"NSFWPD Blue" or "Nudity vs. Prudity"

In a move that will either (a) cost ABC 1.4 million dollars, or (b) cost the FCC its last ounce of credibility, the Federal Communications Commission recently fined the network for an episode of NYPD Blue which aired way back in 2003 and featured female nudity.

The clip from that episode is currently available on YouTube, although who knows for how long, but this link is working as of right now. Let me reiterate that the clip features a beautiful naked woman in all her natural glory (gasp!) so the video is probably not safe for work, church picnics, or show and tell.



In case the YouTube clip disappears, here's a vidcap of Charlotte Ross' posterior for posterity.

(In case you haven't figured it out by now, the picture is not exactly safe for work either. Scroll down to see the image and read the rest of my thoughts on the subject.)

































I love this story for countless reasons, including the fact that it brought this clip to my attention. I think every heterosexual male who watched the show back in the day was eagerly awaiting a nude scene from Charlotte Ross, but this episode aired long after I, and most of the western world, had stopped watching the show, which is just one reason the FCC decision is so ridiculous.

It wasn't too hard to find a history of female nudity on NYPD Blue, and judging by the still frames, this Charlotte Ross clip was arguably the most explicit nude scene in the show's history, although a couple of Amy Brenneman's come close, so what makes this scene fine-worthy?

Is it the fact that there's a child involved? Is it the fact that the camera offers a long, lingering look at Charlotte Ross from the rear, plus side-boob during the walk to the shower, or is it because the shaky cam operator makes an oh-so-subtle move to go back for seconds later in the scene? Is it the between the thighs shot of the kid, or the angle from behind his head where his jug ears give the impression of areolas? Or is it the barely concealed boobies and va-ja-jay in the final shot when Charlotte Ross covers herself up to spare the kid a memory he'll savour forever permanent psychological damage? According to the FCC, it's none of these things. It's the fact that the episode aired at 9:00 pm in several time zones.

ABC had gotten away with brief glimpses of flesh in the past by airing the show at 10:00 pm, but the rules are different at 9:00pm. Apparently all children automatically fall into REM sleep at precisely 9:59 pm, thereby making them immune to any smut aired after ten o'clock. I mean, if they didn't, such hard and fast rules wouldn't make any sense, now would they?

According to the FCC, "We find that the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks."

First of all, the buttocks are not sexual organs. They're not even organs. For Charlotte Ross to reveal her sexual organs, she would have had to bend over much, much farther than she did.

There's a big difference between sexual organs and sexy. If the FCC were to fine networks for everything that men find sexually stimulating, all women on TV would be required to wear burqas.

And I love the part where the FCC describes the buttocks as "excretory organs". In my experience, the only thing the buttocks ever excrete is sweat. I don't know what those filthy pervs at the FCC imagine they saw, but the camera didn't zoom in that close.

If I sat down and looked at the FCC regulations that were in place at the time, I'm sure I'd find that ABC did violate those rules. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that the rules are laughable.

Who exactly is the FCC trying to protect? More and more kids today are abandoning television for the internet where they're never more than three clicks away from Britney Spears' vagina.

And didn't the ten years of controversy regarding NYPD Blue give parents enough prep time? Surely the V-Chip and the repeated warnings during the broadcast would have saved the vast majority of America's fragile, impressionable minds - both young and old - from being exposed to this filth. This intoxicating, life-affirming, god-given filth.

Clearly this fine is either a cash grab or an attempt to appease the Christian lobbyists who make the vast majority of all complaints to the FCC anyway. I think it's time for the rest us to fight back.

If you want to contact the FCC to complain about this prudish decision, here's how to reach them:

1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL FCC) Voice: toll-free
1-888-835-5322 (1-888-TELL FCC) TTY: toll-free
1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

If you're in the Washington area and want to lodge a complaint in person, you can do so at the following address:

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

The FCC also has regional offices all over the country, but I can't find the addresses on their website, so if you truly want to complain in person, I'm sure the good people at the above phone numbers would help you find the nearest branch.

My suggestion for a suitable complaint would be to bring a friend with a camera and send me a picture of yourself mooning FCC headquarters, making sure to get both the FCC logo and your booty in the frame. (No excretory organs, please. This is not that kind of site.)

Since the FCC is so disturbed by the female form, I think it makes more sense to have women exposing their orifices to the FCC's offices. I won't stop men from freeing their cheeks in the name of free speech, but the FCC never had any problem with Dennis Franz, Jimmy Smits, or David Caruso dropping trou, so I think it would have more of an impact if the mooning was done by women. Preferably young, supple women with lower back tattoos.

I'll post your pictures if you send me a link to a Flickr account or some similar service, or email me at thinking (dot) idiot (at) yahoo (dot) com.

I may even dedicate a separate website to this endeavor if response warrants it.