NIGHTIME, you want to argue to change the prevailing American standard, go crazy. I would only say that attributing objection to toplessness in the Super Bowl to “psychosis” seems to me to be so solemnly hysteric as to be laughable.
I would also point out that I personally draw a distinction between that which is objectionable and that which is obscene, so if you’re attempting to attribute to me the opinion that breasts are not “perfectly normal body parts” or that they are “obscene,” you will not be successful. Though as to that genetalia are perfectly normal body parts as well, so I can only assume you’d be okay with the indiscriminate broadcasting of them as well.
Then it’s a good thing I didn’t say that. I may find it objectionable myself - that isn’t the point.
What I said was that, without the “psychotic” standards which say that a female breast is obscene or indecent, toplessness in the Super Bowl would not happen in the first place!
The entire point of the stunt is that it is “indecent” and “not allowed”.
If it was merely “objectionable”, then it wouldn’t have happened.
Do you see the difference? By making it sensational, we in fact guarantee these kind of stunts.
When is the last time you saw someone do a stunt, solely because it was “objectionable”? How much press did they get?
As a lawyer, perhaps you can explain to us all why in some parts of the US women are allowed to go topless.
And yet, in those same places, people are not allowed to go fully nude! Imagine that.
How can this be, Jodi? How can they possibly justify such laws?
If it wasn’t for the SDMB, I wouldn’t even have known the Superbowl was on.
I still don’t know who was in it, which team won or what the score was. I am not a bit interested in knowing these things. And I can stoll along in my life without such things making the remotest difference to me.
The only thing I’ve heard about it JJ’s exposure and I’ve only heard about *that * because I post on here.
Do you really think that 300 million Chinese people and “Lord knows how many Muslims” watch the Superbowl?
Really? :rolleyes:
Yeah right. Course they do, because American sporting occasions are of supreme importance to every last person on this planet, aren’t they?
I’m more scared for the children whose parents are freaked out by boobage than I am about the boobage itself. Please tell me you don’t show your kids how BAD it is to see boobs. Please tell me they’re not getting the impression that boobs are dirty and shameful. Please tell me you have no daughters who will remember how disgusting boobs are.
Please tell me that Europeans don’t know what a fuss you’re all making. How embarrassing. Oh and btw, don’t ruin a good family vacation by going to a beach across the pond… (they have boobs there too!) Oh and those kind of people are here too. Please don’t go to the beach in St.Martin ~ you just might see my boobs too.
Were I the Czaress of Programming, 8th graders would still be watching shows like Little House on the Prairie. Or better yet, they’d be outside playing kick the can. Alas, I am not and they are not. FWIW, my6th grader isn’t subjected to murders/rapes and violent crimes on a daily basis because she’s not allowed to watch those kinds of shows. Sporting events, however, are on the short list of Pundit-approved programs. When I turn on a football game, I’m not expecting to see a rape, a murder, OR tittage; I’m expecting to see a…football game! And given that I wasn’t born yesterday and that it IS SuperBowl, a really bad half time show with overrated and overpaid lip-synching, scantily clad pop stars. I’m cool with that or I’d have switched the channel.
You mean, like the ideal that it’s appropriate for two young people to sing blatantly sexual lyrics, writhe around on stage, and tear each others’ clothes off in front of Allah and the world? Violence and war may be more important than sex in the grand scheme of things, but in the microcosm that is my family, teenage pregnancy is a much more compelling, and realistic, concern.
DTC, so, we may as well have two people fucking on stage. Let’s just get it over with. Make it two guys for that matter. We need to expose ourselves and our kids to this crap in order to desensitize society so that no-one will be offended anymore. That way nothing will be shocking and nothing like this will need to take place anymore.
That’s what you’re saying and that’s the result you’ll get in the long run.
DTC, why not just get the Spice channel and let your kids watch that. Or MTV for that matter. If you’re not already doing this then you’re a hypocrite.
What is outrageous about the whole thing was the entire halftime performance. The program should be geared to the 85 percent of the viewers who think something like this is way out of line, not to the fifteen percent who enjoyed it. Or the one percent who actually take the time to write threads in support of it.
To please the MOST number of people should be the goal of the SuperBowl half-time show, not to see how many people they could offend or shock. If the majority of viewers were offended then that is an obvious sign that it was inappropriate.
Those of you in support of the halftime crap that took place need to realize that Americans have the right to dictate what is morally acceptable and what is not. To dictate what they want their children exposed to. To be able to turn on a fuggin football game and not see some piece of shits acting like children and running around humping each other and tearing off clothes. We should not have to give in to the people (DTC) who could care less about societal mores, and try to word an OP to sound like anyone opposed to his view point is a prude mindless crumb.
