Janet's Tit
- Thread starter jdoe86
- Start date
Tender: well i think it was unnecesary.
and maybe we ARE prudes, but it WAS supposed to be a family past-time, not the playboy show.
save it for later.... lol
Tender
and maybe we ARE prudes, but it WAS supposed to be a family past-time, not the playboy show.
save it for later.... lol
Tender
It's such a mess, all the way around.
Shocking, yes, but then--not really.
The half-time program WAS produced afterall by MTV.
(Should we then, be totally surprised?) And, CBS-TV has also been broadcasting (for TWO years now) very provocative Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows. No one at the "eyeball network" has apparently even "winked" just once at what THAT was representing....(changing morals in the "tiffany" network.) All these "new trends" typically work out as wonderfully profitable! publicity stunts for everyone involved. But, there is a hidden price that we all pay, ultimately.
The Super Bowl is (or was) a traditional "family" event each January--much anticipated. In my own personal life, I'm now recounting how church schedules were amended Sunday night to allow family (and young people!) to view the game. Wow...did it ever pay THEM to stay home! The one night "the boob tube" became just that! You know, it's not funny when you think about it. Moms and Dads (with decent morals, that is) had some fast explaining and rationalizing to do!)
But IS there any way to explain, deal with, and then dismiss this kind of behavior when we are trying to set good examples for our youth? Adults allowed this to happen and adults (supposedly) made the decisions to carry it through. They sold out--more ways than one.
Then...there's the matter of the worldwide television audience...including America's current "enemies" who are already watching our every move as a society. When they see this kind of (lewd, really) behavior being televised as a representation of "popular American culture"...what kind of idea do they have of us, now? No wonder many abroad are so disgusted with what America represents in morality. Our "standards" while once very strict (yes, maybe "too strict" in some ways) have really now gone way, WAY, south --yet again.
So, just as I began here....it's a big, regrettable mess.
And, it's a shame, too ---that this had to happen.
It has distracted us from remembering what a terrrific
football game we experienced especially this year in the
Super Bowl. (The first half was riveting!)
But, after all this "hoopla"----let's see now, if we can recall--
Who'd you say won?
For that matter---who was even playing??
(that is, besides Janet and Justin?)
Shocking, yes, but then--not really.
The half-time program WAS produced afterall by MTV.
(Should we then, be totally surprised?) And, CBS-TV has also been broadcasting (for TWO years now) very provocative Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows. No one at the "eyeball network" has apparently even "winked" just once at what THAT was representing....(changing morals in the "tiffany" network.) All these "new trends" typically work out as wonderfully profitable! publicity stunts for everyone involved. But, there is a hidden price that we all pay, ultimately.
The Super Bowl is (or was) a traditional "family" event each January--much anticipated. In my own personal life, I'm now recounting how church schedules were amended Sunday night to allow family (and young people!) to view the game. Wow...did it ever pay THEM to stay home! The one night "the boob tube" became just that! You know, it's not funny when you think about it. Moms and Dads (with decent morals, that is) had some fast explaining and rationalizing to do!)
But IS there any way to explain, deal with, and then dismiss this kind of behavior when we are trying to set good examples for our youth? Adults allowed this to happen and adults (supposedly) made the decisions to carry it through. They sold out--more ways than one.
Then...there's the matter of the worldwide television audience...including America's current "enemies" who are already watching our every move as a society. When they see this kind of (lewd, really) behavior being televised as a representation of "popular American culture"...what kind of idea do they have of us, now? No wonder many abroad are so disgusted with what America represents in morality. Our "standards" while once very strict (yes, maybe "too strict" in some ways) have really now gone way, WAY, south --yet again.
So, just as I began here....it's a big, regrettable mess.
And, it's a shame, too ---that this had to happen.
It has distracted us from remembering what a terrrific
football game we experienced especially this year in the
Super Bowl. (The first half was riveting!)
But, after all this "hoopla"----let's see now, if we can recall--
Who'd you say won?
For that matter---who was even playing??
(that is, besides Janet and Justin?)
kurios
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2003
- Posts
- 880
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 83
- Points
- 248
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
jimbo67: That stunt was out of place. You have to realize that the Super Bowl was broadcast live around the world. Consider the image this projects of American society. We are perceived by many as a pagan society and this action reinforces that image. No wonder Muslins hate the USA and fear our influence on their culture. In Muslin countres, a woman can be stoned to death for showing her ankles. Imagine what they would do to Janet after she shows the world her breast.
I am not a prude, but this stunt was inappropriate and and embarrassed the USA in front of the entire world.
I am not a prude, but this stunt was inappropriate and and embarrassed the USA in front of the entire world.
