Probably a boring issue, discussed million times before.
I just want to express my surprise over the fuss that is made on Janet Jacksons breasts exposed on TV.
Why would anyone care?
Please explain this to an ignorant European.
So crazy, the Americans^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^MRomans.
Let’s face it. The crazy, puritan Americans do not possess our superior European culture and finesse. Don’t make fun of them; they’re so cute when they try.
- Rune
Because the American media like to make fusses about anything they can?
That’s IT!
Denmark is now on the list to be invaded!
In a nutshell, the uproar had to do with who was watching. The Super Bowl is prime time family viewing, and 6 year old junior, mom, dad, grandma and grandpa were all watching it together. If it was broadcast on MTV, 2/3rds of that viewing audience wouldn’t have seen it and wouldn’t have cared.
And remember the Puritan ethic here, movies showing skin get stricter ratings than movies showing blood and guts. My .02 cents.
As BF pointed out, the half-time show was being watched by the widest possible array of Americans, including many families that would find it offensive. As it was therefore likely to cause a very large number of people to feel uncomfortable, it is unfortuante that the show was produced in such a way that somtething like this might happen.
On the other hand, it is a bit ridiculous that people should feel embarassed upon seeing evidence that Janet Jackson does, indeed, have breasts. If nothing else, consider that children learn from example – if they see everyone on television making a big deal about seeing breasts, then they’re likely to get into the habit of making a big deal about seeing breasts. Isn’t that just what people are trying to avoid in the first place? No one should be obsessing over this.
I did not see the show, but from what I hear, the whole thing was objectionable, so I’m glad I didn’t see any of it (“Puritan America” doesn’t seem to object to a lot of what went on before the Moment of Nudity–I hardly think we can be called Puritan any more). I quit watching most TV ages ago because of the rampant vulgarity and commercialized sexuality.
A comment I saw elsewhere:
So let’s remember that children learn from example; acting out this kind of thing is not what I want my children to learn. I want them to know different things about their bodies and their sexuality than what MTV teaches them–like, say, self-respect.
There’re probably a lot of things going on that would make the image of a breast that’s maybe 3 pixels in diameter a problem (and that with the nipple, which all Americans know is the really obscene part 
covered).
I think a lot of us are really fed up with the Jacksons, and a lot are fed up with MTV. It’s a double-barrelled crassness assault. Tits are definitely my favorite body part, but this wasn’t about tits, it was a direct attack on generally held standards of decency by cynical corporations (yeah, CBS knew they were going to get something when they brought in MTV, even if they didn’t know exactly what).
What Europeans didn’t see, I assume, were the commercials during the Stupid Bowl. Horse farts, various ways of getting one’s genitals damaged, etc. I thought Jackson’s boobs were one of the least offensive things I saw. But the media can’t piss off their precious sponsors over something like that.
BTW, do bared breasts feature prominently in European soccer telecasts?
Somebody is just begging to be put in the Axis of Evil
No, I think the tit was probably the only redeeming part of the whole halftime show. Normally they are terrible. JT, I mean come on!
Am I the only crazy one who came up with a potential boobie-related conspiracy theory, namely that Janet started the whole fuss on purpose to draw public attention away from her brother Michael’s current trials (pun intended) and tribulations? It sure has worked, dontcha think?
(And yes, we Americans already know we’re just the cutest, no matter what we’re in the middle of trying to do. Personally, I think I’m at least as cute when I’m calm as when I’m upset, though.)
The majority of Americans don’t give a rat’s ass. What you are hearing are the moral minority of screeching, family-valued, haven’t-had-sex-in-two-decades, religiously-obsessed dinkwads. Who, pray who will save the child…zzzzzzzz.
Unless the home viewer has a cineplex-sized HDTV, it would be pretty tough to see what was going on with Janet’s breast jewelry, but after careful sleuthing to dig up large and astonishingly hi-res pictures, I was able to confirm that, yes, nipple was exposed. What many (including myself, just after the broadcast) erroneously identified as a pastie, was actually a sun-shaped ring kept in place by a largish needle piercing J.J.'s nipple. The end of said nipple was clearly exposed (to those ten feet away or with a high-power telephoto lense) through the central ring in the adornment, from which the “rays” of metal radiated out.
