For fuck's sake, people, it's just a boob. Get over it.

The BBQ Pit
181

Well, in all fairness, I wasn’t wearing my reading glasses, so I could be totally wrong. :smiley:

As far as several “it’s just a boob” protests go:…

First off, it’s not “just a boob”. Had Janet been dancing around and OOOPSIE, her top slipped down and a boob showed, or even had she coyly lowered her shoulder strap and flashed a little, you would not be hearing NEAR the controversy.

What is was, was an overtly sexual act (one somewhat condoning sexual force or sexual manhandling toward women), which had been preceded by an overtly sexual performance, including simulated copulation by Justin and Janet.

In addition, Justin and Janet’s act had been preceded by the overtly sexual performance of P. Diddy and Nelly.

The lyrics of the performances by Janet and Justin, and the P. Diddy act were also sexually explicit ones.

Second issue, the performances were put before the audiences and no choice in the matter was given to the audiences.

The issue isn’t “OH MY GOD a Boob we’re ALL going to die from exposure”. Jeez, can we oversimplify anymore?

The issue is that the boobage was out of place and inappropriate and that it was done without consent of the viewers. The rules as far as what can be shown in that venue were already in place, both the official ones and the unspoken ones.

If boobs really need to have a wider viewing time, then those of you who want that need to petition for it and so on.

At any rate, that’s not really the issue, the “this was done without consent and broke the official rules as well as the rules of good taste and decorum” is.

As I’ve said, prior to my leaving my hometown, I taught dance classes, both at a college and at nightclubs. I was also co-captain of a dance team, which performed for various functions.

The dances I set up for a charity event at the college for 300 rowdy college students was FAR different than the performances that I would set up for the nursing home Christmas show. Um… DUH!!! THAT’S what we’re all saying about Janet’s boob. It’s NOT the boob, it’s the context in which the boob was shown and all the additional sleaze that led up to the boobage.

If all you “it’s only a boob, sheesh” types were sitting around watching, Oh say boobs, and suddenly the boobbearers took a break and Billy Graham came on and gave a 15 minute sermon, Hoooo BOY you can bet your bottom dollar all the “My rights have been violated” and “WHERE are the CENSOR’S”?? folks would be out in full force. IMHO, it would make Tittygate look like a mere blip on the media radar.

As far as the “there’s so much violence/horrible stuff happening that this incident ‘should’ pale in comparison” debate. What? Do you mean to say that unless an event is of life threatening proportions that it should have no importance at all, nor should it be dealt with in any way?

It’s not an “either/or” matter. In other words, it’s not as if the officials, newscasters etc are suddenly going to stop giving importance to “real” news and issues just because of Janet’s boob, there IS room on the news and in the courts for both to be reported, documented, and handled.

182

It may be a little late in the game to bring up the obvious, and a point that has been repeated in more than one post in this thread. None-the-less, somebody has got to see that there is a significant difference between the unexpected appearance in our collective living rooms of some tasteless, crass, crude, juvenile and not done in polite society boob show and something that threatens the demise of Western Civilization and the ruination of the Republic. For Pete’s sake get a sense of proportion. The chairman of the FCC is supposed to have hysterics over this sophomoric stunt–it is his job to perceive with dismay and point with alarm. That’s how he makes his living. If he does not get up on his high horse and gallop off in four directions at once every time something pops up on the TV screen that might give your maiden aunt a case of the vapors some one might seriously content that his position and power are not strictly necessary to the continuance of civil society.

We got bigger things to worry about, friends, though not half as diverting. It wasn’t a particularly attractive bosom, any way. Not nearly as esthetically pleasing as the bronzes that the Attorney General had draped. Do you suppose there is a connection? In the mean time, to use an obvious phrase, don’t get your tit in a wringer.

183

Speaking of which:

Just out of curiosity, for those who claim that such an incident was “unexpected” during the Super Bowl halftime show: what, exactly, were you expecting from the likes of Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson, Kid Rock and whoever the hell else was there? These people (and many others) have, to my mind, practically defined “tasteless”, “crass”, “crude” and “juvenile”, and now I’m supposed to believe that such a stunt is unexpected when you get them all together in one place? Their entire careers are founded upon sleaze!

Stated plainly, you’re fools if you expected a wholesome family show.

184

I agree with the couple of posters who claim that context is the key. Parallels can sometimes bring illumination. Try these:

A few years ago, Schindler’s List was shown on national broadcast TV, in prime time, uncut, including the ‘medical exam’ scene: naked men and women trotting around through the mud while doctors looked for anyone less than perfectly happy who could therefore be shipped off to an extermination camp. More than mere boobage was shown; female pubic hair was blatantly exposed also. (Men cupped their hands over their genitals.) No one, in all this country, complained. Well, there was one legislator from Louisiana, I think, who complained but he was widely proclaimed an asshole, about 2-star force.

More recently, Lucy Lawless (Xena) was wearing a Wonder Woman costume while singing the national anthem before a sports event. The top slipped down without her noticing it and the audience was treated to full double boobage for several seconds. Again, no one complained.

