Janet Jackson exposé

[boobers]

Janet's right boob made an appearance at the superbowl today care of Justin Timberlake.
Thank you Justin!

[mgargan1]

Hey, was it just me, or did Justin Timberlake show Janet Jackson's breast during the halftime show? I tivo'd it, and I paused it, and it really looks real... anyone know anything about this?!?

[Ajmbc]

yeah, it looked real, and it had to be planned. That shirt had to have been made that way!

[wdlove]

It wasn't real clear to me, I did see Justin Tinberlake pulling on Janet Jackson blouse. Maybe someone will have a link so that we all can get a better look at this situation! :eek:

[reckless_0001]

Did you see the reaction on her face? I don't think it was on purpose. I'd like to see a video or picture again though. Please post if you find a link.

[AtlantaGuy]

Photo at http://www.drudgereport.com/

[reckless_0001]

Originally posted by AtlantaGuy
Photo at http://www.drudgereport.com/

Thanks!

[reckless_0001]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/photo?slug=sbx18202020152.super_bowl_sbx182&prov=ap


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/photo?slug=sbx18102020149.super_bowl_sbx181&prov=ap

[ThomasJefferson]

Saw the pic on drudge. Yuck.

Well, after the Brit/Madonna kiss, what else can you do to get 10 more min of fame. I guess this is the next step for those with failing careers.

I just hope Queen Latifa doesn't show us something next.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by AtlantaGuy
Photo at http://www.drudgereport.com/

Thank you AtlantaGuy. Janet Jackson is very lucky that it wasn't completely a bare breast. She had some sort of silver jewely covering the nipple and areola.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/medical/areola

[Dippo]

Originally posted by ThomasJefferson
Saw the pic on drudge. Yuck.

Well, after the Brit/Madonna kiss, what else can you do to get 10 more min of fame. I guess this is the next step for those with failing careers.

I just hope Queen Latifa doesn't show us something next.


Why do these celebs think that these stunts are going to get them anywhere. They might be good at selling a couple more albums today but no one is going to ever respect them in the futute.

It's all about the shock value. I don't even want to imagine what's next.

[ispeakmango]

the only thing thatwasn't surprising about that half time show was that p diddy sampled something else :rolleyes:

[kylos]

Originally posted by Ajmbc
yeah, it looked real, and it had to be planned. That shirt had to have been made that way!

Check drudge. He links to an MTV article promising something shocking from Janet. The Super Bowl Pre and Halftime shows are really getting pathetic. Maybe the NFL will get rid these increasingly edgy performances.

[Dont Hurt Me]

worst half time show in awhile in my view, and what was that all about? she did have a pasty.

[Rezet]

She really has nothing to be proud of anyways. I wouldnt care for her breasts even if she wasd completely topless.
Like jacksons don't have enough exposure in the media these days.
I'd kick frekin mtv's ass for this sh%t. This isn't HBO or spice channel. True that they say MTV is a sewer of the televesion.
And CBS says they knew nothing about it? Last time i cheked both cbs and mtv owned by viacom. And viacom have been askin to get a boot shoved up its ass for a long time. Shall see what develops out it.

[marco114]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040202/i/r2794264459.jpg

Here it is... I can't believe this. They should get a HUGE fine from the censors!

<admin edit - it's been linked enough, no need to post in the thread.> - Mudbug

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Maybe the NFL will get rid these increasingly edgy performances.

Yep. From NFL's Joe Browne, "It's unlikely that MTV will produce another Super Bowl halftime." (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/01/cbs_halftime_020104.htm)

[ibookster]

Geeze...a tit so what? whats the big deal?

[3rdpath]

beyond tasteless...

it's bad enough that the halftime show featured such marginally talented entertainers( they're not singers...and yes, there is a difference...) but to lower the bar to this sad bump and grind and saggy maggy flashing is just inexcusable.

i hope heads roll tomorrow morning.

[jrv3034]

I doubt it was on purpose. Look at her face on the Yahoo pics posted above... she looks very shocked. And Justin looks so embarrased. I really don't think it was a publicity stunt. It had to be an accident.

[gwuMACaddict]

eh...

she's old

he's annoying

who cares

[kylos]

So, MTV planned this. (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484644/20040128/jackson_janet.jhtml?headlines=true)

Or maybe they didn't. (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040201/nysu032_1.html)

Hmm, I'm somehow not buying MTV's story.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by jrv3034
I doubt it was on purpose. Look at her face on the Yahoo pics posted above... she looks very shocked. And Justin looks so embarrased. I really don't think it was a publicity stunt. It had to be an accident.

I doubt it - how often do women wear decorative pastie-thingys on their nipples when they're not expecting to bare their breasts?

It was planned.

[kylos]

Originally posted by jrv3034
I doubt it was on purpose. Look at her face on the Yahoo pics posted above... she looks very shocked. And Justin looks so embarrased. I really don't think it was a publicity stunt. It had to be an accident. from drudgereport.com (http://www.drudgereport.com)
"I'll get you naked by the end of this song," sang performer Justin Timberlake, moments before he ripped off Jackson's top, exposing a bare breast -- the nipple covered by a tassel.


The fact that she had a tassel kinda makes me think not.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by AtlantaGuy
Photo at http://www.drudgereport.com/

A half naked breast on TV, big deal. Oh wait, you can clearly see the nipple there if we show you this extreme closeup...we only show it because it is bad to show such things on TV, of course :rolleyes:

[Grimace]

JT is going down the tubes more with this little episode.

[Warren]

MTV says its all an accident. Even though timberlake clearly grabbed that part of her outfit and ripped it off. then held it in his hand. And who decorates their nipple with an ornament if their not gonna show it off?
I hate MTV

[MacNut]

Of course it was an accident or a "uniform malfunction" right and him saying im going to see you naked was a vocal malfunction too.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by jrv3034
I doubt it was on purpose. Look at her face on the Yahoo pics posted above... she looks very shocked. And Justin looks so embarrased. I really don't think it was a publicity stunt. It had to be an accident.

I hate to break it to you but celebrities often lie or put up an act.

It is very unlikely that Janet Jackson happened to be wearing an outfit with a removable breast and happened to have a metal tassel on her nipple and Timberlake happened to tear that piece off.

[MacNut]

If Timberlake wants to be embarrased about something it should be his music. Im sure MTV knew what was going to happen, but of course you don't tell the CBS suits. Atleast CBS didnt show the streaker that ran accross the field before the second half.

[anon1]

Click (http://home.comcast.net/~killershroom/janetpopout.divx.avi)

[3rdpath]

and to think the moveon.org commercial was too controversial...

[MacNut]

And to think CBS didn't want Bono to perform because he might cause a controversy

[3rdpath]

here's another link to the spectacle...gag me (http://www.offtop.com/misc/janet.gif)

[boobers]

Watch the video.
Watch his hand.
Its obvious he meant it.
What are the implications?
Is this a Media diversion for her brother? Or will this simply make it worse?

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by ispeakmango
the only thing thatwasn't surprising about that half time show was that p diddy sampled something else :rolleyes:

Yeah, totally.. I mean, can this guy actualy WRITE anything for his freakin money??? Actually, none of these pop stars write. They don't even use writers, they have freakin companies that write stuff for them. Also, most of them don't sing live either. I say bare it all - at least give me SOMETHING of entertainment value, cause you're NOT singing live, and prolly processed all to hell in the studio (harmonizers and such)... I say britney on SNL not long ago, and I thought 'this'll be good cause snl makes their artists really sing and stuff'... NOT A CHANCE - totally sampled.... Pop music is crap - it's just a commercial IMO...

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by MacNut
If Timberlake wants to be embarrased about something it should be his music. Im sure MTV knew what was going to happen, but of course you don't tell the CBS suits. Atleast CBS didnt show the streaker that ran accross the field before the second half.

Totally agree - this guy sleeps with the hottest chicks in hollywood, and he's totally TALENTLESS! He looks like a dork as well... Nice pect implants, seriously... Alright, I'm getting all riled :)... I need a valium...

[edesignuk]

I heard the news, jumped on KaZaA :eek: this morning...what a load of crap :rolleyes:

[virividox]

oh well this will be on the news for a day or two then we will forget about it then someone will bring it up and the cycle continues...

[Mr. Anderson]

Oh, that was so ridiculous.... I hadn't seen the halftime show and after watching the video its clear it was staged. If you had 'ripped' something off by mistake, your first reaction would be to look at it and then maybe drop it. He did neither, knowing full well what he was doing :rolleyes:

Sad - and the only fun part will be seeing who's going to be at next years Super Bowl Halftime show....will the network have a knee-jerk reaction to this and have the Care Bears do a comeback show :D

D

[Dont Hurt Me]

Janet was the only performer who should have been on the stage the rest of em have no abilities,no talent,and seem to have to borrow other peoples songs before destroying them. worst halftime show in a long time but what do you expect from the lack of minds at Mtv. wish Janet would have at least had a Mac pasty on that boob. they had to do something cause not one of them on the halftime show have any talent or musical abilities.

[K12MacTech]

Totally tasteless show. I usually don't watch halftime, but for a change I did last night. I didn't see much of entertainment value, and wish I had walked away. While I thought the Janet strip show was staged specifically for the outrage (kind of the the forum trolls), I was actually more offended by Kid Rock's trashing of the American flag. Not only was a hole cut in it to wear as a tunic, but when he took it off he simply tossed it aside as if it was so much trash. Wonder what our servicemen and women thought of that display.

[ibookster]

Damn guys your killing me. A tit so what?? The only reason they now come out and say that it was a mistake, is cuz they have recieved complaints. Its a tit dammit!!!! Its not like they performed a blowjob live on stage. Damn Im glad we are not this uptight in Europe...pheww.