[quote author=kurios link=board=meetgreet;num=1075825894;start=0#6 date=02/03/04 at 14:39:29]Frankly tits popping out and guys grabbing their crotches are cool but not at the Super Bowl I mean it is like showing Mrs Claus with no panties and Santa with a boner at a Christmas pageant[/quote]
That's the best description of the situation I've heard yet.
But that CBS news would have Dan Rather quote it on the Evening News...
Pecker
Sorry I'm late, I get distracted by shiny objects.
The Tick
That's the best description of the situation I've heard yet.
But that CBS news would have Dan Rather quote it on the Evening News...
Pecker
Sorry I'm late, I get distracted by shiny objects.
The Tick
7x6andchg: Broadcast around the world....
To European countries such as France...where...the last time I was there anyway....they show such things in publicités...
We're prudes. It is a big deal because we MAKE it a big deal.
To European countries such as France...where...the last time I was there anyway....they show such things in publicités...
We're prudes. It is a big deal because we MAKE it a big deal.
mindseye: I'm not offended by a naked breast. But for someone who once sang "Privacy is my middle name", this was a disappointment.
She and Timberlake usurped the right of parents across the country to determine what is age-appropriate for their children to watch, and owes them an apology.
Equally important, they were disrespectful to the players and coaches of Sunday's game. These players practiced hard; the coaches did their homework; and together they put on one of the best Superbowl games in recent memory. Jackson and Timberlake upstaged them and robbed them of much of the attention they deserved.
I've been a fan of Janet's work -- especially Rhythm Nation 1814 and The Velvet Rope. I can't imagine I'll be supportive of her newest album.
She and Timberlake usurped the right of parents across the country to determine what is age-appropriate for their children to watch, and owes them an apology.
Equally important, they were disrespectful to the players and coaches of Sunday's game. These players practiced hard; the coaches did their homework; and together they put on one of the best Superbowl games in recent memory. Jackson and Timberlake upstaged them and robbed them of much of the attention they deserved.
I've been a fan of Janet's work -- especially Rhythm Nation 1814 and The Velvet Rope. I can't imagine I'll be supportive of her newest album.
[quote author=mindseye link=board=meetgreet;num=1075825894;start=0#12 date=02/03/04 at 18:04:04]Equally important, they were disrespectful to the players and coaches of Sunday's game. These players practiced hard; the coaches did their homework; and together they put on one of the best Superbowl games in recent memory. Jackson and Timberlake upstaged them and robbed them of much of the attention they deserved.
I've been a fan of Janet's work -- especially Rhythm Nation 1814 and The Velvet Rope. I can't imagine I'll be supportive of her newest album.[/quote]
Okay, here's my take. I think you make good points overall, but I politely disagree with the resulting consequence of your judgment.
The fact is, MTV produced the halftime show, and as soon as I saw the roster of acts, quite honestly, it was damned from the start. I'm not a particular fan of any of those artists, save Janet, and when they started doing familiar numbers, it made me that much more disinterested. Janet didn't do anything original, save the tit incident, but I was always a great fan of her choreography and stage presence. Could she have sang her song instead of lip-synch to it? Sure... but hey...
New England and Carolina came with their A-game and though I was disappointed that a field goal made all the difference, it was a good game, no question. They kept each other on their toes and Carolina kept coming back strong. If either team slacked at any moment until the last quarter, the game wouldn't have been nearly as intense. That's the kind of football that would make me a fan, had I given a damn about the sport in general...
To say that Janet and Justin had upstaged the entire game would be taking things a bit too damn far, really. As I recall, the fans of either team were cheering, yelling, and carousing just as loudly and wildly before the show as they did after. The performance was... provocative... and yes, it bordered on titillating (no pun intended), but the game continued unerred. I highly doubt that one tit really upset the balance of the game that much...
...and if we are to make such accusations, let's just take a look at that streaker fellow.
Janet bared her tit, but Justin was the one to swipe the covering off of her braziere. It was Justin's routine playing and the tit was Justin's finale. Janet agreed to the stunt. The stunt was in questionable taste, and though I'm unsure just how much of the audience consisted of younger viewers, I remember hearing screams of excitement -- not boos, jeers, guffaws, or torches being ignited in fury and condemnation. Hell, I was screaming like a damn fool in sexual excitement, too.
But are we to make heavy-handed judgments? What I mean is, how degenerate of a nation can we possibly be to emphasize this incident, knowing good and damn well that our everyday programming is riddled with violence, gender politics, drugs, harsh depictions, and plenty of gratuity boobie? Sure, MTV's played heavily into that titillation angle to satisfy its younger demographic, but come now, we've seen it before and we've seen it plenty. If this were Victorian England, oh God yes, we shalt scream and fuss! But wake up. It's 2004 and it hardly qualifies as a travesty.