Nipples are rarely seen on prime-time television. One might encounter them, say, in a news magazine report about breast cancer (say there’s a shot of a woman getting a mammogram), but the newscaster would probably offer a disclaimer, a kind nipple alert, ahead of the possibly shocking display, so that concerned parents everywhere can whisk their children downstairs to the PS2 to spend the rest of the evening playing Mortal Kombat.
Not only did Janet not offer sufficient warning for such a disclaimer, she was also being… sexy while exposing herself to the nation’s virginal youth. Tits. Sex. Literally in the middle of a good wholesome American broadcast like the Superbowl. Bad. Very, very, very bad. Bad bad bad bad B-A-D. Tom Brady getting his neck broken during a sack could never be as disturbing as J. J.'s moca mammaries dangling before the nation’s children like luscious, round, beautiful chocolate-covered mango…
Er, ahh, what was I saying? Right, so, you see, this is very serious. The minds of our youth have been sullied and perverted, and basically, we’ll probably have to put her to death. Lethal injection, all very humane. Some good may have come out of this, though. Henceforth and forthwith, no televised event containing R&B singers will be broadcasted live without a fill 30 minute delay, during which a panel of sixteen professionally-trained and federally-certified anti-smut marshalls will watch carefully, fingers poised over a switch that will immediately interrrupt the broadcast and display, instead, a picture of Christ, our Holy Savior, bleeding and weeping on the Cross to remind us of how he suffered for our sins so that we might find redemption, Amen.
Yeah, we yanks can overreact sometimes, but now we’ve got it all under control. Glad to know folks across the pond are interested, though, and don’t hesitate to ask any other questions if you’re still confused. We do like to talk about ourselves, after all.
DangerMom: You have the right to watch whatever you want, and I’m certainly not going to tell you how to raise your kids. However, I’m going to try and tear your quote apart.
Implicit Endorsement: Why, because CBS just apologized profusely instead of banning Jackson and Timberlake from their network totally? (MTV, take note, especially for Timberlake). It’s pretty clear that they didn’t know this was going to happen. And as far as “male fantasies of violent and invasive non-consensual sexual behavior”, I can guarantee anybody who rips off a piece of clothing from another person and blames CBS is just using the Story Du Jour as an excuse for acting in an anti-social manner. Look for it to happen within a month. See Also: Jackass.
Way to pick a random example! It’d have been a lot harder to drive your point home if you have picked elderly German women, or sexually frustrated Czechloslovakians. “Random” bullshit aside, angry Muslim youths are probably more angry that Janet Jackson was on stage without a burkha on than the fact that --OMFG WTF-- her tit was showing. Muslim Fundamentalists in the Middle East are pissed at us for reasons other than what’s on TV, and I can promise you that almost nobody in the Middle East was watching the Super Bowl in the first place (with the possible exception of my brothers and sisters over there, fighting).
Nothing against you, dangermom, but you picked a really bad quote, there.
I think most of y’all are missing the point. Jackson and Timberlake wanted to generate a storm (though not necessarily a shit storm) of publicity. They decided to do something intentionally shocking.
Now this puts lots of people in a real bind. If you are shocked, you are giving them want they wanted. If you aren’t shocked, you’re simply raising the bar. When the next pea-brained celebrity loser decides their career needs a boost, they’ll be compelled to engage in human sacrifice if they want to shock people and get some ink.
I was reading that, back in the 70’s, the show All in The Family created a similar storm of controversy by playing the sound of a toilet flushing. Oh, how far America has come. Nowadays, you’d have to actually take a dump on live TV – with close ups – in order to generate controversy. What will it be like in 20 years?
In summary, it’s not so much that Jackson’s stunt is offensive. It’s that it gives added momentum to the rush to the bottom – and there’s no bottom in sight.
Personally, I think this is all Europe’s fault. IIRC, it was the bloody Dutch who gave the world the the concept of the reality show. Gahh.
