Jump directly to the content
Home > 2013 > February > We Saw Your Satire > All Comments

Displaying 1–28 of 28 comments

Obannon leo

March 28, 2013  8:33am

The message is this: Women can show their boobs in film, but men are not allowed to sing about it. Tut, tut, men!

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

March 07, 2013  8:33pm

Garbage in, garbage out. Philippians 4:8

Report Abuse

Sarah Shaver

March 06, 2013  3:03pm

well, shootie-darn. i laughed out loud at the song, as did my husband. i'm not a fan of nudity or blatant sex in films or on tv, as i believe it objectifies God's creation. i took the song in my little pointed head as, "hey, you 'serious' actress, you sniffed and looked down your nose and said you got naked for 'art,' but you know what? you are no better than a girl gone wild! HA!" and i thought that was pretty hilarious. when the gay men's chorus joined in i almost fell in the floor. i'm not a seth mcfarlane fan (my kids aren't allowed to watch 'family guy,' unlike most of their friends) but thanks to my parents steeping me in monty python and early saturday night live, i'm pretty sure i know good satire when i see it. some of the rest of mcfarlane's stuff was gross and some was funny. like most of life.

Report Abuse


March 05, 2013  4:02pm

Interesting to see that Jamie Lee Curtis and Jane Fonda expressed their disapproval of the song this week. So it seems that one cannot say that all of the actors and actresses in Hollywood were in on the gag. To be honest, I didn't see many smiling faces when the cameras panned the audience. Perhaps what is satire for one was over the line and offensive for those targeted - even in Hollywood.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

March 05, 2013  11:25am

A major problem today is this matter of people (including Christians) giving their opinions without taking the time to compare their opinions with the Word of God to see if they measure up. This has been happening so long, it seems that very few people even care anymore what God's Word says about anything, only what they think. The Lord tells us of a nation that fell into terrible depravity and destruction because "each man did what was right in his own eyes". This begins with believing that whatever we think is right and good in our own eyes, not first submitting our thoughts to God's Holy Word for confirmation or correction. (Isaiah 55:8-9, Proverbs 16:25, 2 Timothy 3:16, et al)

Report Abuse

Jeanne Coppola

March 05, 2013  8:40am

Whether I agree with you or not is not as important to me as you giving an honest opinion as a Christian woman without being afraid. I love that!

Report Abuse

Greg Smith

March 05, 2013  8:03am

Why is her-meneutics always the column that gets it wrong?

Report Abuse

Ken johnson

March 04, 2013  7:17pm

One of the things I like least about our culture is that everyone feels the necessity to respond to every little thing and analyze it to death. Maybe it's about time Christians just give up on some of these cultural events, realizing that they are never going to be satisfied with how the secular subculture behaves. I know it's nice to be involved in our culture as much as possible, but this whole thing reminds me of my Christian mother watching something on TV back in the day that was a little off-color (Not by today's standards, of course.) All the while she was watching it, she kept repeating,"this is terrible, this is terrible". I'm telling you folks what I told her, "Turn it off!" Read a book! (I'm sorry... a Kindle.)

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

March 03, 2013  11:06am

Karen Fahel, it seems the "family hour" has been a thing of the past for quite some time. Sadly so. There's been a general coarsening of society for years, it's only getting worse, and this is just one of the casualties. I even see non-family-friendly shows listed on "family channels".

Report Abuse

steve page

March 03, 2013  5:46am

I wonder why anyone watched the Oscars at all, to be honest.

Report Abuse

Marci piper

March 02, 2013  6:52pm

I would have to agree with Jeff above -- "This column smacks of someone intellectualizing something that deserves criticism rather than speculation about how it could be interpreted" I was truly disappointed in this response. I was much more impressed with this much more thoughtful and intellectual response by Amy Davidson in the very secular New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/02/seth-macfarlane-and -the-oscars-hostile-ugly-sexist-night.html I am tired of women acquiescing to bad humor "low art" as women are demeaned and devalued these days at alarming rates. We can't just let is slide anymore and be "one of the boys".

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

March 02, 2013  2:04pm

I read an interview with Seth MacFarlane last weekend. Hearing his views on virtually everything, including his virulent distaste for Christian beliefs, and learning of the TV shows he's created (at least he's consistent), I knew I didn't want to watch the Oscars. The only good thing I've heard about it since then is that he has vowed not to host it again.

