Apparently morality relates to broadcast-ability, however.
Sydney Morning Herald reports
on the new edict:
Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered. Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare fleshy under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack. Bare sides or under curvature of the breasts is also problematic. Please avoid sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples. Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible “puffy” bare skin exposure.
"Please avoid commercial identification of actual brand name products on T-shirts. Foreign language on wardrobe will need to be cleared. OBSCENITY OR PARTIALLY SEEN OBSCENITY ON WARDROBE IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR BROADCAST.
If obscenity was really a problem, they’d put on a movie instead. That part relates to the sheeplike “bad boys” (aka baad boys) whose “Looka me!” stuff involves some Oscar-dodging amateur theatricals during speeches, etc.
Let’s go through this missive:
Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered.
Not egos? The difference is small, to be sure, but the egos are the cause of the problem, particularly for butt-ugly “stars” who haven’t heard a word against their appearance since the age of about five.
Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare fleshy under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack. Bare sides or under curvature of the breasts is also problematic.
Well swoonsies. Again, we’re talking about the only possibility of these nobodies getting noticed. Those outfits are the only things that keep the paparazzi alive on red carpet nights, too. “Daring” outfits support fashion designers and other essential services, too.
Please avoid sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples. Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible “puffy” bare skin exposure.
Yawn. Not “please at least try to look like you’ve got some talent”, but mere anatomy, however uninteresting? Boobs, schmoobs. More interestingly, the combination of genital areas and puffy flesh is a revealing insight (sorry) into the broadcast mindset, where what is seen has priority over what is actually broadcast. Never mind a few hours of solid boredom, predictable commentary and “shocking” non-moments, don’t show people you may be able to reproduce, particularly if you’re “puffy”.
You can see where this is likely to have a major impact on people pretending to be “rebellious youth” and “street people”. It’s like the canned goods aisle in a supermarket. Expect mindless conformity as these cockroach wannabes get lectures from their agents, publicists, etc.
The only good thing about this is that they may finally put an end to the interminable “wardrobe malfunctions” that can be achieved with a bit of simple Velcro in the right places.
The potential risk for the Grammys is that the usual herd of livestock on camera will now have to do something other than just stand there to be noticed. Some may even attempt to use some sort of language. That’d be awful, wouldn't it, Gladys? Yes, Maud.
Might be useful for young viewers, though, when they finally see how boring these people really are. Take away the “naughty” image, and they’ve got nothing.
Expect Disney to take over. Check out this video of Daisy Duck, dancing bare ass. That’s talent. She's also a better dancer.