I`m suprised that you didn’t start another OP supporting the nude male that ran out onto the field at half-time. Chastising the officials who carried him off the field like a piece of lumber.
Of all the topics I’ve had the enjoyment of reading your responses to, this one in which you attack people for actually supporting a moral foundation for themselves and their families is quite likely your worst showing yet.
For a person with your wide range of views and tolerances for others, you should be able to understand why most people would be offended by this. And be able to except it.
You seem to be taking the stance that the majority should except something that a small minority of people found entertaining. Crap.
Jodi You stole my thunder. Awsome.
That is such an incredibly asinine thing to say. Would you feel the same way if I walked up to your daughter and exposed myself to her?
The world needs people with sticks up their asses to keep the rest of you from complete debauchery.
Read – positive moral influence is better than none and three times better than negative. If we’re arguing what is moral and what is not, I think that the general consensus is clear, judging by all the negative feedback.
That’s the whole point, we shouldn’t have to change the channel because you want to see some tits on prime time TV. You obviously have the internet available to you, have at it.
If we only need address the most pressing problem in society than why the thread?
That last sentence, I dunno, I suspect you’ve been drinking heavily. Oh, wait, then I guess you wont be offended If I flash your daughter. Idiot.
What is the context? This happened in a split second, so fast that me and my friends that were watching the show didn’t really think that her breast popped out. It was after viewing the video that were making in slow motion that we were able to tell what had happened and even then it wasn’t as clear as the subsequent photos which are all over the internet. It’s funny how people are outraged, but can’t wait to get a chance to see the photos. I guess so they can justify their outrage? Become more offended? Anyone have an answer here?
We know you’re a one-trick pony. (When it comes to US politics). Before polluting these threads, can you cite legal wars? It’s a given you would give us reasons that Bush is satan even if he time-traveled to 1931 and put a shank in Hitler’s skull. If the OP doesn’t involve your political views, please just start a new thread. Oh, wait, never mind. If your opinion doesn’t get a major accolade, you just bash other Dopers. Sorry, forgot that if I don’t agree with you, I don’t count as a human being. Those of us that disagree with you are just stupid, right? This is what I love about America, we keep people like you pissed off.
Given the opportunity, I’d probably buy you a beer. Or a blended tofu drink.
50 years ago, women were demeaned in all kinds of subtle ways. 50 years ago, women on TV were foils for men, giggling coyly and batting their eyelashes while the men leered and made crude remarks. 50 years ago, Lucy Ricardo was said to be “expecting” Little Ricky, because “pregnant” was a dirty word. 50 years ago, a woman was called a whore if she had sex outside of marriage, although her partner(s) were not similiarly condemned. There have been a lot of positive changes in the last 50 years.
The war in Iraq is relevant to the topic because it shows how fucked up American priorities are. An illegal war that kills thousands gets shrugged at but two seconds of tit is worse than the holocaust.
The invasion of Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter and was illegal under international law.
It is illegal to attack the sovereignty of another country except in the case of immediate self-defense. Shrub’s justification fo the invasion was that Iraq posed an imminent threat via WMDs. We now that was a lie but even if we had found something, Bush failed to prove anything to the UN before the invasion and did not receive UN approval. He waged a war of aggression for non-defensive reasons against the sovereignty of a country which was not a threat to the US. He did it in defiance of the UN and in violation of a ratified treaty signed by the US. More than 500 American service people have been killed for no reason by Bush’s slimy, illegal, immoral war…a war that he has lied egregiously about. A war that he continues to lie about…yet all people care about is a fucking nipple thingy.
So, just because there’s an elephant in the room doesn’t mean we shouldn’t notice the mouse in the corner “jacking off” while sticking out his tongue at me?
God knows why they aren’t attacking us Europeans then - we’ve got regular titties on national TV in the UK and Ireland, and thousands of them on the Continent.
But do carry on lathering yourselves up into a froth of puritanical indignation, it’s giving me a right old laugh.
It is stupid to assume that people cannot pay attention to more than one issue at the same time. There’s a lot of talk about the war in Iraq, its morality, the way Bush & Co. went about getting us into it, etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda. It’s in the news and on the net every day.
I’m kept very busy, thank you, feeling outraged over the way the Republican Right has got us into this mess with the acquiescence of the Democratic left and the great silent middle. I can also spare a few moments to worry about the economy, the environment, and civil rights, while squeezing out a few moments deciding which not-Bush to vote for in November.
As busy as this keeps me, I also found the time to catch a good football game and to get a little pissed off at the self-indulgent soft-core-porn that MTV foisted on me and my family during halftime.
