Exposure of Janet’s tit has had the following results:
[ul][]Any person under the age of 18 who saw that 2 seconds is now a juvenile delinquent and is robbing banks and buying evil music[]Except females under 18 who are now pregnant[]The terrorists have won, the Muslims were right; they tried to tell us on 9/11 but didn’t succeed until now[]Anything naked is wrong, viewing it is worse, so cover up when you take a shower, you sinner, you[]All ten of the Ten Commandments have been violated[]Many people enjoyed the tintinabulation of the tit-tit-tittilation (heehee)[]Some people didn’t[]Janet Jackson songs are more popular than ever, which means[]The devil is loose and armageddon is imminent (more than usual), and[]Jerry Falwell and your mother told you it would come to this.[/ul]Give me a fuckin’ break. :rolleyes:
Yes. Not like, all the time or anything but my daughter sees me in my underwear or getting out of the shower. I don’t deliberately swagger around with everything hanging out but I don’t lock the door if I’m in the bathroom either. It’s no big deal. I grew up in a household where everyone ran around naked all the time. There’s nothing sexual or harmful about it. Anyway, Full nudity is a little different than a bare breast.
I guess it would depend on their intentions. I definitely wouldn’t care if they were female. I doubt that would happen, though.
I can’t imagine that this would ever come up but if it did I qould be more concerned about possible molestation than with nudity, per se. And it’s not close to the same thing as seeing a tit on TV.
At no age would the mere sight of nudity ever become harmful.
It would freak me out if anyone came into my house uninvited under any circumstances. I would not worry about my kids seeing nudity per se. I saw public nudity in other countries when I was a kid. I saw topless women in Europe and Brazil. I’m still alive.
I think you’re taking things to an extreme. A menacing, naked stranger in the house is not the same as seeing a tit on TV.
If a boob doesn’t hurt anything then why is it the “wrong” time and place to see it during the Superbowl? Who was harmed by it?
OK, as I see it, the whole flap really isn’t about nudity being good or bad or titillating, it’s about choice.
In this country we have a choice (to an extent) on how we raise or kids. We can be uptight about nudity or we can walk around naked. Your choice. You can raise 'em Christian, Hindu, pagan, agnostic, whatever. It’s your choice as a parent.
The problem with the Superbowl show is that it took away the parent’s right (or, actually, everyone’s right) to choose what they see. The Superbowl is a supposedly “family” event where you expect to see some football (whether or not you think it glorifies violence or not, your choice) and maybe some generic popular singer doing a dull half-time show. The audience for the Superbowl cuts across all age groups. There was a reasonable expectation that this was an event where the viewing audience would not see naked breasts. Janet Jackson’s flashing took away the viewing public’s right to choose how much nudity they are exposed to.
For what it’s worth, I’m an avid libertarian and a card carrying member of the ACLU. And I’m a huge advocate of free speech. But I think instance was not an example of free speech or any sort of relevant protest but an example of crass commercialism at it’s worst.
There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. Virtually anything shown on televison can be offensive to someone. It does not violate anyone’s rights to see a tit on TV. How absurd.
from DtC
I had planned on responding to all your replies, but im short on time. However this was funny as hell to me! 
Just goes to show you, no matter how different you may think you are from the man next to you…We all want a naked woman walking in our front door.
It’s true that no constitutional rights were violated. But the FCC specifically stipulates that “indecent material” can not be aired between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm. What is shown on broadcast TV is restricted by the FCC rules. Therefore, parents and other viewers have a reasonable expectation that they would not see naked breasts during the Superbowl broadcast. If the flashing was planned (as seems to be the case), the FCC rules were violated.
I’m not arguing that I think bared breasts are indecent. (shoot, I go swimming at Hippie Hollow, the local nudist beach) But I am saying that by the nation’s common standards, the are considered “indecent”. I’m not debating whether or not this is correct. Even if I don’t personally believe bared breasts are indecent, I’m not going to force you to watch them. I’ll let you make your own decision on that. The people watching the Superbowl didn’t make that decision, it was made for them.
