It’s About Time We Addressed the 800-lb. Nipple in the Room

It's about time we settled this whole nipple thing, once and for all.

Is there a problem with nipples? Not for me. I'm all for 'em. A pair at a time, singly, or even supramammary. Consider me a downright areolar, erectile enthusiast.

But here's the problem, at least by the FCC's broadcasting standards: nipples are not appropriate on the electromagnetic spectrum from wavelengths between10 centimeters to 10 meters, even though most nipples are under 2-3 centimeters, tops. According to the FCC, nipples just should not be flying through the air along these currents, nor should nipples be digitally deconded/re-encoded for digital portrayal via cathode rays or LED pixels. Even though they are important and figured prominently in our species' survival and evolution, the FCC just can't abide nipples, even though those in the FCC who eschew them, have them.

I was watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel about a transgender individual who was going through the stages of surgical alteration into the gender he wanted to be, or alternately, the masculinized person who wanted to be transgendered to female. It was free to watch, although it was sponsored by Geico. As the documenary opened, it promised that the story would center around removal of male sex organs, contruction of a neovagina, hormonal supplementation with estrogens and other female hormones, and breast implants. Now it is policy that nowhere can be shown male sex organs or female sex organs. Penises, penis-like objects, vaginas (even neovaginas), and anuses (for which I'm grateful) cannot be shown. I've come to terms with these forbidden items. But there are organs that both male and females have--nipples--and here is where the paradoxical FCC compliance disintegrates into a hypocritical mind set.

Although men and women both have anuses, it is the anus itself that renders it forbidden, and not who it's on. But with nipples, this just doesn't hold milk. The transgender individual was featured on the show--don't remember his (her) name--let's call him (her) a nice millennial name:Taylor. Taylor's story begins with her initial visit to the surgeon. During the evaluation, she is still a he, so the documentary has no issues with showing him from the waist up as the doctor does the physical exam. There they are--Taylor's nipples. His male nipples. They look just fine, too. Two small hyperpigmented spots. No controversy...yet.

Next, the first surgical phase begins, wherein her doctor inserts the breast implants. During the surgery scene, everything is pixelated, so it's hard to know if the nipples were visible; this was obviously due to the "gross" guts factor, since the FCC also has policies regarding gross guts, oozing, ruptures, and generally any type of horrible bodily cataclisms, unless it's on CSI or cable...then it's called entertainment, which falls squarely into a category called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. But here's where everything begins getting sticky. On Taylor's postoperative visit to her doctor, she is once again examined from the waist up. The "him" nipples, now on a "her," are pixelated out. Thomas Jefferson groans from his grave.

WAIT JUST A GODDAMN MINUTE! I JUST SAW THOSE NIPPLES ONE GIECO COMMERCIAL AGO!

They're not different. They're the same nipples. The surgery didn't change the nipples. Taylor's "him" nipples are no different from her "her" nipples. So what's the deal? I wrack my brain to try to rationalize why I'm not allowed to see Taylor's nipples now. The only thing that comes to me is...bulbosity.

Bulbosity: quality of being shaped like a bulb, being swollen, or bulging.

Aha! The implants imparted bulbosity. What is a female breast, exactly? It is a mammary gland, designed to produce milk for infants via breastfeeding. The mammary glands constitute the bulk that gives the female breasts their bulbosity--or in this case, their mammosity. Lactation is not about the nipple, it's about the bulbosity. Were the nipples pixelated because they were--not nipples--but trussed up by mammary glands? Not in Taylor's case, because Taylor had no mammary glands--just implants. Faux bulbosity. Faux mammosity.

Yet, if one were to watch any re-runs of Baywatch, there is bulbosity-a'plenty. It's allowed. Bulbosity above the nipples is fine, and that's called cleavage; cleavage is acceptable by broadcast standards and practices. Bulbosity below the nipples if fine, too, although approaching "the line" a bit, like side-breast ("Viewer discretion is advised.") Bulbosity above the nipples is PG-13. Bulbosity below the nipples or to the side is TV-14. But the dreaded female nipples themselves remain "X" on television, even though they're only "R" in movies.

Nevertheless, Taylor's need to have her nipples pixelated was obviously not because of her nipples, which were the same nipples I saw before the Geico commercial. And it wasn't because of their new, aesthetically pleasing bulbosity, because I've seen Pamela Anderson's bulbosity many times in primetime. It wasn't cleavage, either, because I've seen plenty of that, even on obese men on TV. When it comes to the FCC, is it that nipples just aren't that simple? Is there a complicated formula at work here that is used by the FCC to designate what is viewable and what is not?

Nipples + bulbosity + cleavage + intentional allusion to female anatomy (original or noe-constructed) = no-go. And a fine--just ask Jane Jackson.

The intentional allusion to female anatomy seems to be the key here. This is obviously a sexual reference. Nipples cannot be shown if they're female and being used for sex. But wait--Taylor wasn't having sex with her doctor. Maybe she did later, which would be a whole different story altogether, but there was definitely no sex during the entire nipplementory. Is it that showing nipples, now portrayed on the recently acquired female bulbosity, will make the TV viewer want to have sex with Taylor? Not with that penis that we all know is still there. Unless it makes a woman want to have sex with Taylor and her penis, in spite of her male nipples but female bulbosity and cleavage. This is a different situation altogether, because keeping something titillating (sorry) from the public because it might make someone think lascivious thoughts smacks of making "thought police" O.K. Is it O.K, George Orwell?

What about a woman wanting to become a man? Will the nipples remain pixelated after she has a breast reduction? Probably not. Once a female nipple, always a female nipple. What if Taylor ends up regretting her transgender surgeries. If she goes back to the surgeon to be made male again, will her nipples be unpixelated after removing the implants?

I am almost 900 words into this rant, trying to make sense of why I can see the same exact nipples before the Geico commercial, but not after. Every which way I am vexed and thwarted. Then the only thing that makes sense finally dawns on me:

It's the government, stupid!

It doesn't need to make sense, so stop fretting over two little hyperpigmented spots and when you see pixels, just use your imagination. That's not illegal...yet.