It was lewd and lascivious behavior in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are certain rules (written or otherwise) about what kind of behavior is acceptable under what conditions. I can go into a bar in New Orleans almost any night of the week and see some anonymous female pull up her shirt and display her breasts, in this context it’s no big deal. I certainly don’t expect to see this same type of activity on prime time public TV though.
I haven’t been to Europe in a couple years, have the mastered the fine art of indoor plumbing over there yet? I realize they don’t have much use for a shower more than once a week, but their toilet technology reminds the rest of the civilized world that there was indeed an era called the dark ages.
I find it extremely disappointing that there are no links so that we that missed the event can judge for ourselves how outrageous this really is. I also refuse to believe Loopydude
that nipple was exposed and challenge him to provide proof. For such an extraordinary claim there should be correspondingly extraordinary evidence.
There was a interesting incident in the late 70s/early 80s when Playboy published nekkid pictures of several NFL cheerleaders. I for one couldn’t see what was such a big deal: guys watching a football game are always thinking about what the cheerleaders look like without those skimpy costumes. I know I do (FTR, I’m American). But the way some people were outraged, you’d have thought Playboy had published candid nude photos of the church choir. (And unlike in the recent Super Bowl, no one had any nudity forced on them).
Maybe, a lot of Americans who watch football (especially the Super Bowl) are culturally conservative, and subscribe to morals that preclude watching MTV (or reading Playboy)?
And maybe their voices are reinforced by others, who subscribe to the same morals, but watch/read anyway, and figure they can atone by acting outraged?
Sadly, the link I found the really big pic at is now broken. If you’re just talking links, this is the best I can provide with some quick web searching:
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040202/i/r2794264459.jpg
I can’t believe I’m admitting this, but what the hell: I do have a much larger and more-detailed image on my hard drive. I’m not sure how I can show it to you, though. Any suggestions?
I think FU is onto something here. You can’t BUY shorts as tiny as those worn by some cheerleaders in the NFL, but that’s perfectly acceptable. Seems to be hypocrisy, but not in the minds of those who advocate it.
We have a notion in this country that sex is supposed to be this great mystery, and that we’re suppose to tantalize to our heart’s content, but not actually come right out and say “Do me!” The real sin seems to be publicizing the enjoyment of sexual arousal.
As long as the woman is wearing even the skimpiest of outfits as she bumps and grinds on the field, we can pretend that she is the innocent girl next door who knows not what she wreaks, and the men can pretend that they are admiring the choreography or the team spirit, or whatever. If she were to deliberately shed her shorts with a wink to the audience, then everyone would have to admit, in front of each other, that they’re just watching the way her jiggly bits are bouncing around without caring about the rest of it, and suddenly there’s this PALL over the whole thing, even though that’s exactly what was going on the whole time. A similar event took place when Justin removed a crucial part of Janet’s skimpy gladiator costume.
I do not object to public nudity in general. I find nude beaches to be sanctuaries of mental health, actually. I DO have issues with men’s sexual objectificaton of women, and with the exploitation of women who objectify themselves due to abuse or neglect during childhood, drug addiction, or whatever.
I think we all have an innate sense that when someone spontaneously drops trou in the marketplace, they are a desperate person with unresolved issues, and that it’s impolite to stare. We who do not wish to exploit the pathetic state they find themselves in resent it when we are forced to look at these individuals.
Americans, IMO, have developed a pathological response to this, however. Instead of resolving to work to amend society so that people do not reach that desperate point, we decide that if we have no desire there will be no problem.
Instead of being able to say, “I enjoy sex, but not to the point that someone has to suffer for it”, we deny ourselves the right to say we enjoy sex at all. Anything that reminds too much of how we like sex, like Miss Jackson’s exposed mammary as opposed to her suggestive costume, becomes bad.
Every decade someone tries to redraw the line as to how much sex we can show publicly and still be on the right side of decency, and the public in general, seems to prefer that it not be moved too far in one direction. How else, the world of Playboy and Penthouse, do you explain the popularity of Maxim?