I guess I’m not really talking about legal standards (and the FCC is an appointed body, not an elected one. I wouldn’t say it’s representative of the people). I was complaining about the hysterical overreaction to it. I don’t see that it’s anything that merits an outraged phone call or a legal investigation. The reaction to this thing is like she killed somebody.
Not so. Friend Diogenes and I live in Minnesota. Its Feb. A naked woman coming in the door is dangerously insane. Here, when we say “Get down!” we mean you aren’t dressed warmly enough.
The only reason seeing a naked tit (and I don’t mean the bird) on prime-time TV is so shocking is because Americans seldom get a chance to do so.
That’s why the correct response for this incident is to increase the appearances of naked tits (and I still don’t mean the birds) on prime-time TV, so Americans get used to the darn thing. A few weeks ought to do it.
Then the next time Janet flashes herself, everyone will just collectively shrug and move on.
I assumed that “naked” meant she was walking around in her longjohns. Is there something more naked than longjohns?
I cannot believe people are so upset about this.
Not to say that seeing Janet’s tit on TV wasn’t fun. I’ve said before-- unexpected celebrity tittie on TV = Fun Surprise!
I can’t believe that the reaction of so many people is: OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! MY CHILD MAY HAVE SEEN 2 SECONDS OF A NIPPLE!!!
Because we all know nipples (well female nipples. Male nipples don’t seem to have as much power) are evil things that injure children.
Get a grip tremorviolet. You’re family was not exposed to Gamma Rays that will deform your minds. It was a breast. Do you know the most dangerous part of seeing a breast on TV? The fact that people can be so freaked out about it.
Might as well tune out now then.
Sure they exist, they are doing a show in some dank theater on some backstreet for 200 people. Just in case you’re wondering, the outrageous ones are gracing magazine covers and are rolling to the grammys in their new 2004 Bentleys.
She’ll be flashing some ass next week, I’m sure. of it
**
Wake up dude, shock sells, that’s why everyone does it. You could do things your way, but sadly, you probably won’t get as far.
If one day Ray Romano cut off his mother’s head, no matter how richly deserved, it would make national headlines. Letters would be written, boycotts would be launched against the advertisers, and talk radio would be buzzing for weeks over it. Advertisers would trip over themselves fleeing from the show.
CSI, on the other hand, shows disembodied heads (and hands and feet) all the time and no one is in an uproar. Advertisers LOVE CSI. Why? Because people understand that CSI is about forensic science and thus you will see body parts in living color. Fitting into neat little boxes called “family comedy” and “adult drama” makes everyone happy because the audience knows what to expect and can either tune in or change the channel without prejudice.
It’s when shows try to break out of their box that problems begin. Ellen was a popular show until her character started kissing other women – something her audience didn’t expect, or apparently appreciate. She offended her audience, who wrote unflattering letters to the advertisers and that was the end of Ellen. Will & Grace, however, gets away with women kissing women because it presented itself as a gay show from the beginning. Advertisers know what it is. Audiences know what it is. Everyone is happy. So expectations are very relevant.
The half-time show of the SuperBowl was inappropriate because it bucked expectations. It was disrepectful of its audience, which included families and seniors – some of which were greatly offended by the halftime show as is evidenced by the attention Janet Jackson’s breast is getting today. This makes the advertisers, which paid up to $2.3 million for a 30 second commercial, very unhappy. This in turn makes the network execs very unhappy. And this is extremely relevant.
On the other hand, whether Diogenes the Cynic thinks the audience SHOULD be offended is irrelevant.
Complaining to a network is not deciding what the rest of the world can watch. It is expressing an opinion, which the network is free to ignore. You are free to register your own opinion.
Personally, I would rather watch Janet Jackson dirty dancing with Justin Timberlake than watch another insipid “Up With People” half-time show, but I realize the world does not revolve around my personal values.