[evoluzione]

for f*%@s sake people, it was obviously meant to happen. and it's nothing to get all bent out of shape about! it amazes me that so many people are so damn shocked by this. what is wrong with it??? and no-one is going to go out and try and rip someones top like that. personally i take more offence at seeing movies like Robocop on a sunday lunchtime with blood and guts everywhere. you can't even show butt crack on tv here but you can hear the N word on breakfast radio! absolutely retarded.

grow up and stop bitching and whining about one single breast (which even had the nipple covered up). who cares!? it's not going to corrupt you!

[evoluzione]

oh, and stop bitching about JT and everyone else. we all know that pop music is nothing but commercial, but yeah, there are some talented people out there that have been overly produced. stop yer whining jealousy and don't watch or listen if it bothers you that fereaking much.

get a life

[ibookster]

Now thats more like it...finally some brains

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by evoluzione
grow up and stop bitching and whining about one single breast (which even had the nipple covered up). who cares!? it's not going to corrupt you!

ah - but you see, that's a fine argument for an adult - and for the superbowl the target audience is male, preferably drinking, so it would be no problem, infact, quite entertaining. I don't have a problem with myself.

However, the real issue is that not everyone wants to see a boob, or have their children see nudidity on tv. The networks have standards (we don't need to go there, though ;)) and this sort of behavior - obvious sensationalism, attention getting, shock Amercia, blah, blah, blah is what's annoying.

I don't watch the half time show, its never been all that entertaining, but the current trends are just pushing boundaries that really don't need to be pushed. If I really wanted to see boobs, I'd change the channel to something else.

It was tasteless and unnecessary. And there will be fallout for it.

Do I really care? No. She shouldn't have done it, but that's her issue.

D

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by evoluzione
oh, and stop bitching about JT and everyone else. we all know that pop music is nothing but commercial, but yeah, there are some talented people out there that have been overly produced. stop yer whining jealousy and don't watch or listen if it bothers you that fereaking much.

get a life

Jealousy??? Hardly... No need to attack people for expressing themselves - lighten up...

[evoluzione]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
ah - but you see, that's a fine argument for an adult - and for the superbowl the target audience is male, preferably drinking, so it would be no problem, infact, quite entertaining. I don't have a problem with myself.

However, the real issue is that not everyone wants to see a boob, or have their children see nudidity on tv. The networks have standards (we don't need to go there, though ;)) and this sort of behavior - obvious sensationalism, attention getting, shock Amercia, blah, blah, blah is what's annoying.

I don't watch the half time show, its never been all that entertaining, but the current trends are just pushing boundaries that really don't need to be pushed. If I really wanted to see boobs, I'd change the channel to something else.

It was tasteless and unnecessary. And there will be fallout for it.

Do I really care? No. She shouldn't have done it, but that's her issue.

D



fair point, but, it was so damn quick that a lot of people wouldn't have even noticed it, had it not been for all the bulls*%t news coverage of it. seriously, it's the news in this country that's to blame for most things, sensationalising everything the way they do. it was only 'cause i rewound it on TiVo that we all saw what really happened. i saw it live and someone else did too, we said the same, was that real? so we backed up, slow mo'd it and saw she had something covering her nipple, which basically says it was planned.

i would have no trouble letting my kids watch something like that, why is it so taboo to see the human body??? i'd rather my kids see and be exposed to it than not know what a boob is for example, and then have a weird fanatisism with them later in life.

[evoluzione]

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Jealousy??? Hardly... No need to attack people for expressing themselves - lighten up...

so why is there all this furore over Janet expressing herself? - lighten up yourself

[Mr. Anderson]

Ah, but you see, Janet knew that enough people would catch it, make a big deal about it, etc.

That's what I see as wrong - her decision to do it. Its the sensationalism, pushing the limits, going to extremes. Have we become so blazé about life that we need more and more stimulation to be entertained? What next, naked Female Gladiatorial Death Matches in the Coliseum?:D

The trend of the media, news and entertainment companies is getting a bit over the top as far as I'm concerned. I really don't care what people want to do, but to force people to watch it isn't right. And when individuals take it upon themselves to push the limits like this, it just makes me shake my head :(

D

[evoluzione]

now that would be something, female gladiators heh ;)

seriously, i agree with you, it's extremely sad that people have to stoop to "new lows" just to keep our insatiable appetite for entertainment going, and again it's something i blame on the news, and all these "reality" shows like Cops.

i also agree with you that yeah, it wasn't the best place to pull a stunt like that, i always say that the best censorship is your fingertip, if you don't like it, don't bloody watch, but when you're totally not expecting that, well, it's a bit wrong really. that still doesn't warrant all these over the top complaints in my opinion.

[IndyGopher]

The problem is, it was against the network standards. The standards they agreed to abide by. I have no problem with Janet Jackson, or anyone, who wants to expose themselves in a place where it's expected, and permitted. I have a problem with agreeing to do something, and then intentionally breaking your word. It's the whole honesty and integrity thing. It's the same reason we got po'd at Clinton. No one (sensible) cares that either of them did what they did, they care about the simple inability to tell the truth and stand by your word. She'd be first in line to sue someone if they violated a contract with her, and I guarentee any performer's contract with a network has boilerplate text about abiding by the standards and practices of the network.

[jayscheuerle]

Blob o' silicone with a pasty.

Sadly staged.

I feel embarrassed for anyone who actually sat through that tripe anyhow.

yuck.

[evoluzione]

very good point, and one i totally agree with :)

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by evoluzione
i would have no trouble letting my kids watch something like that, why is it so taboo to see the human body??? i'd rather my kids see and be exposed to it than not know what a boob is for example, and then have a weird fanatisism with them later in life.

And you are free to do so at your convenience, but that doesn't mean the rest of us feel this is the right way to expose children to the human body. Simply because some of us have more modesty doesn't mean we have weird fanatacisms, it means we have different standards than you. So instead of being on your high horse like some people and saying that we should get over our opinions, why don't you try and show a little respect. This was NOT the time or place for something like this to happen. I hope they all get severly fined. Oh, and in my experience, the people who like looking at naked women expose themselves in that manner are far less likely to behave in a civil manner towards nudity.

[PieMac]

For starters, if you're worried about morality, then don't hire rappers to do a halftime show...that's pretty much a no-brainer.

As for Janet and Justin, it's funny how televison can be filled with gratuitous violence day in and day out, but show 2 seconds of a woman's breast...give me a break, people. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Good thing JT wasn't wearing a 'defective' codpiece!:eek:

[themadchemist]

Boobers--you didn't join the forum just to post this, did you? :D Just wondering, because, after all, your handle is quite...err...appropriate for this "situation."

[wdlove]

I wonder why they didn't use A list celebrities for the Super Bowl Half Time Show? A Mom caller in the the Mike Barnacle show said, "My young daughter doesn't consider Janet to be a good actress or singer."

[junior]

Originally posted by PieMac
For starters, if you're worried about morality, then don't hire rappers to do a halftime show...that's pretty much a no-brainer.

As for Janet and Justin, it's funny how televison can be filled with gratuitous violence day in and day out, but show 2 seconds of a woman's breast...give me a break, people. :rolleyes:


I think the difference is that parents have the choice of showing (or not showing) their kids violence and nudity that are shown on modern day TV. So when the family gets together to watch the biggest US sporting event of the year, they shouldn't have to worry about this sort of stuff.
I personally don't have a problem with it, but if I had a young kid, I probably wouldn't be happy about it.

[iGav]

The reaction it's getting, reminds me of the Neutrogena television advert from a few years ago, where they had a women taking a shower, and getting all bubbly and there was a small glimpse of her nipple.... :eek: the shock :eek: the horror :eek: it's a nipple for heavens sake.... and sure enough the sad brigade come along, complain and the ad was taken off air.

Would they're have been a simialr reaction if the gender roles had been reversed?? in either the ad or the Super Bowl??

It also reminds of the problems that new mothers go through when they wish to breast feed in a public place, you still hear stories about people complaining about women that do this, that it's disgusting etc etc. As evoluzione has said though, and I happen to agree with him, the best form of censorship is your fingertip or in the case above, not to sit and stare.

As for the morality argument.... well is it really any worse than the Britney Spears or Christina Agullera videos and photo shoots that the young, and innocent children of America are exposed to everyday??

I bet this doesn't happen in Sweden:rolleyes: ;)

[boobers]

Originally posted by themadchemist
Boobers--you didn't join the forum just to post this, did you? :D
Nope been here for years.

[MacFan25]

It's a shame that something like this had to happen, in front of so many people. They are calling it a "wardrobe malfunction", and that could be what happened, but personally I believe they just did it for attention; just like the Britney Spears and Madonna thing.

The FCC is now going to conduct an investigation on it. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/superbowl.jackson/index.html)

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by iGAV
The reaction it's getting, reminds me of the Neutrogena television advert from a few years ago, where they had a women taking a shower, and getting all bubbly and there was a small glimpse of her nipple.... :eek: the shock :eek: the horror :eek: it's a nipple for heavens sake.... and sure enough the sad brigade come along, complain and the ad was taken off air.

Ok, America is a community, and as a community we all agree to live by certain standards. One of those standards is that in advertising and primetime/daytime television, you don't get to show nudity. This is because some people feel that its inappropriate and its far easier not to show it and allow people who DO want to see it to search it out, than to show it and have to avoid it. Many MANY families sit and watch this game together and the understanding is that they will not be exposed to things like this. If they were watching a show on HBO that would be different.

Whether or not you feel seeing naked womens breasts is ok or not for you or your family is not the point. The point is that the many people who don't choose to do so shouldn't have to put up with stunts like the one at the Super Bowl. Try accepting that some people have a different view about when and where nudity is and isn't appropriate and stop acting like we should all simply accept your standards.

