All I can say is that it's the smartest thing Janet Jackson's ever done. One little boob and all this media attention. She must have learned a thing or two off Michael.
All I can say is that it's the smartest thing Janet Jackson's ever done. One little boob and all this media attention. She must have learned a thing or two off Michael.
BOOOOOOOBS!!!! *drools like an idiot*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.
Seriosuly, I'd rather think people can be more mature than that.
[q=Dr Unne]The best thing is to teach kids not to touch alcohol period, and make sure they don't. There is no such thing as "healthy" introduction to something unhealthy. "Healthy introduction" may not be teaching people to do it per se, but it IS teaching them that it's acceptable to do it. I don't believe in accepting that a child is going to do something harmful and just letting it go on and trying to minimize the damage. That's bad parenting.[/q]
I don't think anyone will argue that drinking alcohol is a healthy habit, but virtually everyone will be offered a drink in their lifetime, because drinking is a part of how our society socializes. Not necessarily a good part, but it's there. Occasionally drinking alcohol is not harmful. That's why I agree with Blanco Meow -- we shouldn't be giving kids shots of vodka so they'll know what it's like, but I think we should teach them how to deal with situations in which they are offered alcohol. Telling them that they should never, ever touch it will only make them curious.
As for the breast, I don't see what the big deal is. It's no secret that women have them, and it wasn't even the only sexual image shown during the Super Bowl. What about all those scantily-clad cheerleaders shown directly before and after commercial breaks to suck people in? Some of the commercials were pretty racy, too.
The worst part is that America fears sexuality, but is generally indifferent to violence. I think there is something seriously wrong with a society that pays more attention to Janet Jackson's breasts than the war that we're currently involved in.
You’ve zeroed in on exactly what bugged me about this performance (in a way). I didn’t mind the boob at all, but the image of that fellow tearing off Janet’s clothes looked too much like rape. I thought for a second that what he wanted was to reach over and violently grab her boob, and strike a pose for the end of the song, which would possibly have been worse than what they did. Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, and we tend to be more sensitive to any sense of physical danger (especially sexual) than men, but honestly, I don’t understand why more people haven’t been complaining about this aspect of the stunt.The worst part is that America fears sexuality, but is generally indifferent to violence.
Exactly. Timberlake's behavior perpetuates the gross gender inequalities in society. Everybody zeroed in on Janet and a partially exposed breast but the guy simply offers an apology and nobody cares. It is easy to teach a child about nudity and sex, they are naturally curious about sexuality, but try explaining sexuality dysfunctions like rape, harassment and inequality.Originally posted by Anaralia
You’ve zeroed in on exactly what bugged me about this performance (in a way). I didn’t mind the boob at all, but the image of that fellow tearing off Janet’s clothes looked too much like rape. I thought for a second that what he wanted was to reach over and violently grab her boob, and strike a pose for the end of the song, which would possibly have been worse than what they did. Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, and we tend to be more sensitive to any sense of physical danger (especially sexual) than men, but honestly, I don’t understand why more people haven’t been complaining about this aspect of the stunt.
Smile even though its breaking
Ya know, I never thought of it that way. Excellent point. I'm convinced that it was staged by the two of them, but still... he should be taking the third degree if Jackson is going to.Originally posted by goyabean
Exactly. Timberlake's behavior perpetuates the gross gender inequalities in society. Everybody zeroed in on Janet and a partially exposed breast but the guy simply offers an apology and nobody cares. It is easy to teach a child about nudity and sex, they are naturally curious about sexuality, but try explaining sexuality dysfunctions like rape, harassment and inequality.
If she'd ripped the crotch off his pants instead, we'd likely be talking about him and not about her.
And if that were the case, we'd be wrong in ignoring that she was as much a fault as he.
I still don't understand the supporters' argument, because as far as I can tell, it can be reduced to "you should have the maturity to accept it (read: bandwagon fallacy)" -- We are all capable of perceiving what is going on when that happened (Personally I didn't see anything, and I watched the broadcast), but some of us don't really want to see it, and we don't expect the Superbowl to show such things. If your agument is simply that some of us should just stop freaking out and accept it as the norm (after all it's just biology), why not the negation? Is there something intrinsically wrong with not accepting it? I think not.
