What are we talking about here? A woman's breast is exposed (intentionally - and if you don't believe that I don't really have anything to say to you) and it's the end of civilization as we know it?
My goodness America, get a grip.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell said, "I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl. Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."
Um, deserve better than what, exactly? A woman's bare breast for all of two seconds? If there was anything to be offended by in the Super Bowl halftime show, it was the fact that no-talents like Kid Rock and P. Diddy were part of it.
Someone on the radio today suggested that MTV, which produced last night's incredible display of excess, was planning this so that next year they'll have some buzz. You see, the National Football League said last night that MTV is now "unlikely" to produce another Super Bowl halftime show. But that way, MTV can air something at the same time as the halftime show next year, and advertise it as "the halftime show that the NFL doesn't want you to see!"
Sounds about right to me. Anyone stateside want to explain all of this hysteria?
------------------ "Like a bat out of hell, time has come for you!" -Ballad of a Comeback Kid, The New Pornographers
posted
What always makes my brain hurt about things like this is adults assuming that children sexualize breasts the way that THEY do.
Which is laughable, really, since most children ery much do NOT do so unless adults TELL them a female breast MUST be sexual, which,as should be obvious, it very well may not be.
And most children see breasts not only no differently than other parts of the body sans influence, theire most recent memories of them are as food, not sex, for the love of gawd.
Honestly, I try not to get too steamed up over things like this, but it is frustrating and irritating to basically have sexual motives forcibly attached to one's body parts or have them declared obscene because some folks get off on them.
And I'm sure Janet Jackson isn't feeling especially happy or thrilled at the moment either -- I sincerely doubt she intended to flash an entire nation.
Merde.
Posts: 63426 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
could anyone stateside explain to me why we watch the Superbowl? (just being a smartass, don't mind me)
I opted to spend my day away from the TV and in the library instead, so I missed the whole sha-doo. but I do think the thing was in poor taste. obscene? not partiularly. but definitely in poor taste. not that i'm expecting an impeccably choreographed ballet for the halftime show, this is a sporting event, of course. anyway, in a few days, it'll all be forgotten, save some TV stills that'll be circulated on the internet.
------------------ "Young lady, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" Homer Simpson
posted
here too ? This topic is certainly popular all over the internet boards, and probably even chat rooms right now.
Anyway, to say the least it lacked taste, besides the fact that we can barely call talents the artists that were on stage. Besides Janet, not a lot could be said of the others.
But seriously what's the big deal with a breast being shown to all america for a few seconds ? They could've shown here bare naked that it wouldnt have changed a thing. It was the part of a female body, nothing more, nothing less. Every single person on earth, I'm pretty sure, has seen a female breast at least once in their life, even if they dont recall it.
Gumdrop Girl, I've asked myself the same question. This was the first time I watched it, and I didnt find anything exciting or special to make it a big thing. So yeah, people like football, so what ? Other people like other things, and as far as I know, there's not a day for every sport on earth... anyway, glad you did better things
------------------ - I hope I shall be able to confide in you completely, as I have never been able to do in anyone before, and I hope that you will be a great support and comfort to me.
Well as I see it the Super Bowl isn't even about the football anymore - every year they try to outdo last year's half time show, & I guess they really succeeded this year! I didn't watch it (I don't like football - besides, dinner with grandparents and watching Finding Nemo was alot more entertaining! REALLY!) I don't care to see anyone's breast on national TV at a sporting event, but hey, I never watch it anyway. But my point - isn't the Super Bowl about FOOTBALL??? hmm. doesn't seem like it anymore! :s
Posts: 61 | From: ON Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I do have to say I find it a little odd and disconcerting that a lot of folks seem to be assuming that Janet Jackson intended for this to happen -- given, it's possible she did intend it, but it's also just as possible that she did not, and that Justin Timberlake either did it intentionally or unintentionally himself. She looks pretty mortified -- and, flatly, a bit violated -- in a few of those stills, and it's troublesome to me to hear so many people talking about tastelessness and the lot when for all intents and purposes, she was likely unwillingly stripped, as it were, or simply victim to a mishap, everyone's best intentions being possible.
As it stands, FYI, her agents have stated that that was NOT intended to happen, but that only the layer of bustier was to be ripped, exposing her brassiere -- which should be a nonissue given pretty standard performance ensembles of late: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/sports/football/03HALF.html)
[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 02-02-2004).]
Posts: 63426 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, the shock wasn't, "Oh my lord, my son just saw that woman's breast!" it was, "Oh my lord, my son just saw that man expose that woman's breast!" The force of the tear, her expression verus his, made me feel rather violated.
My coworkers who are parents were more in a tizzy over the *gasp* naked breast on TV!!! , and no-one seemed to mind the fact that it wasn't Ms Jackson who exposed herself, rather that the exposure came from being forcibly stripped by someone else. General reaction from those around me was more on the side of "What an attention whore" and less on the side of, "How embarrassing for that poor woman."
So why does an internet search pull up headlines all about Janet Jackson's Superbowl mishap, Janet Jackson's "risque" halftime show, Janet Jackson's breast? What about Justin Timberlake?
posted
I didn't see this happen, but I've heard the aftermath. I assumed that Timberlake would apologize (which he has), but Jackson has also made an apology! While it can be contended she meant for it to happen, my personal take is that it wasn't supoosed to. And that means she shouldn't be apologizing. She, in my opinion, has nothing to apologize for.
I think this issue has become larger than it ever needed to be (not to disparage this discussion). I'm referring to CNN.com doing polls, and the FCC investigation. Which has to be done given the rules against female exposure, but there needn't be the fuss. I mean, I've heard musical artists swear (F***) on TV before, and there's been no uproar. And I guess I'm not helping to keep the issue in perspective either, getting so riled up about it.
posted
I'm wondering who is going to wind up paying the fine. It seems pretty clear that the FCC is ready and rarin' to levy a little surcharge for that display (note to self: do not pull a stunt like that while Michael Powell's kids are watching on live TV), but who will actually pay it?