I'd also like to point out that this kind of nipple bearing stunt is far from innocent given the sexual nature of the song in the first place. Frankly I think the whole half-time show was tasteless from a family perspective, put it on the Grammy's not the Super Bowl. Its pretty sad when the beer commercials are more family friendly than the half time show.

[1macker1]

It was all over with in a second. I saw nothing wrong with it. She clearly had her nipple covered. Showing boobs ain't illegal, it's the nipple that is illegal. There where and always has been tits in a** in tv ads. Get over it.

Men are allowed to go shirtless at games. Where is the outrage for that.

[railthinner]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Its pretty sad when the beer commercials are more family friendly than the half time show.

It's pretty sad when someone would consider a farting horse, suggestive beastiality and a ball munching dog family entertainment. And it's pretty sad when a partially exposed breast is more offensive than a bunch of men giving each other a beating.

[1macker1]

I agree 100%
Originally posted by railthinner
It's pretty sad when someone would consider a farting horse, suggestive beastiality and a ball munching dog family entertainment. And it's pretty sad when a partially exposed breast is more offensive than a bunch of men giving each other a beating.

[crenz]

Given the lyrics of the song, I think it is only a logical conclusion to attempt to pull off such a stunt. Regardless of whether he tried to reveal the bra only or really intended to rip it all off or whether there's worse things on TV: That kind of show is IMHO really unnecessary...

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by MacFan25
It's a shame that something like this had to happen, in front of so many people. They are calling it a "wardrobe malfunction", and that could be what happened, but personally I believe they just did it for attention; just like the Britney Spears and Madonna thing.

The FCC is now going to conduct an investigation on it. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/superbowl.jackson/index.html)
Wardrobe malfunction... so stupid.


Lamest Excuse evar.


I found no reason for doing this... expecially because she has a peircing through the nipple which doesn't look very nice... :eek:

but really, why MTV? Why so stupid?

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by 1macker1
It was all over with in a second. I saw nothing wrong with it. She clearly had her nipple covered. Showing boobs ain't illegal, it's the nipple that is illegal. There where and always has been tits in a** in tv ads. Get over it.

Men are allowed to go shirtless at games. Where is the outrage for that.

Yeah, a lot of shirtless men should be wearing bras.

It was just a lousy stunt--planned or otherwise. Now, if it was arena football, it wouldn't have been any big deal. According to someone I used to know, most men forgot about the football after a while. :D

[mactastic]

Originally posted by 1macker1
Men are allowed to go shirtless at games. Where is the outrage for that.

Because women will cause men 'impure thoughts' if they show skin in the same way as a man. Notice how some cultures are more restrictive than others, but many require women to cover themselves more than men.

And we all know if you cause a man to have an impure thought, he can't be held responsible for his actions....

Really it's not the man's responsibility to control himself or anything. :rolleyes:

[wdlove]

If you want your voice to be heard, whicj is the only way for us to get out culture back, is to make a phone call the the approriate individuals in cotrol. Unless we make our voice heard it will only get worse.

Phone numbers are listed in an artice written by Laura Ingraham.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/public/

[evolu]

I second that.

Originally posted by 1macker1
I agree 100%

[Rezet]

Originally posted by evoluzione
fair point, but, it was so damn quick that a lot of people wouldn't have even noticed it, had it not been for all the bulls*%t news coverage of it. seriously, it's the news in this country that's to blame for most things, sensationalising everything the way they do. it was only 'cause i rewound it on TiVo that we all saw what really happened. i saw it live and someone else did too, we said the same, was that real? so we backed up, slow mo'd it and saw she had something covering her nipple, which basically says it was planned.

i would have no trouble letting my kids watch something like that, why is it so taboo to see the human body??? i'd rather my kids see and be exposed to it than not know what a boob is for example, and then have a weird fanatisism with them later in life.

OMG, It's like you don't get it. Networks are supposed to show nothing over PG13 stuff. And especially during family shows.
I'm so freaking tired defending decency!
I personally could care less about hr saggy black boob, but if you leave it unnoticed, it opens the window for more and more. And soon we will get to BJs on network.
if we let it go, why not run Show Girls at 8pm on EST on CBS? After all they only show breats there also.
And ibook, dont tell me about european tv, I've seen a italian tv and that is the biggest sewer of all times.
If it was on cable, noone would even metion that.
And please stop telling how stupid we are to react to "just a tit". Everyone has different standards for decency and morals. I just don't think your morals are not on the same level as ours.

[atacinus]

just curious what our friends from Europe think about this...don.t you have those naked newscasters and stuff over there...i know when i was in Paris, nudity...geez, it was a part of life :-p i guess america just still has some of it.s grassroots to kill off...OH, I would like to add...i have no problem with the boob thing, but the "music" they were playing...it.s...nevermind, this post would be huge if i said everything i had to say about that cRAP.

Christien

[Rezet]

Originally posted by wdlove
If you want your voice to be heard, whicj is the only way for us to get out culture back, is to make a phone call the the approriate individuals in cotrol. Unless we make our voice heard it will only get worse.

Phone numbers are listed in an artice written by Laura Ingraham.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/public/

Ahh plz, who cares about Ingraham or Coulter anyways. They are hardcore right-ist anyways. It's like asking Al Franken if he likes G. Bush. Complain to FCC.

I'd fine Viacom and forbid Viacom to forever bid on televising SuperBowl from now on.

[AlbinoPigeon]

Originally posted by PieMac
For starters, if you're worried about morality, then don't hire rappers to do a halftime show...that's pretty much a no-brainer.

As for Janet and Justin, it's funny how televison can be filled with gratuitous violence day in and day out, but show 2 seconds of a woman's breast...give me a break, people. :rolleyes:


Couldn't agree with this statement more. Here in Canada I see all the US networks, and what they allow on air is shocking at times. Somehow "content regulations" allow for masses of people being shot up with blood and gore, but wont allow a breast? How does that make any sense at all.

I'm not trying to "impose" my values on anyone, but all these people saying they dont want their children seeing 2 seconds of a mammory gland should be complaining more about the gore on TV.

Lastly (and this is just my opinion - no imposing intended), it's a mammory gland for god sakes. Why the american public still objects to it is beyond me. Small FYI: In Canada it is legal for women to go topless.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by atacinus
just curious what our friends from Europe think about this...don.t you have those naked newscasters and stuff over there...i know when i was in Paris, nudity...geez, it was a part of life :-p i guess america just still has some of it.s grassroots to kill off...OH, I would like to add...i have no problem with the boob thing, but the "music" they were playing...it.s...nevermind, this post would be huge if i said everything i had to say about that cRAP.

Christien
I was born in europe. And it is weird. They can run softcore porn on any basic channels at almost any time but then will turn around and ban Grand Theft Auto because of sexual themes and violence... So... yeah ..umm.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by MacFan25
It's a shame that something like this had to happen, in front of so many people. They are calling it a "wardrobe malfunction", and that could be what happened, but personally I believe they just did it for attention; just like the Britney Spears and Madonna thing.

The FCC is now going to conduct an investigation on it. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/superbowl.jackson/index.html)

Maybe we can fine CBS to the tune of $477 billion for this?

Or better yet. Maybe we can fine CBS to the tune of what national healthcare would cost.

:D

Its clear that its intentional.
Why would the corset be made the way it was if it was not meant to be exposed?
Why would the bra be made the way it was if it was not meant to be exposed?
Why would there be a pastey on the breat if it was not meant to be exposed?

On the other hand, that breast looked white, so it can't possibly be Janet Jackson's breast. Or could it be that she's got what Michael Jackson has. :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
[B]Because women will cause men 'impure thoughts' if they show skin in the same way as a man. Notice how some cultures are more restrictive than others, but many require women to cover themselves more than men.


Is this why women in Afghanistan wear burkhas?

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Rezet
Ahh plz, who cares about Ingraham or Coulter anyways. They are hardcore right-ist anyways. It's like asking Al Franken if he likes G. Bush. Complain to FCC.

I'd fine Viacom and forbid Viacom to forever bid on televising SuperBowl from now on.

Laura Ingraham is not hard core right wing. She is very sensible. Being a trained lawyer she looks and issues and analyzes them. The only way to change what happen during half time is to make phone calls or write letters. The fine alone would have no affect on them. What they fear is customers.

[Judo]

Whats wrong with you guys? I really like boobs! They could have done a hell of a lot better than Janet Jackson though.

Hang on, maybe I'm not picking up on some sarcasm. Any who.


Hooray for Boobies!

[Dont Hurt Me]

If they had anyone with real musical talent they wouldnt have to resort to showing a boob but look who they had at the halftime show? all wannabees they might as well had the muppets playing, in fact im sure the muppets would have done better and then we could have seen miss piggys bacon.:rolleyes: anyways a family sporting event is not the place for MTV or the Place for those wannabees. worst halftime show ever. In fact it sucked.

[poopyhead]

"mommy what's erectile dysfunction? does daddy need a 36 hour miracle?"

I personally found the plethora of erectile dysfunction ads far more tasteless than the lone mam, especially for a "family program" in prime time. Further, Janet, being a B celebrity with questionable talent, should have hoisted her puppies (a technical term) before unveiling one before millions in an attempt gain positive publicity. Who cares?

[Rezet]

Originally posted by wdlove
Laura Ingraham is not hard core right wing. She is very sensible. Being a trained lawyer she looks and issues and analyzes them. The only way to change what happen during half time is to make phone calls or write letters. The fine alone would have no affect on them. What they fear is customers.

Haha, Well if Ingraham and Coulter are sensible women that means 4 things:

1. You are a Republican
2. Franken and Moore are sensible as well on liberal side.
3. You are nuts.
4. Read number 3 again.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Frohickey
On the other hand, that breast looked white, so it can't possibly be Janet Jackson's breast. Or could it be that she's got what Michael Jackson has. :p

She IS Michael Jackson, they are one and the same, its all a conspiracy!

