connoisseur series500

Janet Jackson showing tit at the halftime show.

89 posts in this topic

I listened to a couple people telling me about how outraged they were by the halftime show and the now famous "tit episode." They said their young kids were viewing the program and they didn't appreciate having to see what they did.

I've been thinking about it for some time now, and I've come to the conclusion that I don't care about what happened. All of her clothes could have been ripped off as far as I'm concerned, and it wouldn't matter a bit to me. I couldn't care less if my 11 year old son happened to see a nude woman on TV. Who cares?

I am more offended by watching fake and disgusting tongue-wrapping kisses in moves along with a dialogue of sex innuendoes and the like. Actually, I wouldn't care that much if my kid saw that as well; but that is still more offensive than actual nudity.

As it stands, I didn't see the halftime show because I don't care for the type of music that was advertised: Kid Rock, Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Aerosmith, you name it. I'm not going to sit through that garbage anyway.

Why are we still so puritanical as a nation? The brothers and sisters on black television seem a lot more liberated on these issues than we are.

Am I missing something?

What do you all think about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just pissed to have missed the tit episode because my friends and I were watching the much ballyhooed "Lingerie Bowl". I guess I don't have to add a moral assessment. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't watched a football game in over thirty years, so I missed this.

I wouldn't have been offended. I don't have children and if I did, I probably would have had some explaining to do and would have done it.

I'm with you re: the puritanical aspect. What scares me most about this nation is the dishonesty of our business leaders and our politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a very puritanical nation. That arises from the Puritan ethic that was so instrumental in setting up this country. I didn't see it (I never watch halftime shows; they're crap anyway) but I wouldn't have minded seeing it. I don't think I would have wanted my son to see it, though. But this is what you expect from NFL football. It's Americana at it's best: crass, commercial, etc. The game is fun to watch, but it comes with a lot of commercialism and that's why you get these insipid halftime shows. The NFL may be "offended" but that what's you get in bed with MTV and big business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW folks, think of the irony.

It's okay for the sponsors to allow a song with lyrics having to do with tearing off a woman's clothes, but it's not okay for it to actually be done. :blink::wacko:

I mean, isn't it basically the same thing?

This country's puritanism is hypocritical. I shall have no part of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's scary, yet typical ... it seems like sex/nudity = bad, hate/violence = good for too many Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had band practice during halftime. So I missed it as well. Either way, I'm certain that we would have either changed the channel or turned off the TV to go play croquet. I'm offended, more than anything else, by the amount of people who bothered to watch a damned Super Bowl halftime show in the first place. What a nightmare.....

Edited by Brandon Burke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I would have wanted my son to see it, though.

no offense, but it is probably one of the first things he saw anyhow.

I cannot understand how people let their children watch the most bizarre violence and get all messed up when a naked piece of skin is seen

this is nothing personal against you brad, just that your remark triggered my response. from reading your replies I think that you would probably agree with me on the sex/violence thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot understand how people let their children watch the most bizarre violence and get all messed up when a naked piece of skin is seen

Exactly, Couw.

In my case, I can understand reluctance to show sex on TV, but I don't understand the thing about nudity. I mean the dirty dialogue and sexual innuendoes on television shows are much more horrifying than any display of nudity.

I just don't get it...

Edited by connoisseur series500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see all the hubbub as totally hypocritical. The Superbowl is all about excess and T&A anyhow. Look at the cheerleaders or the beer commercials. Janet Jackson flashing the audience for three seconds is somehow worse?

Did you see the promo for some CBS sitcom where there's a little kid eating breakfast gawking at his dad's girlfriend's ass in a thong? Janet was worse than that? Puh-leeze.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL may be "offended" but that what's you get in bed with MTV and big business.

You know, it's funny this offends the NFL but having a team called the "Redskins" doesn't ... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just pissed to have missed the tit episode because my friends and I were watching the much ballyhooed "Lingerie Bowl". I guess I don't have to add a moral assessment. ;)

so....how was it????? :w:w:w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed it, but it didn't stop me from surfing around for photos! :w

The Drudge Report had some detailed shots this morning.

It is a bunch of krap. If I had kids, I wouldn't want them watching football anyway!

Maybe JJ can have our love child? :wub: And pay my bills? :w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to bare my teet at the Jammie Awards tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda liked this 'Letter to the Editor' from a guy in todays Wash Post.

"I don't get it. During the Super Bowl, I saw commercials for toilet paper stating that the product was stronger for "your end zone." I saw a commercial where a flatulent horse nearly incinerated a woman. I saw a commercial where a dog was ordered to bite a man's crotch.

I was mortified that the kids in our house were watching this.

And the irony of it is that a 30-second commercial bringing attention to President Bush's deficit was deemed "inappropriate."

I thought that the Federal Communications Commission was created in part to keep trash off the airwaves and to allow the free expression of ideas.

As I said, I don't get it.

MICHAEL O'BRIEN

Dumfries B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about Janet Jackson? Up until Sunday, she was flying so low, she wasn't even on the radar screen. Of course, this will temporarily boost her otherwise sagging career, but in a few weeks, pop culture will have refocused on the latest flavor of the month. I'll give Jackson credit for one thing...knowing how to attract attention. This is the personification of the old Hollywood adage, "you can say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right." What leaves me slack jawed is the extent to which this insignificant event has captured the attention of the entire country. If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about the decline of Western Civilization, I don't know what will.