It’s not that it went against what people “expected”. It’s what’s legal, what’s “right” what’s “classy” for crying out loud.
And isn’t there this thing called "the law’? As in what they did was specifically considered to be illegal by FCC? Whether or not anyone “dies” or is injured by this is beside the point.
This was the wrong place and wrong time for this sort of stunt. The superbowl is not a strip club, nor even an MTV video.
The whole half time show was tacky, crass and base. The only performer who was halfway decent was Kid Rock.
My opinion as above isn’t because I’m shocked and outraged or uptight, as others have said, it happened so fast I thought I hallucinated it.
The thing that irritates me (not outrage, not supreme uptightness, just irritation), about it is that it was seriously out of place and thoughtless on the parts of the performers and others involved.
Actually, it wasn’t illegal. The nipple was never exposed.
It’s funny how all the uptight prudes with sticks up their asses are so insistent that they’re NOT uptight prudes with sticks up their asses.
I’m still waiting for an explanation of how anybody was injured.
I’m so pleased that you don’t need me to monitor your Superbowl viewing. However, if the network wants me to continue viewing the Superbowl half-time show they need to know when I am offended by something. As I was offended by the entire half-time show. Please note, entire half-time show, not just Ms. Jackson’s breast. Kid Rock and the flag. My expectations are a certain decorum in the treatment of the flag. What you saw as patriotism I saw as disrespect. Since my expectation in the half-time show were woefully undermet I told CBS.
Why are you so upset by the fact that other people are upset about something that doesn’t upset you? I have not said that you, or anyone else, need join me in my offense. You are perfectly within your rights to call or write saying you approve or do not disapprove of Ms. Jackson’s breast. Why does my telling CBS of my unmet expectations upset you?
Neither CBS nor MTV care at all my expectation except how those expectations effect the shows I watch and therefore effect the ads I see. Its the ads that sell the airtime and therefore fund the show. If more people approve or are mainly indifferent to the half-time show as it was shown we will continue to get half-time crap like we got this year. However, if more people tell the network they were unhappy with the half-time show the half-time show will change.
Nannies of the world, unite!
That’s the problem. Uptight, whiny , self-appointed moralists can’t handle a boob so they’re going to change the halftime show for everyone else. Was there something wrong with your remote control? You couldn’t change the channel if you were so fucking offended?
By the way. Who was injured by the boob? Hmmmm? I’m still waiting for an answer to that.
The flag thing is just asinine. I was offended, so I must piss all over everyone else’s fun.
What was “disrespectful” about it? Since when is it disrespectful to be proud of the flag? How many people died because Kid Rock wore a flag as a poncho? Is that the really the most pressing problem in America?
I hope they have Ron Jeremy on next year and I hope he whips it out and splooches on the camera.
Ahhhhh…fuck it.
I just spent 45 minutes writing a reply and one tap on my mouse back button erased it all.
Suffice it to say that I feel that our priorities are severely fucked up when the mere depiction of a breast (from a distance and for barely more than a second) raises such a clamor. God forbid! For christ’s sake can’t we just stick to the tried and true violence, sexual depravity and murder :rolleyes: ? These good ol standbys have been a staple of network television for as long as I can remember. WHY must we muddy the water with a depiction of any part of the female anatomy? Please. Lets leave the sexual inuendo to the realm of advertising and network titilation where it belongs :rolleyes: .
I have never in my life seen such a clear example of fucked up logic. Since when is a breast more offensive than the usual everyday shit we see on network tv?
I’m tellin ya I just don’t get it…on the one hand we have sex shoved down our throats in every imaginable way (because it sells, of course) on the other hand we see an actual breast for 2 seconds and it is headline controversy. What the FUCK?
Actually, it was exposed. Very exposed. The goofy star thingee went around the nipple, not over it. Drudge has a rather detailed photo, but I don’t want to link to it.