[Krizoitz]

FIRST
In the United States all broadcast networks have to follow certain rules regarding what can and cannot be shown on T.V. These rules may not be perfect in everyones views but at the very least they are the law and violating the law is wrong.

SECOND
Simply because you personally do not object to women's exposed breasts does not mean that everyone should agree with you. Your opinion is not somehow superior to others, and acting like it i.e. oh my gosh its just a breast, get over it, is not a very tolerant or effective way of expressing your view point. Simply because some of us do not feel that exposing our families to nudity in this way is appropriate does not make us somehow less enlightened than you, it just means that we approach it differently. Those of us (and I do mean us as this is how I feel) who feel that nudity shouldn't be just thrown about in public aren't doing so out of some fearful puritcanical mindset as was the case in the past, but because we feel it is degrading to women and a way of emphasizing the view that nudity is dirty and scandalous, not natural and beautiful as some of you have argued.

THIRD
Simply because other countries have different standards does not make us inherently wrong. As one poster pointed out, in some European countries softcore porn is widely available but violent video games are taboo. Simply different standards.

FOURTH
Many of us who feel that nudity shouldn't be seen in certain areas also feel that gratuitous violence and language on prime time has gone to far as well, so it is a very poor argument to say that we are "allowing" violence and opposing nudity.

The problem with the internet is that in many ways it makes it so people don't actually have to make a single salient point when arguing, they simply spout their opinion without consequence and don't do anything to back it up. Its incredibly frustrating to see the opportunity for such unparalled communication squandered by those who don't take the time or effort to make it worth while. And I'm not saying ALL discussions and use of the internet must be somehow greatly intellectual, humor, etc. all have their place. However it is sad to see a discussion on the moral and legal merits of something degenerate into a "your view is dumb, you are backward, my view is soooo right" argument. Honestly, are we on an elementary school playground or something?

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Rezet
Liberals stand for Freedom!
Conservatives stand for Order!
The ultimate form of Freedom is Anarchy!
The ultimate form of Order is Oppression!


I could point out a dozen logical flaws with this argument, but suffice it to say as a moderate it gets really irritating to have to listen to liberals and conservatives bash on each other pointlessly.

And while Bush W and his ilk frighten the piss out of me, I get equally irritated by the liberals hypocrisy. They claim that conservatives stand up on their moral high horse and claim that everyone elses thinking is wrong and then turn around and do the SAME THING. The idea that simply because something is liberal that therefore it is inherently superior is rather old and tired. Just because something is new and different doesn't make it any better or worse inherently than something that is old. Anarchy is just as dangerous as oppression.

[Rower_CPU]

First and only warning:
Any further political discussion will result in this thread being moved to the political forum.

Take it there if you feel you must continue this, but cut it out here.

Thank you.

[poopyhead]

persuasion and argument are not the same thing and while they tend to have the same final goal in mind they do so in different ways.
You make no logical argument, you simply state points. Thus you use pseudo logic in order to persuade. Notice my premise, premise, conclusion structure in the prior sentences.
Further, simply because something is against the law does not mean it is wrong (your pseudo premise is flawed). Civil disobedience is based on the well founded idea that some laws, though accepted by the majority, are in fact wrong. The Civil Rights movement, Independence of India, and the Civil War (depending on your interpretation) were all based on the premise that some laws, though laws, are in fact wrong.

[poopyhead]

sorry

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by poopyhead
sorry

You were typing your reply as I posted. No biggie.

Starting...NOW! ;)

[obeygiant]

poopyhead.
Thats funny. When I read your log in name i burst out laughing and spit all over my iMac screen.

The MTV halftime show was just bad. Everything was rushed and had no real musical value. Last years Shania Twain Lip syncing halftime show was about 900 times better.

I wasn't amused by the crotch grabbing, bumb and grinding and boob flashing. I just thought it was out of place and stupid.

I did think the overwhelming presence of erectile dysfunction commercials was a curious off-set to the amount of sexual content during the halftime show.

Isn't it true that around one billion people watch the superbowl? What kinda strange messages are we sending to everyone? Whats up with MTV? And why do they think its cool to push sex in kids faces like that? 75% of the viewership of MTV is like from 12-18 year olds, are they frickin crazy?
I'm no prude but I think MTV partially responsible for this "over-sexing" of kids and the like.

[MarkCollette]

I am so glad that I closed my eyes, when I suckled my mom's teat, as a baby. Just think how damaged I would be now, exposed to nudity at such a young age.

Since some people here have explained the whole concept that they might not want their children to see breasts, whose primary function is the nourishment of the young, then I think it's fair to recommend that they not leave the USA, or watch television from other countries. You will be safer this way. Help us protect you, and coddle you.

Instead, continue along, with your interesting system of self-righteously proclaiming that the human body is an improper thing, while you spend your resources and time being teased by your entertainment industry with little peekaboos of fractions of bits of flesh, while you salivate over yourselves. Because I'm sure that is quite sane.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by MarkCollette
I am so glad that I closed my eyes, when I suckled my mom's teat, as a baby. Just think how damaged I would be now, exposed to nudity at such a young age.

Since some people here have explained the whole concept that they might not want their children to see breasts, whose primary function is the nourishment of the young, then I think it's fair to recommend that they not leave the USA, or watch television from other countries. You will be safer this way. Help us protect you, and coddle you.

Instead, continue along, with your interesting system of self-righteously proclaiming that the human body is an improper thing, while you spend your resources and time being teased by your entertainment industry with little peekaboos of fractions of bits of flesh, while you salivate over yourselves. Because I'm sure that is quite sane.
I sure hope you never fall off that high horse there. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CODDLING. Its just that some people have different views on when things are appropriate. Not better, just different. And people call us Americans arrogant. I get sick and tired of Europeans going on and on about how they are more enlightened, etc. etc. And this post is a prime example.

For one thing Janet Jacksons breast being exposed in a provocative song is far different from an infant at his mothers breast.

Second, no one on here has claimed that the human body is an improper thing, just that it may be improper at times IN OUR OPINION. The only one who is self righteous here is you sir, and I for one would ask you to please show a little bit more tolerance and respect.

[Jonnod III]

Originally posted by Rezet

I personally could care less about hr saggy black boob,

Does she have a white one as well?

[Jonnod III]

In answer to the question about how Europeans view it, here's my two pennyworth...

It was a crass and blatant bit of career re-launching, not a moral outrage. You guys invented Baywatch, didn't you?

If you really want outrage - how about letting commerce defile your greatest sporting occasion - I mean - breaking the game into sections so you can have ad breaks?? What kind of example does that give your youngsters?

(Oh and before anyone says that Baywatch had bikini tops on, was the program watched because of the life-saving techniques, or the fantastic plot-lines, or the superb characterisation....)

[iGav]

Originally posted by Rezet
but if you leave it unnoticed, it opens the window for more and more. And soon we will get to BJs on network.
if we let it go, why not run Show Girls at 8pm on EST on CBS?

Oh please, I think you're taking that to the extreme, having a breast flashed on TV for less than 2 seconds is hardly going to cause a moral social breakdown is it??

The opposite gender equivalent to the breast flashing incident would be having a man partially expose a nipple as well.... and the moral difference between them is????????

[Rezet]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
Does she have a white one as well?


Hey, that I don't know. Is her brother black or white? Go figure.

[WinterMute]

I saw it live, it was nothing at all, but the advent of all us geeks with TIVO and image manipulation apps have splashed it accross the net and made it a big deal, I notice the streaker who held up the second half didn't get a look in, and he was flashing a lot more than a tit...

Bottom line: Some celeb needs a few column inches, whacks out a tit on family TV.... Johnny Lydon did it years ago, said ***** on primetime, got banned... You can't buy this kind of advertising.

The moral fabric of society is a myth, we all subsist in a barely concealed porno movie, its all about sex and money, if they say it isn't they are lying.

A few years ago, there was a poster ad over here for some perfume, it had a fully naked Sophie Dahl reclining accross it, looked fantastic and caused a right old pen and ink, it's only flesh, get over it.

Even in the liscentious flesh-pot that is Europe we get the body-hating bigots, the bloody Victorians were the worst, and Barbera Whitehouse was a constant shrill voice the day after any nudity on the TV during the 70's and 80's.

Now we have channel 5, a poorly disguised soft-core porn channel, and at least 1 daily newspaper has a nipple count on every page...

Grow up, it's the media equivalent of looking at girls knickers in the playground.

[Potus]

Personally, I'm gratified that the network gave us this "family oriented" event and saved us from the "inappropriate" MoveOn.org ad.

[tomf87]

Originally posted by WinterMute
The moral fabric of society is a myth, we all subsist in a barely concealed porno movie, its all about sex and money, if they say it isn't they are lying....Grow up, it's the media equivalent of looking at girls knickers in the playground.

Well, the society as a whole is terrible if we think this is OK. And I'm not a liar... I'm not about sex and money. People should hold themselves to higher standards.

And you should be the one growing up, because adults should be role models for younger people, not flashing themselves around pretending it is okay. It's sad that we cannot find entertainment except for nudity and sex. Ever think this could be the reason society has so much trouble with drugs and crime (prostitution is linked to drugs). If people would start presenting themselves in a moral manner, we could start trusting people again.

[iGav]

Originally posted by tomf87
It's sad that we cannot find entertainment except for nudity and sex. Ever think this could be the reason society has so much trouble with drugs and crime (prostitution is linked to drugs). If people would start presenting themselves in a moral manner, we could start trusting people again.