Report Abuse

Jeff Pittman

March 02, 2013  1:07pm

This column smacks of someone intellectualizing something that deserves criticism rather than speculation about how it could be interpreted. The author is too consumed with being considered hip or bright. Her comments, framed against Christian thinking, are at once self indulgent and vapid.

Report Abuse

C Teter

March 02, 2013  9:26am

I had a chuckle at the song, but as the show progressed, problem after problem cropped up. By problem, I mean fairly obvious moments of "putting women in their places" (along with various racial other slurs). When added together, this made "We Saw Your Boobs" a problem too. If the tone had continued to be light and satirical, the song might have (and I use might generously, I think) been acceptable as satire, but instead the show slid into degradation after degradation of women in all walks of life. I like the perspective here because I don't think we have to hate something or be offended by it merely since the word "boobs" is in the title, but I also disagree that, after it all, it was a fun and satirical glance at the choices and demands for nudity.

Report Abuse

Karen Fahel

March 01, 2013  5:22pm

I have to admit that, silently, I thought the song was funny. I'm a huge Kate Winslet fan, and when he got to her name, I wanted to laugh out loud. Unfortunately, I couldn't, because I had let my two young daughters, ages 8 and 10, watch the beginning, thinking that it was during the "Family Hour" and knowing that Best Animated Picture would be one of the early presentations. I was embarrassed for my girls, for my husband (who absolutely hated it), and, yes, for myself. Something like that should have been shown later in the evening, if that, because there were children in the audience as well, including the lovely little 9-year-old Best Actress nominee. Yeah, I get the point, the whole Shatner telling MacFarland how inappropriate he would be known in the future, blah blah blah... Satire and burlesque is all well and good, but there is a time and a place for it...and during the "Family Hour" on television was NOT it.

Report Abuse

Byron Borger

March 01, 2013  4:02pm

I'm a fan of Karen Swallow Prior, and glad for this amazing piece. I did not like the song, didn't think it was all that clever or funny, let alone intentionally insightful. That it was, technically, "burlesque" is a good insight, though. But satire? I don't think so. (Can satire even be "unintentional"? Hmm.) I think Arpin-Ricci's comments are helpful, inviting us to a bit more serious cultural discernment. But this was a fascinating essay, and gladly thank those who make us rethink a bit.

Report Abuse

K. Smith

March 01, 2013  2:20pm

If you haven't seen the song, look at it online. It really is funny - little boy silly, yes, but sinful, no. I laughed because it was so absurd, and I thought that MacFarlane was gently poking fun at the actresses for thinking that they'll get ahead by exposing themselves. I too loved Jennifer Lawrence's fist pump because she hasn't been seen topless. As for the shots of the actresses in the audience, they were in on the act because their outfits were different from what they were wearing that night.

Report Abuse

Natalie Hart

March 01, 2013  7:04am

Count me among those who found the song funny. I like how it punctured the overinflated balloon (not intended as a comment about Hollywood women and breast enhancement, but works for that, too) of seriousness about the showing of breasts in movies, how often it is such a serious conversation about art and necessity, which it may be. But if that were true, there would be far more instances of art and necessity to the showing of male frontal nudity. Since Hollywood power structures are so male, we get the art and necessity of female frontal nudity -- i.e. the puerile giggle of "we saw your boobs." My favorite part of the performance was Jennifer Lawrence's fist pump because we hadn't seen her topless.

Report Abuse

Vic Christian

March 01, 2013  5:58am

I am sorry - did not see or hear about this event at the Oscars. Something about this brings up the idea of Christians in the early church being told that it wasn't really that bad in watching events at the Roman Coliseum or watching other Christians being put to death. What part of "Be Holy as I am Holy" do you not understand? I am not talking about judging others, but judging yourself and examining what you will br part of.

Report Abuse

Tim Fall

February 28, 2013  5:41pm

Gary Roseboom, Galatians 5:1 says that the writer has the freedom to write this very article. Also, when it comes to focusing on what is noble, etc. (Philippians 4:8), that's exactly what the writer here is calling us to do by calling out the financially motivated prurient pandering found in many films. At least, that's the point I got from the article. Blessings, Tim ( timfall.wordpress.com )

Report Abuse


February 28, 2013  5:08pm

Philippians 4:8 just might suggest that this column is not worthy of a Christian periodical, irony and humor notwithstanding.