Why no or minimal complaints for these incidents of boobage (Love that word! I hope it catches on. :slight_smile: ) while the JJ incident is becoming a firestorm?

Clearly, context. Schindler’s List was tragic. Xena’s accident was clearly an accident and in a non-sexual context. However, my understanding of the half-time show was that it was highly sexually-charged in a tacky, tasteless way. Conservatives were already feeling self-conscious and uncomfortable for their children about explicit lyrics, etc. when the “wardrobe malfunction” occurred. That was just enough to push them over the edge; that’s why we have the firestorm.

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with boobage and I’m with DtC on this point…but I didn’t watch the the half-time show as I knew it would be tacky, tasteless, annoying, showing sexuality in its worst possible light. Couldn’t parents with children have been aware of this also?

I instead spent the time doing research for my upcoming popular non-fiction book on the psychology of obsession with pornography, both for and against. It might be ready in a year. Or two. Or three. I still have to do lots of research. :smiley:

185

Madonna, M.Jackson, Britney, et al haven’t lasted?

Lucky I get relive their “most outrageous” moments which seem to be on several channels at any given time.

Because in this day and age not only is shocking people easier, it’s better for your career.

Btw, what type of idiot (you knew the artists in advance) expected a family show?

186

When I am watching broadcast TV, I am NOT foolish for expecting not to see bare nipples, or even nipples adorned by little sunburst jewelry.

187

So, you do agree with us. You`re making our point and at the same time saying you agree with DTC. Your admittance in the bolding reinforces my points. Why should sexuality in its worst possible light be shown to a prime time family audience?

Why should parents with children have to constantly be vigilant, especially during a football game for Chrissakes?

Would you like to try again?

188

I think it’s foolish to expect a ratings driven tv network to do the parenting for you.

Any good parent was well aware (or at least should have been) of who was performing at halftime.

At that point, anyone with 2 braincells to rub together knew that it would be anything but family friendly.

189

No.

My point is that context determines the shock value. You seemed to have missed that. I don’t object to boobage, per se, but I strongly object to tasteless, tacky.

Bricker and Uncommon Sense, are you saying that the half-time show, with all its explicit lyrics, scantily-clad females, highly raunchy moves and endless innuendo, was all perfectly OK right up to the instant of boobage? I find that totally astonishing.

What I’m asking is that, if your kids were watching too and you object to subjecting them to sexuality, why didn’t you turn off the TV for 20 minutes, long before the boobage?

190

To clarify - I don’t buy performances that only shock because the shock doesn’t last. You run this incident through TiVo a bit and then record over it. I doubt anyone will buy a SuperBowl Half-Time video (or keep their TiVo recording for too long) just to have their own copy of Janet’s Tit. I haven’t bought any Madonna, M.Jackson, or Britney music. I see some on TV or hear some on the radio. The things I really like I’ll get a copy of and listen to repeatedly.

I didn’t know the artists in advance. I had to ask to be sure the SuperBowl was on that afternoon. I tuned in to see if something interesting would happen. It didn’t. I didn’t expect Pat Boone (before or after the leather), and I never said I expected a “family show”. It’s a football game! I expected scantily-clad cheerleaders and the latest singers. I guess I’m out of it. I thought P. Diddy and J.Jackson were kindof old hat. I just tuned in hoping the performers would try to perform their best, not just show off. As I said in the beginning, I tuned out and just kept checking back, optimistically. I’m not shocked - boobs are great! I was just looking for something better. My naivety.

191

Oh Great! Now I’ve got M.Jackson’s Thriller and Billy Jean videos running through my head, as well as the Grammy performance where he first did his MoonWalk for everyone. Thanks A Lot! { :cool: Actually I like those a lot, so it’s okay :slight_smile: }.

He did some great things that I will remember. He created something new and enduring. The stupid things he does, I’ll forget. The SuperBowl, I’ll forget.

192

:rolleyes:

I don’t know all 300 million Chinese, but I do know a fair number of 'em, both in big cities like Hong Kong and Guangzhou and rural villages across the countryside. And I will bet any amount of money that the majority of the adults in China are hearing this news about Janet Jackson’s half-second expose and going, “Why are the Americans wasting so much time about this?”

Heck, I saw more scandalous things when I was eight years old (Two titties! In a Bruce Lee movie! With blood and violence, even! Horrors!), and none of the Chinese folks I was with – certainly not the ones who brought me into the theater – made a fuss over it.

Now, if you’d like to prove me wrong, and show how the vast majority of the folks in China whom you’ve had contact with are up in arms about this incident, I’d like to see the evidence. While I can’t make any claims about Muslem folks, I will say that all the Chinese folks I know would laugh themselves silly if they read your clueless missive above.

193

Not at all. But there’s a line. The line is the knowledge of what is permissible on broadcast TV. I didn’t find any of it “perfectly OK,” but I did find the semi-explicit lyrics, scantily-clad females, highly raunchy moves and endless innuendo all within the bounds of what I might expect on broadcast TV. If my child saw that, it would, indeed, be my fault for letting it happen.