I think there's many reasons for the problems with society... I don't however thinking the flashing of a partial breast, for 2 seconds is going to cause a breakdown in society and moral standards, (if it does, then that society has serious underlying issues) again would people be in so much uproar if it had been Justin Timberlake who'd had his shirt ripped off??

Case in point are countries like Sweden that have an incredibly relaxed view to nudity (lets not confuse nudity with sex though, they are very, very different things), yet they have one of the great societies and cultures on the face of this planet.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by tomf87
Well, the society as a whole is terrible if we think this is OK. And I'm not a liar... I'm not about sex and money. People should hold themselves to higher standards.

And you should be the one growing up, because adults should be role models for younger people, not flashing themselves around pretending it is okay.

i thought the stunt was dumb and they should be fined or whatever, but what you said is just moral self righteousness.

you have this thought that the way you see things is THE way to see things. sorry, but that's not the case. do i personally think that there should be things like this in primetime tv? no. but do i think that people who don't care are somehow scumbags? no. granted, most people are scumbags, but for reasons beyond not finding offense in a boob flash.


i think ultimately the grind dancing and half naked people dry humping each other throughout the show.. that was actually worse than the tit in question. the sexual nature of the flash is really what bothers me... that said, many of the commercials made me ill, etc. so if we're going to start preaching about moral high ground, why not cover all the **** out there, and not pick and choose...

also, this being in prime time, during the "entertaining" half time show... not the place. personally if i had kids that i didn't want to see this stuff, i'd have turned it off right when i heard who was "performing"... kid rock? p diddy? nelly? it's getting hot in here so take off all your clothes? the tit wouldn't have even been seen..

[tunanut]

just an fyi. it wasn't a tassel, but a nipple shield held in place by a barbell, i.e. her nipple is pierced. not so uncommon these days.:D

[Stelliform]

I think what you guys are forgetting is that U.S. society is not European society. I am sure that there is something that we do here that is taboo over there. And if we were in Europe you would expect us to behave by your rules. So saying that it is no big deal in Europe isn't a great point. It is a big deal in the U.S.

Typical U.S. family values dictate that there isn't any nudity when children are watching. FCC rules also dictate that. We can debate the merits of those rules until we are all blue in the face, but the fact remains, like it or not, current U.S. decency standards do not allow any nudity. Perhaps these will change in the coming decades, but they might not.

Finally, If my 5 year old were watching, I would have a hard time explaining why they did that, and why it isn't acceptable for him to do expose himself or anyone else. If he were to break that social taboo he would receive far less sympathy than Janet. The fact that this was sprung on the audience without any warning is the main problem. They should have included a parental warning or something before the show.

I think CBS has a right to be pissed since if my 5 year old wants to watch the Superbowl half-time next year, I am not going to let him.

[tomf87]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i thought the stunt was dumb and they should be fined or whatever, but what you said is just moral self righteousness.

you have this thought that the way you see things is THE way to see things. sorry, but that's not the case. do i personally think that there should be things like this in primetime tv? no. but do i think that people who don't care are somehow scumbags? no. granted, most people are scumbags, but for reasons beyond not finding offense in a boob flash.


i think ultimately the grind dancing and half naked people dry humping each other throughout the show.. that was actually worse than the tit in question. the sexual nature of the flash is really what bothers me... that said, many of the commercials made me ill, etc. so if we're going to start preaching about moral high ground, why not cover all the **** out there, and not pick and choose...

also, this being in prime time, during the "entertaining" half time show... not the place. personally if i had kids that i didn't want to see this stuff, i'd have turned it off right when i heard who was "performing"... kid rock? p diddy? nelly? it's getting hot in here so take off all your clothes? the tit wouldn't have even been seen..

I agree with you for the most part. I did not watch the StupidBowl, I mean SuperBowl, but just heard about this. I've never liked the way the dancers and singers now perform. I have to agree that lots of things need to be changed and not just one particular incident.

The one part I disagree on is that I do NOT think that my way is the right way. I base my opinion from the Bible in that it states that women should dress modestly and not draw attention by exposing themselves. So, it is not my way, it is the way I believe Jesus Christ has instructed us to live.

I apologize if I came off pretty strong in the last post.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
If you really want outrage - how about letting commerce defile your greatest sporting occasion - I mean - breaking the game into sections so you can have ad breaks?? What kind of example does that give your youngsters?

Because obviously Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. don't allow comercialization of sports. Do you watch soccer/football? Ads are all over! Heck they have them on their uniforms like race cars do over here. I'm not trying to say that Americans are somehow superior I'm just saying that ads in pro-sports are far from a U.S. only thing.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Is this why women in Afghanistan wear burkhas?

No, they did it there for fun! What do you think?

That was the rationale the Taliban gave for the requirement that women cover themselves.

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
granted, most people are scumbags, but for reasons beyond not finding offense in a boob flash.


:D



i think ultimately the grind dancing and half naked people dry humping each other throughout the show.. that was actually worse than the tit in question. the sexual nature of the flash is really what bothers me... that said, many of the commercials made me ill, etc. so if we're going to start preaching about moral high ground, why not cover all the **** out there, and not pick and choose...

also, this being in prime time, during the "entertaining" half time show... not the place. personally if i had kids that i didn't want to see this stuff, i'd have turned it off right when i heard who was "performing"... kid rock? p diddy? nelly? it's getting hot in here so take off all your clothes? the tit wouldn't have even been seen..

Too true, I turn off the TV when my kid is in the room and that is going on, so he wouldn't have seen it anyway. However, my wife was disgusted by the display...

It probably all boils down to $$$ and cents. Will Superbowl ads during the half-time show be worth as much next year? If they are worth more, then the general U.S. population is ok with what happened this year. If advertisers steer clear of the show, they realize their customers won't be watching...

[tunanut]

well, it IS the BOOB, tube you know.

i love the fact that there's a huge bruhaha over some lame singers pierced boob being exposed in the middle of a violent head bashing "game." religious zealots complain about this stuff but remain mute on the proliferation of blood, gore and gratutious dismembering on tv 24 hrs a day. i for one have a lot less problem having my little girls see a breast (altho i don't care for the gratutious sexual grinding) than the daily barrage of guts on the tube.

[agreenster]

It was just a boob for crissakes. I bet that 99.999% of the worlds population has already seen one before. This country is so prudish.

I think it was a lame attempt by Janet to "pull" some of the press away from Michael. :D

[Jonnod III]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Because obviously Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. don't allow comercialization of sports. Do you watch soccer/football? Ads are all over! Heck they have them on their uniforms like race cars do over here. I'm not trying to say that Americans are somehow superior I'm just saying that ads in pro-sports are far from a U.S. only thing.

Hmm, not sure there is a real comparison here. Do the college matches have the same number of breaks in that the SuperBowl does?

There have been attempts to change the format of some games in Europe to allow more ads, but we (the public!) resisted - stopping a game to show an ad is lame!

Ads on clothing - completely different.

[tunanut]

Originally posted by agreenster
It was just a boob for crissakes. I bet that 99.999% of the worlds population has already seen one before. This country is so prudish.

exactly. besides, we've got a bigger boob in the oval office, and that's far more important to remove from prime time!:eek:

[WinterMute]

Originally posted by tomf87
Well, the society as a whole is terrible if we think this is OK. And I'm not a liar... I'm not about sex and money. People should hold themselves to higher standards.

And you should be the one growing up, because adults should be role models for younger people, not flashing themselves around pretending it is okay. It's sad that we cannot find entertainment except for nudity and sex. Ever think this could be the reason society has so much trouble with drugs and crime (prostitution is linked to drugs). If people would start presenting themselves in a moral manner, we could start trusting people again.

Oh, right, I don't conform to your minority worldview so I need to grow up?

My comments about sex and money are about the media in general, not you in particular, did you see your name in my post? No. it's exactly comments like yours that has blown this out of all proportion, do you really believe that janet jackson's right tit is the cause of societies ills? I think you need to worry more about a society that watches live battlefield feeds at dinner-time...

This is nothing, it's less than nothing, and if you realised that you wouldn't make such a fuss and start chucking personal comments about.

I repeat for you alone tomf87:

Grow up.

[Jonnod III]

Originally posted by WinterMute
do you really believe that janet jackson's right tit is the cause of societies ills?

Hehe, no but I'll bet Justin Timberlake felt a right tit...

:D

[tomf87]

Originally posted by WinterMute
Oh, right, I don't conform to your minority worldview so I need to grow up?

My comments about sex and money are about the media in general, not you in particular, did you see your name in my post? No. it's exactly comments like yours that has blown this out of all proportion, do you really believe that janet jackson's right tit is the cause of societies ills? I think you need to worry more about a society that watches live battlefield feeds at dinner-time...

This is nothing, it's less than nothing, and if you realised that you wouldn't make such a fuss and start chucking personal comments about.

I repeat for you alone tomf87:

Grow up.

It's not out of proportion. Someone has to stand up against things like this. And it's not only Janet's nudity that is causing our society to be less appalled by bad behavior. It's the dancing, the nudity, and TV shows with barely dressed women/kids prancing around. It's more than nothing. Going around town and seeing teenagers with half of their bodies hanging out is sickening. Where do you think kids get this from? The battlefield?

And my view may or may not be a minority. I don't really care if it is. But I do believe that if we followed the Bible more closely, we wouldn't have things like this going on.