Objectively speaking it's just a breast and nothing to get worried about -- babies are exposed to breasts for Pete's sake. However the circumstances aren't the same, and this is why people are getting in trouble. As for complaints about the media, I understand the reason to complain, but I hope nobody's geniunely surprised by now.
I too am appalled more by the media whirlwind this has created more so than the incident itself.
What would have happened if a penis was displayed for a brief instance? Would we all have to poke our eyes out or something?
I agree with Unne that a program on this grand a scale has a responsibility to make sure the content is in accordance with the various ages watching it, but the sad fact is, that if you're over the age of 12 in this country and possibly elsewhere in the world, this wasn't you're first viewing of a female breast.
Sex is everywhere in media. It's been in football for a long time. Why else do the cheerleaders sometime garner more camera time than the players in a particularly one-sided game?
I think Jon Stewart had a great line on this issue:
Reacting to a newscaster saying this was the biggest controversy he'd ever said, Stewart dead-panned:
"Controversy?! Janet isn't even the most controversal person in her family!"
Millions of people are starving to death all over the world, even within this great country of America, and yet the top news story for some reason is on Janet Jackson's breast. We as a culture need to get our priorities straight.
Yes, we should have the right to raise our children the way we deem best, so perhaps sheltering them from sexuality until a date later than this year's Super Bowl was what we were hoping for. Yet, is this the single greatest obstacle in the history of child care or the media? It hardly registers a blip in the bigger scheme of things in my opinion. I don't think a child seeing a breast at the age of 5 will scar him or her for life. It might lead to some awkward conversations for a week or so, but this is bound to happen anyway at a later date when we decide that we will teach our children about sex.
As for the media angle, this is entirely blown out of proportion in that a story like this hardly warrants around the clock coverage, the same as the Kobe Bryant trial. America is a culture driven more by entertainment than real news and that is a scary prospect.
Take care all.
Millions of people are starving to death all over the world, even within this great country of America, and yet the top news story for some reason is on Janet Jackson's breast. We as a culture need to get our priorities straight. --The Captain
That's unfair. You can say that about almost any news piece. The showed traffic problems on the local news today; they could've shown starving people. They showed the weather; they could've shown starving people. Etc. etc. There's enough news time to cover the important stories and still have time for the less important.
As for the media angle, this is entirely blown out of proportion in that a story like this hardly warrants around the clock coverage, the same as the Kobe Bryant trial. America is a culture driven more by entertainment than real news and that is a scary prospect. --The Captain
This is true, to a large degree.
Fair enough. But I do agree that we do need to get our priorities stright. Here's another example:That's unfair. You can say that about almost any news piece. The showed traffic problems on the local news today; they could've shown starving people. They showed the weather; they could've shown starving people. Etc. etc. There's enough news time to cover the important stories and still have time for the less important.
CIA agent Valerie Plume is outed, and the official investigation starts in 3 months. Reaction: "President George W. Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role."
Janet shows her boob, and the official investigation starts (and remember they're using our tax money here) in less than one day. Reaction: The Bush administration declares it is "outraged" over Janet Jackson's "classless, crass and deplorable stunt." and vows to take appropriate action.
Not that all of the blame falls to the government, because the public's reaction to both cases mirrors the official reaction.
I like the way you see it as only a breast...Who gives a flying feck if it is a boob or even a pair of them their only natural you know and they aren't entirely sexual things they are there because women were designed to breast feed along the lines of banning paintings are we gonna tell a 4 day old baby thats hungry that sorry it can't be fed now because it means its momy has to get a tit out? sheez
Not that all of the blame falls to the government, because the public's reaction to both cases mirrors the official reaction. --Anaralia
I agree with you.
Who gives a flying feck if it is a boob or even a pair of them their only natural you know and they aren't entirely sexual things... --Fallen_angel_666
It was clearly in a sexual context. The two of them were practically humping each other during the entire song from what I saw of it. I don't have a problem with breast feeding in public. It's an entirely different issue.
Going to the bathroom is natural too. Doesn't mean we should watch it on TV.
Posting Permissions