What isn’t my fault is the moment that is NOT acceptable on broadcast TV. That, I didn’t know was coming, and could not reasonably predict it. Now, you may be suggesting that there is no difference between the explicit lyrics, scantily-clad females, highly raunchy moves and endless innuendo business and the bare breast. But I say there is. And that difference is accurately represented in the actual regulations concerning broadcast TV, which I relied upon. You may feel that mine is a poor place to draw the line, but I have the existing regulations on my side; you, so far I can discern, have only your opinion.

  • Rick
194

Because what yall are forgetting is that it is a fuckin football game. Ten thousand others of which have been played without the need for gratuitously raunchy halftime shows. With or without boobage. The boobage was the last straw. The Lingerie Bowl at half time was probably more tame than this crap. If we want to see this shit we'll pay for it-or actively persue it. We dont need it shoved down our throats.

195

Which underscores the point I made above:

Allow me to summarize my position: I agree with Diogenes the Cynic that boobage, in itself, is no big deal. I also agree with Uncommon Sense that the half-time show was gratuitous, tacky, even disgusting and I’m glad I didn’t watch it as it might have put me off sex for months. Well, days, anyway. I just don’t find it all that much extra objectionable that a nipple was exposed; it was creepy awful already.

Nudity , per se, is neutral. Context is everything in determining sexual content and shock value.

Clear?

196

Pretend your children are watching a slide show on photosynthesis in school. Half-way through the presentation is a frontal-nude slide of the teachers husband, shown very briefly. All the kids saw it. The rest of the slide show continues as normal. Your child comes home and tells you about it. How would you, as the parent, feel? Indifferent? Pissed? Raising hell?

I felt betrayed by the network for inserting this crap between two halfs of otherwise sexless, normal football. Which I would have liked to been able to watch with my 11 year old son without having to modify my veiwing habits.
Like I said earlier, the show should be tailored to please the greatest number of people, not the opposite.

197

What the hell? You guys are still talking about this?

I was puzzled by the amount of American television time dedicated to hashing this out yesterday, but I attributed the hold it had over everyone’s attention to their still being a little bit beery and buzzed from watching the game.

We have titties on TV up here in Canada all the time, albeit not in such a contrived and sensationalistic way. It’s not tearing the fabric of our society apart, and, so far as I can tell, it doesn’t encourage terrorists to plot against us, either.

We sure as hell don’t keep obsessing about it, even after having an opportunity to sleep on it. No, if it gets any comment at all, it’s sort of a “Oh. A boob.” Sometimes (gasp) there’s even a glimpse of a person’s reproductive regions. Right there on the CBC. No gnashing of teeth or pulling of hair, and no massive outbreaks of chronic masturbation, either.

Are we really so different? Has the Puritan influence really messed up your national psyche that much, even after so many centuries?

America has that whole Madonna/Whore thing going on. One foot in Babylon and another in Mecca. I guess it ensures that you’ll always have something to talk about.

Of course, we still love you, but, man… you guys have to work something out.

Can’t you ship all your fundamentalists to the South, and bus all your hedonists up to the North? Maybe build a nice wall, or something? Work it out, people. :wink:

Now I’m confused. Isn’t American football a dionysian spectacle of ritualised homoeroticism? Or are we thinking of two different games?

198

:rolleyes: @ America.

(here are your words hamsters)

199

I’m not familiar with Kid Rock’s videos, but I’ve seen many JJ videos and some from Justin (during his boy band years), and would disagree that, as you say “their careers are based on sleaze”.

I didn’t have any kids with me when we were watching it (my mom is the fan, I was just glancing up at it from SDMB once in a while to see the commercials and then halftime), but we WERE pretty disappointed with it, and turned the sound down quite a bit during the P Diddy performance.

We turned it up a bit to see Janet Jackson’s performance, but were disappointed in that too, she didn’t measure up to what I’d seen her do (and sound like) before.

The thing is, by then it was too late, it was already ON, it’s not like we had any say in it before the fact. And not all of us knew who the halftime performers would be, NOR if we had, that they’d behave in a way that was clearly against the rules (let alone tacky, lacking in talent and way out of place).

That we are disappointed in the show does NOT equal everyone who expressed disagreement with it, and why, going around screaming “the sky is faling” or anything.

Nor does it mean that we think it should be given ALL consideration over and above other issues in the news.

Again, there IS room for less important issues to be discussed and handled.

200

There is a difference between objecting to something, and obsessing over and sensationalizing something.
Although I am seeing many people professing to fall into the “objecting” category, I have a suspicion that any outsider could easily see that the response to this incident falls into the “obsess over and sensationalize” category.

Of course, it is this obsessing and sensationalizing that gives stunts like this their entire value, and looks crazy to the world.

I guess what I’m saying is: Yes, it is fine to object. Indeed, objecting and then letting it go would be the optimal way to avoid such stunts.
But what we are doing is screaming “Call the cops! Stop the presses! Federal investigation! Huge fines!”
All the while the people screaming don’t realize they are the ones that cause these stunts, and this whole culture of sensationalism. I don’t know what else to say - they can’t see it. Oh well.