[jelloshotsrule]

for those saying that "this is nothing compared to the other stuff on tv" (ie, all the gore and such on american news, etc)... i agree completely. that said, if someone thinks it's unacceptable, then that doesn't mean that they should see it as "oh, well it could've been worse", ya know?

in other words, i'm not going to look at someone shooting their neighbor and say "well, at least they didn't bomb an entire city, no big deal"...

that said, i agree that this isn't that huge a deal in general. but i wouldn't pass up a chance to take a shot at huge corporations trying to make money off us with cheap entertainment

[tunanut]

Originally posted by tomf87
....But I do believe that if we followed the Bible more closely, we wouldn't have things like this going on.

your religious proselytzing might fall on more receptive ears at http://www.landoverbaptist.org/. i've been giddily inspired by their sermons with irregularity. look them up.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by tomf87
Going around town and seeing teenagers with half of their bodies hanging out is sickening. Where do you think kids get this from? The battlefield?


i agree about the teenagers. that's why if i have a daughter she will remain in her room until she's about 30... :)

but seriously, wintermute's point (i think?) was not that they get this sexuality stuff from the battlefields, but rather that this type of body display doesn't have as bad an effect on society as watching violence 24/7, even on the news... the violence doesn't lead to showing your tit, it can lead to being desensitized to violence. to thinking it's no big deal to hit someone. to stab someone. to shoot someone. etc... so while, it's up to you to believe that someone showing their body is as bad as someone beating/killing someone, i would disagree in general

but, as per my last post, i don't think that saying one is "not as bad" as the other really defends it...

[SilentPanda]

Originally posted by tunanut
your religious proselytzing might fall on more receptive ears at http://www.landoverbaptist.org/. i've been giddily inspired by their sermons with irregularity. look them up.

I'm certain you realize this site is a parody and not legit correct?

[WinterMute]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
for those saying that "this is nothing compared to the other stuff on tv" (ie, all the gore and such on american news, etc)... i agree completely. that said, if someone thinks it's unacceptable, then that doesn't mean that they should see it as "oh, well it could've been worse", ya know?

in other words, i'm not going to look at someone shooting their neighbor and say "well, at least they didn't bomb an entire city, no big deal"...

that said, i agree that this isn't that huge a deal in general. but i wouldn't pass up a chance to take a shot at huge corporations trying to make money off us with cheap entertainment

Agreed!

There are much worse things in the world to choose to make a noise over, Janets somewhat saggy tit, displayed at any time day, just doesn't register.

tomf87:

I don't believe in your god, your bible is an interesting, if contradictory, historical document to me.

That said, you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs and I'll fight to make sure it remains that way.

The decay of moralistic standards in the west is largely mirrored by the rise of fundamentalism in other faiths, but it's a multi-level campaign, and sex is just a part of it.

I don't want other people telling me what is right and wrong for me to see, I'm old enough to decide what's right myself, and I'll do the same for my daughter till she's old enough to do it for herself, but she's used to bodies in the house, I'm not going to confuse her by telling her that it's alright for Mummy to be naked, but that nice singing woman is the spawn of the devil.

Lets move on shall we?

[tomf87]

Originally posted by tunanut
your religious proselytzing might fall on more receptive ears at http://www.landoverbaptist.org/. i've been giddily inspired by their sermons with irregularity. look them up.

I wouldn't quite consider it proselytizing (ya missed an "i" there), but I guess it could be misconstrued that way.

[tomf87]

Originally posted by WinterMute
Lets move on shall we?

Sure, why not...

[tunanut]

Originally posted by tomf87
I wouldn't quite consider it proselytizing (ya missed an "i" there),...

oh brother, pedantic too. did i spell THAT right, tom?:o

[vniow]

Originally posted by tomf87
Going around town and seeing teenagers with half of their bodies hanging out is sickening.


Wow, you would have **** bricks if you saw what I was wearing last Thursday...

[tunanut]

Originally posted by vniow
Wow, you would have **** bricks if you saw what I was wearing last Thursday...
i wouldn't have, can i see? oh and i agree, death to body hair (below the neck at least).
:cool:

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
Hmm, not sure there is a real comparison here. Do the college matches have the same number of breaks in that the SuperBowl does?

There have been attempts to change the format of some games in Europe to allow more ads, but we (the public!) resisted - stopping a game to show an ad is lame!

Ads on clothing - completely different.

First, Football (american style) has natural breaks anyway, time outs change of posession, quarters, half. So its not really stopping the action.

Second, ads on clothing is still using pro-sports for commercial purposes. Saying an ad on clothing is some how completely different from an ad on tv is like saying an ad in the paper is different from an ad on the radio. Different venues, same purpose.

Third, yes college has commercial breaks too, in the same situations as in pro, this is because the networks need to make money. Of course a portion of that money is passed on to the schools. In fact televised college games are a huge source of revenue for college programs. At my school (University of Washington) the football program is completely self sufficient (i.e. it doesnt' recieve money from the University, it generates its own revenue) including scholarships and salaries. In addition it provides money to the general athletic fund so that other, less money making sports like swimming can exist. So not all advertising is bad.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by WinterMute
I don't want other people telling me what is right and wrong for me to see, I'm old enough to decide what's right myself, and I'll do the same for my daughter till she's old enough to do it for herself, but she's used to bodies in the house, I'm not going to confuse her by telling her that it's alright for Mummy to be naked, but that nice singing woman is the spawn of the devil.


And nobody is telling you that its wrong for you to see naked bodies. What we are saying is that since many people do feel that there are situations (like this) where it is innapropriate, and those people represent a large percentage of the population, that certain areas of television should be free from such imho tasteless displays of nudity.

Its far easier to not show nudity on primetime network TV and allow people who want to see it to have other avenues, than to show it and ask people who are inadvertantly exposed to it to pretend they didn't see it.

In addition, as it stands it IS illegal for them to show this kind of stuff.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
for those saying that "this is nothing compared to the other stuff on tv" (ie, all the gore and such on american news, etc)... i agree completely. that said, if someone thinks it's unacceptable, then that doesn't mean that they should see it as "oh, well it could've been worse", ya know?

in other words, i'm not going to look at someone shooting their neighbor and say "well, at least they didn't bomb an entire city, no big deal"...

that said, i agree that this isn't that huge a deal in general. but i wouldn't pass up a chance to take a shot at huge corporations trying to make money off us with cheap entertainment

*applause*

[MarkCollette]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I sure hope you never fall off that high horse there. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CODDLING. Its just that some people have different views on when things are appropriate. Not better, just different. And people call us Americans arrogant. I get sick and tired of Europeans going on and on about how they are more enlightened, etc. etc. And this post is a prime example.

For one thing Janet Jacksons breast being exposed in a provocative song is far different from an infant at his mothers breast.

Second, no one on here has claimed that the human body is an improper thing, just that it may be improper at times IN OUR OPINION. The only one who is self righteous here is you sir, and I for one would ask you to please show a little bit more tolerance and respect.


First off, I'm not European, I'm Canadian.

I personally do not agree with the notion that any concepts of propriety are equally valid, just different. Instead, I think that there are two main types: the first being the most common, which is a social construction, based on religion, traditions, random fads, etc.; the second being a rational, scientific analysis.

For example, you might have "holy" water that some may drink and others might not. From my perspective, if there's mercury or lead in that water, then no one should drink it.

Likewise, in the human body topic, we are all born naked, pulled out of a female vagina (unless c-section :) ) and then suck those tits for dear life. Research has shown that not breast feeding for a sufficient time is a health risk to the mother, due to higher likelihood of breast cancer, let alone the baby's health. So, my pint is that seeing breasts is not something on a scale of "badness", to be debated how bad it is. Instead, it is a good and natural thing, and any debate otherwise is a symptom of some neurosis or cultural defect. Where I assert a defect is a rejection of what is natural.

But, I agree that there are times and places for certain things. Like, when people bring George W Bush into every freakin argument, I think that's out of place. But that's not due to some morality, it's because that just clouds the issue.

And I'm not disrespecting any particular individuals, I'm disrespecting our, North American / Western / global, culture, which I think is flawed.

- Mark Collette

[tunanut]

Originally posted by MarkCollette
... / Western / global, culture, which I think is flawed.


and flawed in a puritanical and hypocritcal fashion. and why not bring up geo. bush or any other political leader who thinks that it's a-ok to foist his (yes they're usually men) christian values upon others. it's particularly gauling when our constitution expressly deliniates the govt and religious values, i.e. morality.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by tunanut
and flawed in a puritanical and hypocritcal fashion. and why not bring up geo. bush or any other political leader who thinks that it's a-ok to foist his (yes they're usually men) christian values upon others. it's particularly gauling when our constitution expressly deliniates the govt and religious values, i.e. morality.

Why is it so fundementally flawed to expect that the human body shouldn't be flaunted? Yes it is absurde when people like John Ashcroft object to covering up a statue with no sexual intent whatsoever, but object to what is an obviously degrading sexual display hardly seems puritanical and hypocritical to me.

What really gets annoying is this argument that simply because someone has a conservative view about something they are backward, non-thinking, and extremeist. Where is it that something liberal is inherently right or better? Just because something isn't done the way it used to doesn't make it somehow enlightened. If you think that you are just as guilty of extremism as GWBush and his ilk.

[yamabushi]

I think the rating systems for TV and film are flawed. The rating systems were a reflection of the values of a group of people who found certain things objectionable and other things less so, such as graphic violence. The system perpetuates itself by reinforcing the idea that the the way that ratings are divided is appropriate. In this way popular media influences our opinons about what is right and wrong.

My family and many of my friends have always found the ratings to be completely out of sync with what we find approriate for people of different age groups. There must be many others who feel likewise.

Certainly some will find that nudity along with sex and violence is inapproriate for people of any age. I respect their right to their own moral and religious views. However I do not think that public media should cater to these views. I believe that the images shown should have some restrictions but to make choices that cater to the most conservative views tends to validate those views at the expense of others.

In particular I find that the ratings are overly restrictive of nudity and sexual content and overly forgiving of violent content. Whether I am in the minority or the majority of public opinion is unclear but irrelevant since the rating system is unlikely to change.

