Are you in favor of public nudity 24 hours a day in all places at all times for anyone who feels like being naked? If not, why not? That will answer your question.
Are you in favor of public nudity 24 hours a day in all places at all times for anyone who feels like being naked? If not, why not? That will answer your question.
Personally, I'm not, but this thread would all be pretty crap if we agreed on everything. xD I do, however, think that it doesn't deserve the attention it's been given.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
And do you seriously think it was staged? And the trouble it gives the TV channel? I don't know if it's worth it. However, if it was staged, I could uinderstand some annoyment, really.
It was so totally staged. They admitted to it being staged, though said she was only supposed to expose her bra. I... didnt see any bra, there. It was something between Jackson and Timberlake, because her career has been fading.
Seeing a breast isnt really that big of a deal, no. But I'd still rather my child not be exposed to such things in such a childish way. The stunt made showing it a big deal, the ring and all that... just stupid. When I was child, my family (well my mom at least) wasnt too concerned about nudity. I would sit and talk to her while she took baths, I saw a lot of boobage. But I mean... there's just a difference.
And yes, I did find the entire segment just ridiculously oversexual... and I honestly dont see what it had to do with football.
I've heard just about enough of Janet Jackson, and I expect I will be hearing more on the news. Yes, it was all staged, though it was not meant to go to that extent, of which it did. This was Janet's attempt to try and reclaim herself back into the spotlight. One thing that I found to be... well, good. Was that that J.C., former band member of NYSNC, was supposed to be performing at the Pro Bowl, though I don't know why, anyway, I'll get to the point. His performance had been canceled, due to the little stunt performed by Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Though, they really have blown all this boob nonsense out of proportion. It had become mentioned more so than the actual super bowl.
Blanco brings up the best points about this, that it's the parent's responsibility to teach about sex. I would go so far to say if a child isn't mature enough to handle sex, that child is also not mature enough to handle violence as well and shouldn't have been watching the Super Bowl anyway.
...And even further: A child is far more likely to be traumatized by the week of media coverage than the actual event itself. Think about it: If you're outraged over the showing, you should be outraged at all the publicity the showing is getting, because now you no longer can watch the news with your child in the room (which, from above, is something you shouldn't be doing anyway with such a child), and even better, you almost can't watch ANY program without a reference TO the showing. And if you're that puritanical, you probably shouldn't have a TV anyway.
Still a gigantic force on the 'Net...and still bigger in person!
If you want to raise your kids decently, keep the damn TV turned off. Or at least not let them watch the tube unsupervised.
There are much more important things than exposing of a private part or whatever. Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter, really, as long as the paparazzi/tabloids can have a field day. Personally, I really couldn't care less about it, or the life of any celebrity.
I just find it ironic that most parents are far more likely to allow their children to see blood exploding everywhere than they are willing to allow them to see a split second of nudity.
Just out of curiosity, are they airing the footage on the news when they talk about it?
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
They sure are. They had a panel of expert talking about it on the news tonight. Showed it at least 5 times. Of course, its blurred now.
Well, here they show it everywhere, continuously. I mean, on Spain public TV shows slight nudity and no one seems scandalized. This is, for example, a shampoo advertisment that, for example, shows the profile of a naked woman. Another advertisment showed a naked pregnant woman from the side. Well, I really didn't care, yet there was this perfume advertisment showing this naked woman on the beach, I thought it looked really good, I mean, the image was artistic and all, but well, it was an advertisment anyway, so it ruined all the artistic quality it may have.Originally posted by TheAbominatrix
They sure are. They had a panel of expert talking about it on the news tonight. Showed it at least 5 times. Of course, its blurred now.
And well...I can't say I feel anything when seeing it. I do not defend TV showing constant sex, don't take me wrong, since that is not good either, but showing an image of a breast is not that big deal anyway, as long as it is not exploited in a splicit way. Like...does someone get scandalized in front of a Goya artwork, or Tiziano?