Report Abuse

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

February 28, 2013  2:07pm

To call that song satire, intentional or otherwise, seems to me to be an insult to good satirists everywhere. And to say, "At worst, the song was merely the puerile snickering befitting a 13-year-old boy" is to demonstrate that you have no taken the criticisms & concerns seriously. Even if you end up disagreeing with critics, there are clearly worse implications than what you "merely" mention. However, let's say for a minute that it is, in fact, satire. In the measure of impact or quality of said satire, who felt the barb the sharpest? I think anyone with an objective consideration would still say that women were (and continue to be) the ones to pay the price. Charlize Theron's look will stick with amongst the many others. So, by your own standard of satire, I still think we must say that this number was a massive failure, doing more harm than possible good. UPDATE: Apparently, Theron's reaction was a pre-recorded shot, as she was in on the gag. I find that disappointing.

Report Abuse

Rachel Stephan Simko

February 28, 2013  1:31pm

I didn't watch much of the Oscars, but my husband (who is very sensitive to "inappropriate" humor, especially at the expense of women) said he didn't understand what the fuss was about. What I saw wasn't too bad either... especially since, hey - it's Seth MacFarlane - what did anyone expect? Seriously. I think people just like to hate the Oscar host. No one is ever good enough. evenonesparrow.blogspot.com

Report Abuse

Jack Ratekin

February 28, 2013  12:31pm

I noticed the audience shots as well and I want to point out two things: 1. How was it that the director knew exactly when and where to point the cameras; 2. how did the audience members in question manage to act abashed at exactly the same time theire names were mentioned? Conclusion: they were in on the gag. Do not feel to badly for the sensibilities of these performers.

Report Abuse


February 28, 2013  12:15pm

While i agree with your description of the function of satire —"Puerility is in the eye of the beholder?" Really? It would be nice to believe Seth MacFarlane's performance really had the layered and nuanced meanings you see in it. The faces of the actresses shown during the song suggest otherwise. And many of them are young, hip and witty enough to recognize sophisticated irony.

Report Abuse

Bethany Harvey

February 28, 2013  11:56am

my husband (who does like seth mcfarlane's humor) came home from work the other day talking about this performance. we both had a good laugh and i googled the "song" just to see if it was as ridiculous as it sounded. (it was--but i can't help it, i still laughed.) i love your statement, because it sums up what the whole point of satire is supposed to be: "It is ridiculous to so trivialize—and this is the very correction satire offers if we are willing to let ourselves laugh at it first."

Report Abuse

Bob Bobo

February 28, 2013  11:43am

Well said Karen. But I have to ask why three pages didicated to this subject in a christian magazine and who are you talking to? Are you talking to legalistic christians who were "shocked and appalled" at that routine and instantly berated it as so unchristian like? Are you dending Jesus loving believers for laughing at it and explaining why it was just plain funny, and not sexual sin? And that its ok to laugh at the song becuase its funny. You cerainly showed your knowledge of the english language and understanding of the meaning of "obscene" and what it means. Help me understand "why" this is important to christians? Thanks

Report Abuse

Tim Fall

February 28, 2013  10:59am

Thanks for the fun primer on satire, Karen. And at the risk of falling onto the classical sense of obscenity, I'm going to focus on your friend's comment about how "boobs" is a funny word. A couple years back we went to our daughter's college orientation and found ourselves at a table with one of the young men. He had one of those "I Love Boobies" bracelets on. I told him I thought it a shame that some high schools had banned them, and we got to talking about the importance of living in a society that puts more value on free speech and discussion of women's health issues, and how sad it is that instead sometimes our leaders get hung up on a misapplication of a word's meaning so that the discussion is effectively shut down. And really, isn't it because the word "Boobies" is a funny word that those bracelets had the effect they did? Substituting "breasts" would be too bland, and "tits" would be too crass. "Boobies" was juuuust right. Cheers, Tim

Report Abuse


* Comments may be edited for tone and clarity.

Include results from Christianity Today
Browse Archives:

So Hot Right Now

The Truth About Living with an Invisible Illness

God sees me and my pain even when others cannot.

Follow Us


What We're Reading

CT eBooks and Bible Studies