[Jonnod III]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Third, yes college has commercial breaks too, in the same situations as in pro, this is because the networks need to make money. Of course a portion of that money is passed on to the schools. In fact televised college games are a huge source of revenue for college programs. At my school (University of Washington) the football program is completely self sufficient (i.e. it doesnt' recieve money from the University, it generates its own revenue) including scholarships and salaries. In addition it provides money to the general athletic fund so that other, less money making sports like swimming can exist. So not all advertising is bad.

So may I was wrong to use college as my point (unless, of course, ALL games of American Football have ads?). But if the breaks in a normal (not college, suiperbowl etc. etc.) game are the same length as those in the Super Bowl, then yes, I stand corrected, the game at the SuperBowl is not affected by advertising at all.

Are they the same length?

[coopdog]

Ill ****ing eat a plate of tapeworms if "It was a wardrobe malfunction" becomes some stupid American Cleche'. People are already saying it when they **** up. It's just as bad as "my bad."

[tunanut]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Why is it so fundementally flawed to expect that the human body shouldn't be flaunted?

why? because you and all other corrupted offspring of judeo-christian cultural brainwashing think that the human body CAN be exploited. folks, it's just sex -- it's how we got here, how we survive as a species. if some bimbo bozo low talent chippie wants to flash her tit it's meaningless UNLESS, unless puritanical do-gooders shriek in horror and lo and behold, give her the pr she thrives on.

i'd venture it a safe bet that her pr firm is in hog heaven and her bookings go up up, up, up along with her income after this blip. you know what they say in the pr world, nothing like a nice commotion to sell, books, sodapop....or nipple rings.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by tunanut
folks, it's just sex -- it's how we got here, how we survive as a species. if some bimbo bozo low talent chippie wants to flash her tit it's meaningless UNLESS, unless puritanical do-gooders shriek in horror and lo and behold, give her the pr she thrives on.

This is your view and you are certainly entitled to it but I would ask you to refrain from attacking my beliefs simply because they are different. I along with many others feel that sex is more than two animals copulating and feel that there is and isn't a place for it.

As a society we have decided that there are certain places it shouldn't be shown in public and this was one of those. Note however that this does not prevent you from engaging in or watching it in the privacy of your own home, or at times and places that don't conflict with others rights.

Next time try and not be so condescending towards those of different view points.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
What really gets annoying is this argument that simply because someone has a conservative view about something they are backward, non-thinking, and extremeist. Where is it that something liberal is inherently right or better?

So what makes your view better or more right than anyone else's?

Seems like both sides here are arguing that they are right and the other is wrong based soley on their respective moralities.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by coopdog
Ill ****ing eat a plate of tapeworms if "It was a wardrobe malfunction" becomes some stupid American Cleche'. People are already saying it when they **** up. It's just as bad as "my bad."

I wonder when some scumbag is gonna use the excuse of 'wardrobe malfunction' when he rapes a woman.

Followed by a 'blunt trauma malfunction', and 'penile insertion malfunction'.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by WinterMute
Agreed!

Lets move on shall we?

But I just got here :D

I had problems with the whole dance thing. I didn't think it was appropriate for sporting event that families and kids watch together. I could careless about a breast, I see my own every day. But I don't think children need to be exposed to that kind of stuff.

What surprises me is that people aren't more upset about Kid Rock wearing an actual flag as a shirt. Maybe someone else has brought this up here... but I found it and odd choice of "clothing" and the lack of response to that more surprising than JJ's breast making an appearance.

I am very much in support of maintaining one's freedom of speech and the right to burn the American flag as a form of protest. But if you are not doing that there are certain things that are appropriate and certain things that are not appropriate to do with the flag. And cutting a hole out of the middle of one and making it a shirt is not, imo, appropriate!

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by mactastic
So what makes your view better or more right than anyone else's?

Seems like both sides here are arguing that they are right and the other is wrong based soley on their respective moralities.

I never claimed my view was better.
However as a society we have agreed upon a certain set of standards, and in the case of broadcasting those standards were violated by the performance. I also would like to point out AGAIN that one of the reasons for this is that its easier to not show it, but allow those who want to see it find it elsewhere, rather than show it everywhere and make people have to avoid it.

[tunanut]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I never claimed my view was better.
However as a society we have agreed upon a certain set of standards ...

we have? seems to me that's the absurdity of standards. one mans' entertainment is another mans' obscenity. or, as the supreme court so artfully said, ' can't describe pornography but i know it when i see it. harruumpph.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I never claimed my view was better.


But you seem pretty sure your view is the right one. And you should, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing to support it. And those on the other side are just as sure they have the right view. Both think their view is right and the other is wrong. That's all I was pointing out.

[McToast]

Get a Life. OH MY! AMERICA SAW A BOOB!!! BIG #$@%^& DEAL!!!


Originally posted by Krizoitz
I never claimed my view was better.
However as a society we have agreed upon a certain set of standards, and in the case of broadcasting those standards were violated by the performance. I also would like to point out AGAIN that one of the reasons for this is that its easier to not show it, but allow those who want to see it find it elsewhere, rather than show it everywhere and make people have to avoid it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
That's all I was pointing out.

Didn't your mom tell you to never point! :p

[McToast]

BMD: Boobs of Mass Disctraction

"I'll bet the FCC spends more time investigating Janet
Jackson's breast than the Bush Administration does finding
out who lied about Iraq's WMD."

LOL!!!

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Didn't your mom tell you to never point! :p

Didn't your's tell you to have compassion for your fellow human?:p

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by McToast
Get a Life. OH MY! AMERICA SAW A BOOB!!! BIG #$@%^& DEAL!!!

Grow up, if you are going to disagree with someone at least try and sound remotely intelligent about it. Maybe it doesn't bother you but it does other people, its not right, its not wrong, its different.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by mactastic
But you seem pretty sure your view is the right one. And you should, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing to support it. And those on the other side are just as sure they have the right view. Both think their view is right and the other is wrong. That's all I was pointing out.

The difference between the two arguments:

Argument 1 (Others argument): So what, seeing a boob is no big deal, your views are just backward and stupid, get over it.

Argument 2 (My argument): Some of us have different ideas about where it is and isn't appropriate for this to be shown, and while we don't prevent you from seeing it, you think we should have to put up with it because you like it.

Maybe I should try this in terms of a different situation. Imagine yourself on a city bus with your family. Some guy walks in, plops down on a seat and turns up his stereo full blast too some station with profanity laced suggestive lyrics. In many many areas it is illegal for him to do so. Why? Not because he isn't allowed to listen to whatever kind of music he wants to. Because he is doing so at the expense of others right to have a decent bus ride. Not showing breasts, etc on main time national television is like not blasting your stereo, you can still see the breasts, or listen to your music, but you are asked to do so privately, either on a different station where you know what you are getting, or in the case of music, by wearing headphones.

[McToast]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Grow up, if you are going to disagree with someone at least try and sound remotely intelligent about it. Maybe it doesn't bother you but it does other people, its not right, its not wrong, its different.

Uhhhh no you're just an uptight *&^% and my response befits your response to seeing the boob.

People like you are what makes America such an idiotic place sometimes (but hey, look who's president). The rest of the western world laughs at this countries preoccupation with....BOOBS!

[McToast]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
The difference between the two arguments:

Argument 1 (Others argument): So what, seeing a boob is no big deal, your views are just backward and stupid, get over it.

Argument 2 (My argument): Some of us have different ideas about where it is and isn't appropriate for this to be shown, and while we don't prevent you from seeing it, you think we should have to put up with it because you like it.


You're right your views ARE stupid and backward and puritanical and I have no respect whatsoever for people like you.

People in France, Italy, and Britain laugh at America because of people like you.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by McToast
Uhhhh no you're just an uptight *&^% and my response befits your response to seeing the boob.

People like you are what makes America such an idiotic place sometimes (but hey, look who's president). The rest of the western world laughs at this countries preoccupation with....BOOBS!

Nobody is denying you looking at the boobs. Switch to HBO or Spice channel if u want. but there is a place and time where and when people don't want to see nudity on tv. Just because your standards on morality and ethics are below ours, doesnt make us idiots, nor does it make you right.

P.S. And I'd suggest you stop calling names those who disagree with you. Re-read the rules. It's one way to get you banned.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by McToast
You're right your views ARE stupid and backward and puritanical and I have no respect whatsoever for people like you.

People in France, Italy, and Britain laugh at America because of people like you.

First, You should re-read the rules on personal insults and other rules on posting. Disagreeing with people on these boards is one thing, but attacking them and their beliefs is completely different.

Second, if people in other countries laugh at me because I think women should be respected, and not treated like spectacles for a bunch of drunken over-sexed males, then let them laugh.

[yamabushi]

There was a time in the United States when it was considered indecent for any person (both male and female) to show their knees and ankles. I am happy that this notion is no longer popular. Now I can wear shorts without anybody perceiving it to be overtly sexual. I hope that eventually nudity will cease to be considered obscene.

Sexual thoughts will always occur regardless of the amount of clothing. I think any attempt to "protect" people from such thoughts is misguided. Censorship of the thoughts of others is a very scary thing. I think that sexual thoughts are generally very healthy anyways.

[tunanut]

Originally posted by yamabushi
There was a time in the United States when it was considered indecent for any person (both male and female) to show their knees and ankles.

With some of the current thinking expressed by the political moralists, those kind of regressive notions may be boomaranging back. As example, look at the push by religious zealots -- who think this should be primarily a christian nation -- to force their ideals on the nation as a whole. Laws, of course, but do we really need a rigid morals squad in Washington?

[Krizoitz]

There was a time in the United States when it was considered indecent for any person (both male and female) to show their knees and ankles. I am happy that this notion is no longer popular. Now I can wear shorts without anybody perceiving it to be overtly sexual. I hope that eventually nudity will cease to be considered obscene.