Up over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heh heh. heheheheh...

He said "sagging"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay for the sponsors to allow a song with lyrics having to do with tearing off a woman's clothes, but it's not okay for it to actually be done. :blink::wacko:

I mean, isn't it basically the same thing?

Maybe next year they can have a tribute to Johhny Cash and somebody can REALLY shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but when the ratings went through the roof, we'd see fifty other shows in the same vein...different cities, different reasons, but pretty much the same... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to bare my teet at the Jammie Awards tonight.

I think having a "wardrobe malfunction" would be a problem for me. JJ can get away with it, but not me...no,no....

edited for wardrobe malfunction

Edited by 7/4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but when the ratings went through the roof, we'd see fifty other shows in the same vein...different cities, different reasons, but pretty much the same... :wacko:

Ah, but think of Regis Philbin hosting "Who Wants to Shoot A Millionaire?".

Admit it - you'd watch. We all would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Flash of Flesh, CBS Again Is in Denial

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Published: February 3, 2004

"Wardrobe malfunction" was the term Justin Timberlake used to explain why he bared Janet Jackson's breast at the end of their Super Bowl duet. Like "erectile dysfunction," a term used in halftime advertisements for Cialis, it was a somewhat startling euphemism.

If Monday morning quarterbacks are any guide, few people thought it was by accident that Mr. Timberlake's hand snaked across Ms. Jackson's torso as he reached the lyric, "I'll have you naked by the end of this song," and tore off one bustier cup, releasing a breast partly obscured by a sunburst-shaped nipple brooch. The gesture seemed timed to more than the music: the very next commercial was a close-up of Ms. Jackson's cleavage in a gaudy promotion for next week's Grammy Awards on CBS. (Ms. Jackson denies that the nudity was deliberate, saying that Mr. Timberlake was supposed to rip away only the top layer and leave a bit of red lace behind.)

And nobody really has any reason to believe CBS when the network insists that it did not know the bodice ripping was in the works. That is not just because MTV produced the halftime show for CBS and both companies are owned by Viacom. One does not have to subscribe to conglomerate conspiracy theory to be suspicious. CBS has told so many howlers over the past 18 months that any claim to dignity — and righteous indignation — by this network is now open to snickering.

CBS insisted there was no quid pro quo when it sent Pfc. Jessica Lynch a letter suggesting that an exclusive interview with CBS News would be rewarded with other lucrative contracts within the Viacom empire.

CBS insisted that its decision to cancel the mini-series "The Reagans" had nothing to do with the right-wing lobbying campaign that threatened a boycott of advertisers' products.

And the network insisted that it did not sweeten a deal with Michael Jackson to secure a "60 Minutes" interview with him after his arrest last November as the network was preparing a Michael Jackson entertainment special.

Implausible deniability and the fungible walls between news and entertainment, and between art and commerce, exist at every major network. But like a high school student caught smoking pot by the principal, CBS can hardly wriggle free by arguing that everybody does it.

The beauty of the Janet Jackson to-do is that it could well be the one case in which CBS is telling the truth, and like the little network that cried wolf, nobody is listening. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell, was watching, however. He called the incident a "classless, crass and deplorable stunt" and called for a "thorough and swift" F.C.C. investigation. The National Football League also took umbrage, huffily announcing it was unlikely to invite MTV to produce a halftime show anytime soon. Perhaps the league will turn to MTV's rival cable music station, VH1. (That should work. VH1 is also owned by Viacom.)

Even trussed as she was in a shiny "Matrix"/dominatrix outfit, Janet Jackson, 37, has never had much luck being taken seriously as a sex symbol, and it is unlikely that her Super Bowl surprise will be of much help there. But if her aim was to grab all the attention, as Madonna did when she kissed Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards, then she did herself proud. And if she wanted to distract attention from her older, more famous and now more infamous brother Michael, then she achieved even that for a moment.

Her sudden flare of pre-Grammy attention and publicity came at a slight cost. Perhaps the one moment of honesty in that coldly choreographed tableau was when the cup came off and out tumbled what looked like a normal middle-aged woman's breast instead of an idealized Playboy bunny implant.

The N.F.L. was apparently put off by much of the MTV halftime show, not just Ms. Jackson's uninvited breast. And one can understand the league's confusion. Does anyone who loves the CBS hit "Everybody Loves Raymond" enjoy watching the hip-hop singer Nelly repeatedly grab his crotch, as he did in the halftime show? (Viacom, like Gaul, is divided into at least three very different parts).

But if the N.F.L. was really so shocked and appalled, why didn't it flinch at the Cialis advertisement that promised men 36 hours of relief from impotence, then warned that if they should experience an erection for four hours straight, they should seek "immediate medical care"?

On television sincerity can be measured only by sacrifice. If the N.F.L. really found the halftime show so objectionable, perhaps it should reconsider giving Super Bowl rights to the highest bidder and instead select the network that promises to adhere to the N.F.L.'s self-image of wholesome good fun.

CBS could decide it cannot risk another such risqué assault on what it deliciously still refers to as its "broadcast standards" and recuse itself from carrying the Grammy Awards. A network's regret and remorse can be best judged by its willingness to lose ratings, and CBS so far has shown none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me to be ironic that Michael Powell would get in such a snit over the tit but it's perfectly alright as far as he's concerned if the big radio groups choke the life out of independents and control the general dissemination of information to a dangerous degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.