It was a move in poor taste provided by MTV, "television programming" of the youth, and it was for show. It was a promotional stunt, or maybe some risqué since Janet really hasn't done that much in the way of the sensual in quite a long time. But, seriously, lighten up. Like I said, we see way worse on a day-to-day basis...
Never mind, I'm still tempted to wonder why this one little stunt makes Janet deemed an unworthy artist. Okay, so if Britney's bordering on naked in her latest video, it wouldn't matter because she's a heavily manufactured artist devoid of personal strength and integrity in her "songs." Her whole stage presence is a show, softcore porn. And L'il Kim... yeah... she originated the booby pasty (re: MTV Music Awards, 2002, perhaps?), but her scandalousness was an expectation, too. She's done hoochie forever...
But Janet's no less a talented singer, songwriter, and dancer because of her show. So she indulged in a little fun that was questionably suitable; it was agreeable and consensual. And though Justin so didn't deserve to feel her up, hey... no big deal.
Ease down.
I've been a fan of Janet's work -- especially Rhythm Nation 1814 and The Velvet Rope. I can't imagine I'll be supportive of her newest album.[/quote]
Okay, here's my take. I think you make good points overall, but I politely disagree with the resulting consequence of your judgment.
The fact is, MTV produced the halftime show, and as soon as I saw the roster of acts, quite honestly, it was damned from the start. I'm not a particular fan of any of those artists, save Janet, and when they started doing familiar numbers, it made me that much more disinterested. Janet didn't do anything original, save the tit incident, but I was always a great fan of her choreography and stage presence. Could she have sang her song instead of lip-synch to it? Sure... but hey...
New England and Carolina came with their A-game and though I was disappointed that a field goal made all the difference, it was a good game, no question. They kept each other on their toes and Carolina kept coming back strong. If either team slacked at any moment until the last quarter, the game wouldn't have been nearly as intense. That's the kind of football that would make me a fan, had I given a damn about the sport in general...
To say that Janet and Justin had upstaged the entire game would be taking things a bit too damn far, really. As I recall, the fans of either team were cheering, yelling, and carousing just as loudly and wildly before the show as they did after. The performance was... provocative... and yes, it bordered on titillating (no pun intended), but the game continued unerred. I highly doubt that one tit really upset the balance of the game that much...
...and if we are to make such accusations, let's just take a look at that streaker fellow.
Janet bared her tit, but Justin was the one to swipe the covering off of her braziere. It was Justin's routine playing and the tit was Justin's finale. Janet agreed to the stunt. The stunt was in questionable taste, and though I'm unsure just how much of the audience consisted of younger viewers, I remember hearing screams of excitement -- not boos, jeers, guffaws, or torches being ignited in fury and condemnation. Hell, I was screaming like a damn fool in sexual excitement, too.
But are we to make heavy-handed judgments? What I mean is, how degenerate of a nation can we possibly be to emphasize this incident, knowing good and damn well that our everyday programming is riddled with violence, gender politics, drugs, harsh depictions, and plenty of gratuity boobie? Sure, MTV's played heavily into that titillation angle to satisfy its younger demographic, but come now, we've seen it before and we've seen it plenty. If this were Victorian England, oh God yes, we shalt scream and fuss! But wake up. It's 2004 and it hardly qualifies as a travesty.
It was a move in poor taste provided by MTV, "television programming" of the youth, and it was for show. It was a promotional stunt, or maybe some risqué since Janet really hasn't done that much in the way of the sensual in quite a long time. But, seriously, lighten up. Like I said, we see way worse on a day-to-day basis...
Never mind, I'm still tempted to wonder why this one little stunt makes Janet deemed an unworthy artist. Okay, so if Britney's bordering on naked in her latest video, it wouldn't matter because she's a heavily manufactured artist devoid of personal strength and integrity in her "songs." Her whole stage presence is a show, softcore porn. And L'il Kim... yeah... she originated the booby pasty (re: MTV Music Awards, 2002, perhaps?), but her scandalousness was an expectation, too. She's done hoochie forever...
But Janet's no less a talented singer, songwriter, and dancer because of her show. So she indulged in a little fun that was questionably suitable; it was agreeable and consensual. And though Justin so didn't deserve to feel her up, hey... no big deal.
Ease down.
C'mon guyz, it was just a 5-second sighting of a tit.
Was America irreparably harmed? I doubt it. Will the next generation of adolescent boys dream of boobs? You betcha! Will this be the result of Janet? No way.
I think most Americans would agree the game was a good one and the half-time entertainment was bad.
jay
Was America irreparably harmed? I doubt it. Will the next generation of adolescent boys dream of boobs? You betcha! Will this be the result of Janet? No way.