If it were up to me, I'd lay the bill down on Timberlake. If Jackson's claim that it was rehearsed in advance but no nudity was intended is true, then I figure Timberlake ought to be left holding the bag for his overzealous tearing of the costume. Somehow though, I don't see it working out that way.
posted
I agree, Miz - perhaps this was an accident. (Most unfortunate indeed!...I would be mortified if I was her...) But apparently she had a little star right over her nipple... would that not imply that she had some knowledge that this might happen...anyway whatever, I hate analyzing the lives of celebrities - it's like analyzing that of some person I walk by on the street. I don't know them, so really, it makes no difference to me. Although now that I think about it, maybe it was a mistake, because I'm sure the TV stations would have had to censor it had they known it would happen! Ah well. Enough chatter.
Posts: 61 | From: ON Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She was wearing body jewelry for a piercing (a solar ring, to be precise).
Plenty of people in the world have piercings and body jewlery they go to the grocery store in, they go to work in, they take care of their kids while wearing, the works. Being pierced and having body mod that;'s nice to look at doesn't mean one has such or is wearing such because we expect or intend for the whole world to see it.
(And yes, I'll eat my hat if Jackson comes out and says it all was intentional, but lemme tell you how thrilled I am my tax dollars are being spent to investigate a wayward bosom when the country I live in is in debt to the nines because of needless wars, rich overspending and things just like this.)
[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 02-03-2004).]
Posts: 63426 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have brought up whether or not its a big deal for america to see a breast on TV for a few seconds, and i think it is.
While we may not such a thing offensive, others do. I can't explain why nor will i try to. All i know, is that it was something that the vast majority of the people didn't expect to happen, and thus those who would be offended by it (or those who wish their children not to see breasts, which is entirely their right to decide), could not shield themselves / their children from it.
Posts: 36 | From: USA, NY | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The close-ups I saw of the costume suggest that it performed exactly as it was supposed to do (the cups were held on with snaps, and there was no suggestion that anything was torn or ragged), but whether the performers themselves did that is up for question.
Boobs aren't that big a deal, but they're best seen when people want to see them, rather than randomly. This sort of reminds me of when a TV show is bumped for a parliamentary speech, or other unrelated broadcast; it's not wrong, but it's not what I tuned in to see either.
------------------ Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA
posted
Forget the breast. Does anyone actually LISTEN to the songs? I think "Better have her naked by the end of this song" and "I am getting so hot I'm gonna take my clothes off" are just as graphic as actually seeing the breast, but people seem to forget about those things. IMO, if you don't want your children SEEING breasts, you shouldn't let your child listen to songs ABOUT breasts.
Posts: 304 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My two cents is in the following pic http://www.q102philly.com/chio/janet.html Not a photoshop, the full size in at fark, but it has her breast exposed so i assumed it was not pg-13.
Do you see any so called red bra underneath? Nopes, I see a little piece of lace to give the illusion of a bra.
posted
I say poor Miss Jackson is completly innovent!- but my question is how come Justin got to perform at the Grammy's, but Janet couldn't? weren't they both involved in that "obscene exposure" of her breast?- in my opinion, I think that is unfair
------------------ I'm so confused- I scare myself~ "y do we luv the ppl that HATE us, and HATE the ppl that luv us?"
posted
My understanding, sweet, is that they were both invited to perform at the Grammys on the condition that they both apologize, on camera, for the Super Bowl stuff. Justin said he would, Janet refused to.
------------------ "Like a bat out of hell, time has come for you!" -Ballad of a Comeback Kid, The New Pornographers
posted
Just for what it's worth, I saw a lot more references to this in the Canadian media than I did on the other side of the border. So maybe it's not that America needs to get a grip, maybe the Toronto Star just needs to lose Ben Rayner already. An incident like this is only worth the attention it receives, especially several weeks after the fact.
------------------ Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA
posted
That's true, Milke, but if it had been Shania Twain's boob and the Grey Cup halftime show, I sort of doubt that there'd a Parliamentary Committee looking into it.
posted
I don't care that Janet shows her nipple on television. She can show her entire tit for all I care. It was how she did it that I have a problem with. The public should have been told previously that this was going to happen because I personally did not want to see it.
Posts: 1619 | From: TEXAS | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dzuunmod: but if it had been Shania Twain's boob and the Grey Cup halftime show, I sort of doubt that there'd a Parliamentary Committee looking into it.
Well, ya never know. It's the same folks who threw a fit when Don Cherry opened his big mouth one day, and was even more vociferous when Conan O'Brian opened his big mouth a few days later.
It's all hysteria, really. Some blame the far-right, some blame the far-left; I think the reality is somewhere in between. We have become a culture that needs to feel angry, needs to get excited about something. The far-right folks get excited about what they see as the impending end of the world, the far-left folks get bent out of shape at their version of perceived Armageddon. And so what we are left with in the middle is a swath of people who want to throw a fit about something, about anything.
posted
I read a good quote in a magazine recently (The Big Issue, a mag sold by homeless ppl and the long-term unemployed in Australia). They'd done an edition focusing on porn, specifically if we were being oversaturated with it. One contributor suggested that "people weren't shocked at seeing a breast; they just knew that if they didn't draw the line somewhere there'd be nothing shocking or pornographic left for their children." (p29, #197)
Posts: 66 | From: Perth, Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Copyright 1998, 2013 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
(just being a smartass, don't mind me)
Printer-friendly view of this topic