This crossed my mind as well.
I’m sick of hearing this BS myth about Europeans having a “healthier” attitude about sex and nudity. What does “healthier” mean?
I lived in Germany in the late 70’s and could only receive German television programming. They sometimes used nude actresses in commercials and showed sexual intercourse (sans explicit penetration) on late night movies. A German commercial might show a young, slender, sexually attractive nude model slipping into a bath in order to sell soap. But if the attitude is so healthy why was it always a sweet young babe and never an obese hausfrau? Why no wrinkles or stretchmarks? It’s not about nudity being natural and beautiful and non-sexually stimulating; it’s about sexually stimulating images selling products. The use of the pretty young girl *proves * that the attitude is not about open-mindedness but about sexual exploitation.
I don’t care where you live on the planet, female nudity stimulates the hetero male. If you believe that sexually explicit images have freed the European male from the base sexual urge then you need to read about the problems of the prostitution of Eastern European women in Western Europe or the “sex junkets” Western European men take to the brothels in Asia.
Just because you “don’t get upset” about something does not mean you have “a healthy attitude” about it.
When one of you twits cogently explains to me how a stripper giving a lap dance to a character on Sesame Street is appropriate then I will listen to your explanation of why a man ripping a woman’s top off after a butt grinding sexual display is appropriate entertainment for families.
Otherwise save your juvenile pseudo-sexual-sophistication for your bragging in the boys room.
What confuses me is that there is this big fuss about a bare boob, yet nary a peep about the commercials. Where is the outrage about a horse farting in girls face? Why aren’t people embarassed by having to explain to their children what erectile dysfunction is, and why Mike Ditka needs Cialis? This selective revulsion towards the performers and not the sponsors is very suspicious to me.
I used to wonder what Coach Ditka was so pissed off about all the time. That Cialis advert does go a long way towards explaining the source of his anger-management problems. I bet he’s a big teddy bear now.
Anyway, more troubling, I would think, would be trying to explain to your kids the consequences of a boner that lasts “four hours or more”. That and the bit about asking your doctor if you’re physically ready to be gettin’ it on made the Cialis commercial the (unintentionally) funniest of the evening.
I too found the equine flatulence repugnant. My nephew, who by some amazing feat of muscle control, can pin his poor little brother down and fart on his head seemingly at will, even thought it was a stupid commercial.
Well, I found it right here on the sdmb…Stoneberg, I present you with the mother of all Janet Jackson nipple closeups right here:
http://www.janetjacksonflash.com/
The evidence is incontrovertible: Thar be nipple showin’.
Maybe part of the reason Europeans are having trouble understanding the controversy over this lies in the fact that, while you guys in America are having to go to the web to find out what really happened, over here we saw it replayed over and over and over again even on the daytime news.
All the links I have seen have been to close-in blown-up pictures. It would be nice if someone has a link to a non-cropped video capture of the actual TV image. I did a cursory Google search myself and I didn’t find anything off the bat. There appear to be video links, but my video player is acting up and I don’t have the time to debug it right now. BTW, I did see the original broadcast and just want to refresh my memory on how wide a shot was shown.
And what is up with the result of a Google image search on janet jackson superbowl?
(totally work safe – at least at the present time)
Ex Machina, I don’t see why viewing nudity as natural (vice dirty) precludes the appreciation of some bodies as more beautiful than others.
The standards of acceptability we (presently) adhere to in America are not somehow carved in stone – if there are, why are they always changing? Seriously, imagine how even progressive people from 1950 would react to what Shania Twain wore at last year’s Super Bowl, or for that matter, to a thong-dense beach.
And I’m still a little baffled as to why such scantily-clad cheerleaders’ bodies are (apparently) acceptable for families to watch for the entire duration of the Super Bowl, but a brief glimpse of a nipple causes this kind of an uproar. If JJ had flashed an Amish prayer meeting, I would be agreeing with you.
My guess is because we’ve already crawled too far down the slippery, pruirent, degenerate course of becoming a decayed culture with no soul or interest outside the base of day-to-day animal needs, and are trying to halt this slide and not become another Europe.
No one who is young likes to admit to getting old, fat, lecherous, feeble-minded and otherwise more like his or her parents. We in America want to stay young forever, and you Europeans serve as a painful reminder of what must be in store for us when we too grow old and desiccated.