I remember the time I posted this at a forum:
WARNING - ARTISTIC NUDITY! http://www.portalmundos.com/mundoart...goya/goya3.htm
I got warned about getting banned. OK, banned for what? It was a ing conversation about art. Did the eyes of anyone melt in frent of an erotic painting. Hell, it's not only about not letting children get near images of naked people, it's just the whole censhorip and sexual repression that seems to happen.
Another example, in this forum....well...*points at sig*
WARNING - ARTISTIC NUDITY! http://membres.lycos.fr/legacyofmalkuth/gauguinsig.jpg
This was my signature before. Can someone please tell me what kind of irreparable damage can the viewing of a 19th century Gaugin painting of two semi naked women in Tahiti can do? Can someone please tell me where is the irreparable brain rotting caused by the image of an old French erotic painting? Why exactly can people take, for example, watching that video of "Me against the music" or whatever showing two es acting in such a sexual way and then can't stand a damn painting?
I'm sorry, it's not that I don't want to understand. It's that I can't. (And I'd like to have my old sig back)
I totally agree with you on that point. People make a very big deal out of stupid, stupid crap. I do feel Jackson went to far, but still, the fuss should not have been made. We dont need to discuss her boob every 5 minutes.
And to make a brief point to reinforce Blanco Meow's arguments.
-My parents taught me about sex at a young age. As soon as I started asking, my mom sat me down and told me as much as I was comfortable hearing. She was always truthful. That didnt make me a whore, heck I'm still a virgin, and I'll be 21 in about 4 months.
-My dad always gave me sips of beer. From the time I was little til now. There's beer in the fridge, I could drink it all and he'd be okay with it. But I was never raised with beer as the 'forbidden fruit', and I could give a crap. I dont like drinking, I dont like the taste, I dont like how it makes me feel.
-And, lastly, my parents have both long been drug addicts (clean, now for a good number of years) and have always been honest with me about their experiences. Hence, I have never and will never touch any sort of drugs.
Honesty and open-ness is the best policy with kids. It doesnt make the grow up to be bad, and it certainly doesnt speed up their growing up. Heck, I'm still as goofy and care-free as any kid.
Oh my god! Human anatomy! Someone hide the children! *shriek*
Pleeeeaaaase. Is there anyone here who's not naked under their clothes? It shouldn't be so taboo. I can see sheilding your children from lewd sexual acts, but getting all offended, and outraged over a breast? Pff.
CBS approved of it ahead of time. We're all going to hell.
The difference between obscenity and art is subjective in the extreme, and at an MB, the only opinion that matters is the mods'. One could question why you need naked women in your sig at an FF message board for example; if I was a mod I'd likely assume you were doing it just to try to get away with it.
They should stop showing the clip on TV, if they still are. It's not the end of the world to see a naked boob for a second, no. There are more important things to talk about. They make a big deal out of everything in the media though. If I never saw Michael Jackson coverage again in my life I'd be a happy person.
My parents taught me about sex when I was in 2nd grade (or before; that's the earliest I remember it). That doesn't mean they let me watch nudity on TV, even if I was smart enough to handle it. My parents drink beer occassionally, but my father has always made sure I understand that it's a terrible thing when abused. That doesn't mean they let me drink beer too, even if I was smart enough to handle it. There's a difference between education and indulgence.
Recognized Member
Principle is the whole point here. There are boobs all over the TV if you want to see them, but CBS is one place that it has been decided not to have boobs. The whole thing about Janet isn't that she showed her boob...big deal. The thing is that she did it where she knew that it was not acceptable to do so, because of the standards that were set by CBS, just so that she could get the publicity. If people want to see boobs, all they have to do is switch the channel. I don't see that the US or Canada is hiding or repressing the public from seeing boobs on TV or anywhere else. Some channels would just prefer not to have them for their own reasons and it's not up to Janet or anyone else to make them go against what they want for their channel.
The same goes with your sig, Shadow. There are plenty of MB's out there where you could use that sig, but at EoFF we have a no boob policy and it is to be respected. If it were an art MB that would be one thing, but I'd say that 95% of the members here couldn't care less how great that piece of art is...all they see and think when they look at what used to be your sig is BOOBS.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
Posting Permissions