I’m not that unusual; lots and lots of folks are bright enough to be able to keep several different thoughts in their minds at the same time. None of us should need to apologize to you because we don’t share your single-minded obsession with one of those issues.
I did. I kept coming back on the hope that the performers would do something that would touch people. I guess I should have been more specific.
No, I’m not wondering. I’d love to have Stuff[sup]tm[/sup], but I know how I feel when I don’t put my best effort into something. Everyone might praise it, but I feel bad because I could have done so much better.
If so then so be it. I’d still rather hear some good performance and I’ll find someone that gives one.
I am awake, thanks. I’m titillated by shock, it’s cute, but I don’t buy it because it doesn’t last. So, is the only reason people around here write shocking comments is because that’s the only way they can sell their arguments?
Everyone is debating the merits and morals of a tit. But no one else is talking about how they had a venue to give a really great performance for so many people and decided instead to go for simple shock value.
I’m just amazed it actually affects people’s record buying habits. How does showing a tit make people really want to go buy an album? (Really! :dubious: ) How does it increase ticket sales to a concert? Does the audience now expect to see two tits on stage? How shocking! “Yeah, I drove downtown. Stood in line for two hours. Got a seat a quarter-mile back and saw two tits through binoculars. It was awesome!” Why didn’t they sit comfortably in their living room and watch “Debbie Does Dallas” or “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers?” (No, the plot is not what you think :D)
It’s interesting that this discussion has gone on so long and people still have trouble articulating what, exactly, the bra-ha-ha is all about. Not that I have the answer.
I found JJ’s boob itself a tempest in a D-cup. I have a couple of breasts myself and examine breasts daily at my work. The breast itself is not offensive to me or most folks, I suspect. I would, however, be surprised to see a breast at, say, the grocery store. And perhaps even offended if I felt the breast supplier was somehow trying to irritate, annoy, or shock me with the exposure.
I think the issue here is ‘context’.
The Jackson Family is already viewed as making bad decisions. Janet’s ‘exposure’ seems to confirm that they can’t be trused to act responsibly.
Followed by the actual performance itself- lots of peole don’t care for the “bump-and-grind” that commonly passes for dancing. Also, the show seemed hostile from a feminist sort of perspective.
Then the unexpectedness of seeing her breast at that time, in that place, in that way (riippp).
Then the exposed breast has something on it, something else unusual.
Followed by the suspicion that the performers were lying about how the whole event came about, which leads us back to JJ’s ability to make sound decisions.
So, I don’t think it was the actual exposure that has caused the uproar, but all the other issues surrounding it.
Whatever, NIGHTIME. You may hold that female breasts can be entirely de-sexualized by more societal acceptance of them, and you may even be correct to a certain extent. Meanwhile, back here in reality, looking at the standards that we actually have, breasts on TV are not okay under the existing prevailing standards. Like I’ve already said, if you want to argue that they should be, go start a Great Debate. My point is that they generally are not. And if you understand that they are not, then you shouldn’t be surprised that people who accept those standards disapproved.
Uh, Sunday. And she got a lot. Is this a trick question?
Women are not generally allowed to go topless in any part of the U.S. That’s because the prevailing social standard in our country is breasts covered. Again, if you want to argue that the standard should be different than what it is, go crazy – that doesn’t interest me much. Issues of dress barely hold my interest; hypothetical issues of dress do not at all. If you do not understand the concept of time, place, and manner restrictions, by which the same behavior can be acceptable under certain circumstances but unacceptable under other circumstances, I’d be happy to explain it further. But franky I think it’s pretty self-evident, at least in its broadest form.
Again, there is a broad middle ground here: Our choices are not that either (1) this was perfectly okay, without regard to time, place, or forum, and without regard to prevailing societal standards and expectations; or (2) this is the most shocking reprensible thing ever done in the history of the world, dwarfing all other issues in its importance. It can be just what it was: A flagrant and apparently intentional violation of social standards intended to shock. People are capable of objecting to it for exactly what it was, and they are entitled to. That doesn’t make all of them a bunch of moralizing puritans, and frankly to people saying it must just make themselves look stupid – far stupider, IMO, than the “moralizing puritans” they are attacking.
This is one of the most interesting threads I’ve read on SDMB. The whole incident was almost worth it for the debate it has generated.
One thought occurred to me this morning: this type of thing is exactly what the conservatives worry about. They think the liberals want to force their standards down everyone’s throat. Conservatives frighten old ladies with stories of unisex bathrooms and smut on TV.
Hmmmm, interesting that an event of this visibility occured during an election year… (not that I’m paranoid or anything:))