Thats the way society works, things change and are fluid, but it was what the society at large had decided, its how all societies work.


Sexual thoughts will always occur regardless of the amount of clothing. I think any attempt to "protect" people from such thoughts is misguided. Censorship of the thoughts of others is a very scary thing.


Its not about protecting everyone from thoughts but allowing parents to protect their children and decide when they can see these things. No one is stopping you or others like you from seeing what you want to see. So the censorship you so fear, is a little less extreme than you seem to portray it.


I think that sexual thoughts are generally very healthy anyways.

Please explain that to the countless teenage mothers, rape victims, abused children, etc. Entire industries of sex slaves, most of them young girls exist because of peoples uncontrolled sexual desires.

Admittedly not all sexual thoughts are dangerous, but arguing that they are very healthy is certainly not accurate either.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
The difference between the two arguments:

Argument 1 (Others argument): So what, seeing a boob is no big deal, your views are just backward and stupid, get over it.

Argument 2 (My argument): Some of us have different ideas about where it is and isn't appropriate for this to be shown, and while we don't prevent you from seeing it, you think we should have to put up with it because you like it.

Now that's not a very nice way to characterize your opponents. And you are the one preaching tolerance of the opposing viewpoint.

More to the point, the argument is What is so harmful about seeing a female breast as opposed to a male breast? Which we see plenty of at football games. And secondly, Why are we so offended by seeing that much of her boob, as opposed to seeing the SI swimsuit ads, or the Coppertone ads, where the tiniest of tiny pieces of fabric covers the nipple, barely more than the nipple shield JJ was wearing? Those are allowed to be shown during the Super Bowl. Cheerleaders showing off their underwear is allowed, and even encouraged. Why is that permitted and yet a breast with a pastie over the nipple isn't? Are you suggesting that seeing women's bodies makes men do things they otherwise wouldn't? And how do you feel about a woman's right to breast-feed in public? And how does that differ, if at all, from what JJ did?


Maybe I should try this in terms of a different situation. Imagine yourself on a city bus with your family. Some guy walks in, plops down on a seat and turns up his stereo full blast too some station with profanity laced suggestive lyrics. In many many areas it is illegal for him to do so. Why? Not because he isn't allowed to listen to whatever kind of music he wants to. Because he is doing so at the expense of others right to have a decent bus ride. Not showing breasts, etc on main time national television is like not blasting your stereo, you can still see the breasts, or listen to your music, but you are asked to do so privately, either on a different station where you know what you are getting, or in the case of music, by wearing headphones.

In many many areas it is legal for him to do so. That's one reason it's not a valid analogy. Another is that I would draw a major distinction between filthy lyrics and the human body. They simply aren't comparable in my opinion. I don't agree that the human body itself is offensive. A more accurate analogy might be sitting on a city bus while a woman breast feeds her baby. Or a guy changes his shirt. Both of those are exposures to the human body.

[IJ Reilly]

This is not a "Political Discussion," so it's unclear to me why it's been forwarded here from wherever it was started. A Suggestion: perhaps you should open a "Snake Pit" or "Cesspool" forum as a home for these flame-fests, or simply lock them where they began.

[Jonnod III]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This is not a "Political Discussion," so it's unclear to me why it's been forwarded here from wherever it was started. A Suggestion: perhaps you should open a "Snake Pit" or "Cesspool" forum as a home for these flame-fests, or simply lock them where they began.

Aah! you misunderstand! It's only the exposers that should be in the cesspool.

...hang on, no, I got that wrong, it's the puritans...

no, thinking about it it's the ...

oh hell, does it matter???

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This is not a "Political Discussion," so it's unclear to me why it's been forwarded here from wherever it was started. A Suggestion: perhaps you should open a "Snake Pit" or "Cesspool" forum as a home for these flame-fests, or simply lock them where they began.

There was political discussion in the midst of it that people were warned about. It continued, thus the entire thread was moved.

This topic certainly brushes up against religious/morality discussion and that falls under the bailiwick of this forum, despite the name (we've mentioned to arn about changing the name to reflect this).

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
(we've mentioned to arn about changing the name to reflect this).

Could we call it the Snakepit Forum?? Please please please! :D It is mainly political discussion, so that would be appropriate. Or how about the We Take Ourselves Way To Seriously forum?;) Maybe a subforum For Pricks Only.

[tunanut]

indeed politics and morality are overlapping -- sadly -- and polarzing our world. everyone's entitled to their own version of what's right and true to themselves so long as it doesn'tr harm or is foisted upon another, doncha think?

[tomf87]

Originally posted by tunanut
oh brother, pedantic too. did i spell THAT right, tom?:o

It appears so.. Didn't think I could offend anyone THAT easily. It's just a discussion; I was just pointing something out for someone who didn't know what it meant.

:o

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by mactastic
Could we call it the Snakepit Forum?? Please please please! :D It is mainly political discussion, so that would be appropriate. Or how about the We Take Ourselves Way To Seriously forum?;) Maybe a subforum For Pricks Only.

;)

[IJ Reilly]

Now look what I've done.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by mactastic
More to the point, the argument is What is so harmful about seeing a female breast as opposed to a male breast? Which we see plenty of at football games. And secondly, Why are we so offended by seeing that much of her boob, as opposed to seeing the SI swimsuit ads, or the Coppertone ads, where the tiniest of tiny pieces of fabric covers the nipple, barely more than the nipple shield JJ was wearing? Those are allowed to be shown during the Super Bowl. Cheerleaders showing off their underwear is allowed, and even encouraged. Why is that permitted and yet a breast with a pastie over the nipple isn't? Are you suggesting that seeing women's bodies makes men do things they otherwise wouldn't? And how do you feel about a woman's right to breast-feed in public? And how does that differ, if at all, from what JJ did?
This has been addressed before. We aren't saying we don't disagree with that either. Thats like asking, as a previous poster put it, why should we care if someone runs a red light when someone else might be stealing a car.




In many many areas it is legal for him to do so. That's one reason it's not a valid analogy. Another is that I would draw a major distinction between filthy lyrics and the human body. They simply aren't comparable in my opinion. I don't agree that the human body itself is offensive.

YOU would draw that distinction but others might not. There are people who feel that the over-sexed provocative nature in which these people are exposing themselves is tasteless, not that nudity in general is so. You are trying to lump a specific type of nudity in with all types and that is simply not, nor never has been my point.
Also its true that in some areas such public displays are allowed, just like in other cultures nudity is viewed differently. However in our culture the acceptable way to change a view you disagree with is to convince others your view is better and have the laws changed, not flaunt the laws that the majority support. When in Rome, etc etc. If you were to go to India and on a nationally televised event suddenly decide to slaughter a cow they would be terribly offended (and its possibly illegal). Arguing that YOU don't think a cow is sacred, or that people outside of India don't think its sacred is not justification for violating the rules of that society, no more than arguing that simply because you like nudity, or Europeans like it is a means of justifying this occurence.


A more accurate analogy might be sitting on a city bus while a woman breast feeds her baby. Or a guy changes his shirt. Both of those are exposures to the human body.
Correct, but they carry a very different connotation. Its like the difference between referring to a female dog using b**** and refering to a person the same way. Same word, but it carries with it completely different meanings. I would say that comparing a woman breast feeding and Janet and Justins bump and grind (which I found equally as offensive) and strip routine is far more dissimilar than my example.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by tunanut
indeed politics and morality are overlapping -- sadly -- and polarzing our world. everyone's entitled to their own version of what's right and true to themselves so long as it doesn'tr harm or is foisted upon another, doncha think?

Except its impossible to seperate morality from society. At some point or another any gathering of people have to agree on what is and isn't allowed, which ultimately boils down to what most of them believe is right and wrong.

Some issues are fairly easy to agree upon, like murder, in most cultures this is forbiden. Other things such as sexuality are far less stable and therefore you have societies constantly going back and forth on what is and isn't acceptable.

It is not possible for a society to exist in which everyones views are completely allowed. If we were to do so, one person could argue that they don't have a problem killing people, or eating babies, or something and we would have no way to stop them.

Society is a balancing act between freedom and order, and as a previous poster pointed out, either one in extreme turns out very poorly.

This is certainly not something new, every society from the dawn of time has had a set of views and people who disagree with those views. The difference in our society, and the point the framers of the constitution worked to create was that you could adjust society and what is acceptable without having to resort to violent revolution.

[Thanatoast]

If this has been gone over before in the last seven pages, I apologize.

I think that Janet is playing this the wrong way. She has come out and apoligized for her ill-thought-out last minute decision. I think she should say something like "Now you've all seen my tittie! All the conservatives who were watching the Super Bowl are now going to Hell and your children will grow up to be warped sex-crazed degenerates! My evil plan has worked! HAHAHAHA!"

The furor being raised over this is ridiculous. When I saw it on Sunday, I laughed. Janet Jackson's boob, big frickin' deal. People need to get over themselves.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
If this has been gone over before in the last seven pages, I apologize.

I think that Janet is playing this the wrong way. She has come out and apoligized for her ill-thought-out last minute decision. I think she should say something like "Now you've all seen my tittie! All the conservatives who were watching the Super Bowl are now going to Hell and your children will grow up to be warped sex-crazed degenerates! My evil plan has worked! HAHAHAHA!"

The furor being raised over this is ridiculous. When I saw it on Sunday, I laughed. Janet Jackson's boob, big frickin' deal. People need to get over themselves.

It is obvious to me that you have no respect for anyone whose beliefs are different from your own. You may want to work on that, it will get you a lot farther in this world.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
It is obvious to me that you have no respect for anyone whose beliefs are different from your own. You may want to work on that, it will get you a lot farther in this world.

Your attitude doesn't help things either.