Just joking Europe (Dad), I kid because I love.
Your confusion is justified.
Actually, it is not American’s women’s “breasts” that are not to be shown, it is only the female nipple. Nearly all of womens breasts can be seen any summer day, on tv, or on any beach, in America.
Upper cleavage, lateral views, the bottom of the breast, are all acceptable for public view, and not illegal to be displayed nearly anywhere, even on tv and the movies, and esp in a tiny bikini.
It is only the female nipple itself(which really is not unlike the male nipple) is only what is illegal and considered immoral in America.
Male nipples were also illegal to be displayed in public in America until about 1938, so it was at least consistent until the late 1930’s. Why they allowed male nipples to be displayed in public after 1938, and not female nipples, is the real question.
…that was JANET…?
If you went to a family resturant and a waitress flashed her boobs at your table which included your nine year old boy, would you be saying big shit?
People have the right to be prudes dudes. Watching the Superbowl is just like attending a public place catering to families with the same expectations.
If I took my nine-year old boy to Hooters I wouldn’t expect people to listen to me when I complained about what the waitresses were wearing in front of my child.
As has been mentioned, this year’s Super Bowl braodcast featured flatulence, erectile dysfunction, groin bites, and any number of women gyrating in revealing garments. While this year may have reached some kind of pinnacle, it hardly represents a radical departure in terms of raciness.
Just because it might have been family viewing 30 years ago doesn’t mean this is still the case.
The right one: 6/10.
Awaiting footage of the left breast.
There are two photos in my Sunday paper (yep, here in Catholic Ireland). One is in colour. It’s definitely a pierced nipple, if anyone still doubts. I’d scan it in for yous but … I really can’t be arsed.
I’m afraid I’m going to need more compelling evidence, Loopydude. If you could e-mail me the larger picture I would be happy to examine it and report back on this alleged nipple exposure.
DSeid was talking about family restaurants. Not Hooters.
Although Scot, I’ll even use Hooter’s as a just example.
Like the Superbowl, Hooter’s really does bill itself as family fare, even though it goes for the tittilating approach to family entertainment. I may roll my eyes at thinking of Hooter’s as a place to bring my family, but I would still support the outrage of people who went there with kids expecting decent food served by pretty girls in tight halter tops and experienced one of them stripping the top off and doing a lap dance.
I may or may not agree that flatulence and crotch bites are less objectionable than a nipple exposed for prurient interest and shock value, but there was a reasonable expectation of the Superbowl as having the former and not the latter and those who had that expectation had the right to know what their kids would be exposed to ahead of time, just like going to any other public place.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m no prude. My family went on a multigenerational vacation to Punta Cana including GranDad and three boys, at the time 12, 7, and 3. The topless beach didn’t bug me at all, and even my 12 year old was pretty matter of fact about it. (My father-in-law OTOH was constantly pointing and stating loudly “Would ya look at that!”) The oldest is now turning 18, is an artist, and has been painting nudes for years.
But those were my choices to make as a parent. No one had the right to unilaterally impose it upon us. I knew the beach would allow tops off ahead of time. If someone feels that their child should not be exposed to it, then without overwhelming good reason to the contrary, it should be respected.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Although Scot, I’ll even use Hooter’s as a just example.
Like the Superbowl, Hooter’s really does bill itself as family fare, even though it goes for the tittilating approach to family entertainment. I may roll my eyes at thinking of Hooter’s as a place to bring my family, but I would still support the outrage of people who went there with kids expecting decent food served by pretty girls in tight halter tops and experienced one of them stripping the top off and doing a lap dance.
QUOTE]
Hooter’s, Vegas and other locales of semi-ill repute have tried to bill themselves in recent years as fun for the whole family, and shame on them for it.
I have seen nothing in the Super Bowl promotion that leads me to believe they are trying to attract the same audience. Most of what I see promoting football is definitely aimed at single men in their twenties and thirties in need of an adrenalin rush, not families with Grandma and the little 'uns tuning in.
Granted, I’m not much of a football fan, so maybe there’s something I missed, but other than older fans fond memories (which no one else is responsible for living up to) I saw nothing to indicate to me that that Sunday’s broadcast was ever meant to be family viewing.
Whether that was a good judgement call or not on CBS’ part is another issue, but I didn’t think anyone was misled.