I think most Americans would agree the game was a good one and the half-time entertainment was bad.
jay
mindseye: [quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=meetgreet;num=1075825894;start=0#14 date=02/03/04 at 21:05:05]Okay, here's my take. I think you make good points overall, but I politely disagree with the resulting consequence of your judgment.[/quote]
That's cool. I think you've read more into my post than I intended, though.
I don't think it's a bit too damn far at all. Right now -- and it's over 48 hours since the game, http://news.google.com still has the incident as it's second headline (outranked only by today's primary election results). The article links to the New York Times of all papers, "and 1967 related" articles. The game itself is mentioned further down the page. TiVo reports that the boob-flash was re-watched not only more than any play of the game itself, but more than any event in TiVo's history. If that's not upstaging, what does it take?
It's a given, I think, that the fans at the game would be cheering for the game -- Super Bowl tickets aren't cheap, after all, so the casual fan probably wouldn't attend.
...which wasn't televised.
Sure, we've seen it before. And personally, I think American TV standards are pretty fucked-up -- a tirade I'll spare you -- but they're dependable. That is, people who want to see nudity know what channels to turn to, and people can reasonably expect not to see it on CBS. While I think there's something peculiar about a broadcast standard that says that commercial after commercial about 'erectile dysfunction' is okay for kids but an exposed breast isn't, parents relied on that peculiar standard when they decided to let their kids watch the game.
In context. You can be naked in your bedroom, or over in the Yahoo group, but not in Lexington Mall.
Here's where I think you've misunderstood me. I said, "I can't imagine I'll be supportive of her newest album." There are plenty of reasons for not supporting an artist, apart from their talent. For example, Eminem has some talent, but I don't support that sexist, racist, homophobic twerp either.
That's cool. I think you've read more into my post than I intended, though.
I don't think it's a bit too damn far at all. Right now -- and it's over 48 hours since the game, http://news.google.com still has the incident as it's second headline (outranked only by today's primary election results). The article links to the New York Times of all papers, "and 1967 related" articles. The game itself is mentioned further down the page. TiVo reports that the boob-flash was re-watched not only more than any play of the game itself, but more than any event in TiVo's history. If that's not upstaging, what does it take?
It's a given, I think, that the fans at the game would be cheering for the game -- Super Bowl tickets aren't cheap, after all, so the casual fan probably wouldn't attend.
...which wasn't televised.
Sure, we've seen it before. And personally, I think American TV standards are pretty fucked-up -- a tirade I'll spare you -- but they're dependable. That is, people who want to see nudity know what channels to turn to, and people can reasonably expect not to see it on CBS. While I think there's something peculiar about a broadcast standard that says that commercial after commercial about 'erectile dysfunction' is okay for kids but an exposed breast isn't, parents relied on that peculiar standard when they decided to let their kids watch the game.
In context. You can be naked in your bedroom, or over in the Yahoo group, but not in Lexington Mall.
Here's where I think you've misunderstood me. I said, "I can't imagine I'll be supportive of her newest album." There are plenty of reasons for not supporting an artist, apart from their talent. For example, Eminem has some talent, but I don't support that sexist, racist, homophobic twerp either.
roedhunt: See comments in the etc forum. I think thats where this topic should belong (there is already one started).
Well, let's look at it this way: if Janet's as big into plastic surgery as her sister ... er, brother ... well, Miss Jacko ... we saw more Tupperware than we saw tit anyway. Ms. Jackson's ultra-perky booblie might be forgotten next week. If not, I doubt we'll be consumed in a hail of fire and brimstone while Justin Timberlake turns into a pillar of salt and Britney Spears falls to her knees (again) crying, "Justy, I didn't mean it when I told the unwashed masses that you have a tiny dingaling!" My point is ... uh, well, I had a point when I began this post, but now I forget. Never mind.
HUGE_Nuts: This whole thing is a shame. Who cares if we saw Janet Jackson's breast? Americans, Prudes?? Please. We've always been prudes. I agree with Jay_Too....."Was America irreparably harmed? I doubt it. Will the next generation of adolescent boys dream of boobs? You betcha! Will this be the result of Janet? No way.
Come on?? We have bigger problems in this world...in this country...we've got starving children, people who cannot afford healthcare, an irresponsible president, disease.....we got though Madonna kissing Britney (yawn!)....we will get though this.
Overreacting will only perpetuate this obsession.
Get over it, I have!
Come on?? We have bigger problems in this world...in this country...we've got starving children, people who cannot afford healthcare, an irresponsible president, disease.....we got though Madonna kissing Britney (yawn!)....we will get though this.
Overreacting will only perpetuate this obsession.
Get over it, I have!
Similar threads
