 2002 and 2003, flooding the network and the FCC with organized outrage. In 2004, the network balked at bringing the show backing, suggesting to many that conservative activists had won. In the broader culture war, it was seen as a victory for the right.

But as is often the case with conservatives, success was fleeting.

After leaving its lingerie tucked away last year, Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is coming back.

The show, yanked from the air after Janet Jackson’s breast-baring performance in the 2004 Super Bowl, is returning to the runway, CBS announced Thursday.

“We missed it when we took it off the air last year,” Ed Razek, chief creative executive for the lingerie brand, said on Friday. “It’s clearly an important part of the brand’s DNA.”

CBS aired the show in 2002 and 2003 before deciding to pull it last year in the wake of “Nipplegate,” when the Federal Communications Commission cracked down on all things racy, raunchy and risque.

How irritated is the right? James Dobson’s Focus on the Family sent its members an alert with CBS President Leslie Moonves’ personal office phone number so outraged families could explain why they don’t want undergarments featured on network TV.

Looking back, the last time CBS aired the “Victoria’s Secret Lingerie Show,” FCC officials sat down with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Parents Television Council, the Family Research Council, and Bill Bennett’s Empower America, just to listen to them whine. When the 2004 show was cancelled, it seemed like this was over. It appears, however, you can’t keep a good lingerie program down.

In light of this year’s broadcast, I have a few questions:

* How much does CBS love this publicity?

* Does the show suggest the network’s fear of the puritanical movement is fading?

* Will the Parents Television Council successfully overwhelm the FCC’s phone lines?

* Will James Dobson watch the show, telling Mrs. Dobson that it’s necessary for “research purposes”?

Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show? Hopefully Tyra Banks! WooHoo!

  • Is there really a good side to this argument? Do I have to support cultural trash to be a good liberal?

    Not something I want to get my knickers in a twist about.

  • Not something I want to get my knickers in a twist about.

    “Knickers,” in a piece about underwear? I love irony!

  • I have to agree with Alex. I think adults should have the option to watch whatever they want, but (believe it or not) I’m not excited about increasing sexualization of pop culture.

  • I also agree with Alex, and have no intention of watching this show. That said, it’s nice to see Dobson et al. losing some of their ability to intimidate the mainstream media.

    Does anyone have Dobson’s personal office number? There are a few things I’d like to discuss with him.

  • While I agree that the sexualization of the media is somewhat regrettable (especially for those of us with kids) Dobson has a question to answer: If God didn’t want us to look at them, why the heck did he make those chicks so damn hot?

  • It’s not sex you bet against, it’s dollars.

    Ultimately, Bushocracy is doomed to fail because there’s profit to be made in things religion opposes.

    Stem cells? Billions in drug revenues.
    Boobs on TV? Billions in underwear.
    R-rated movies? Billions in ticket and DVD sales.

    In the long run, centrist policies will win out because big business has more money than James Dobson. If the GOP won’t get stem cells approved for Pfizer, then they’ll pay the Dems to do it.

  • I find it interesting that these people are so aghast at anything sexual, yet they can’t get enough death and destruction in Iraq.

    Naked people. Very bad.
    Dead people. Very good.

    I’m so pleased that they have their moral priorities in order. After all, where would all of us be if it weren’t for naked people?

    Naked people procreate. Dead people??? Not so much.

  • Comments are closed.