Boobs!

OK, I saw the whole Janet Jackson in the Superbowl thing on TV, apparently and according to the news guy, it has rised quite a problem in USA. Well, I don't live there so I don't know how things are going exactly, but seriously, even if I don't give a damn about Janet's breasts, isn't it a little sad such a fuzz happened out of something like that? It's a little bit extreme to see how many people seem scandalized for something as ridiculous a 2 seconds footage of a breast. Will it cause irreversible damage on the mind of someone or something like that? Such sexual repression is preety damn terrible, it's not like we are in the victorian ages anymore. I mean, a breast is just a part of the body, damn it, and apparently now a TV series (Dunno which one, ER I think) was forced to take out a scene where an old woman showed her breast. Whats next, banning Tiziano paintings because they are sinful? God, it's beyond ridiculous.

Also, it's ironical the TVs show the images on the news, I mean, isn't it supposed to be so horrible? Because now such images have been repeated over and over because conservative christians made a big fuzz about it.

The possibility of that whole fiasco being a publicity stunt annoys me a bit, but what really burns me is the disproportionate uproar. This rabid call to censorship, i think, says less for upstanding moral value than it does for sexual repression. Just as you mentioned, it seems to me so many people fear sexuality more than they embrace the wish for its respectful presentation, because American society wouldn't be so generally sexualized - be it pop culture, advertisement, celebrities - unless sexuality were still an abusably repressed issue. It all ends up a "forbidden fruit" hedonistic excitement to the younger generations and an immoral peepshow to the older ("older" and "younger" as general cultural forces), but the problem remains the same.

If we could realize and <i>teach</i> mature acceptance of sexuality, not only would the parents freaking out about their kids seeing Janet Jackson's breast be able to breathe more easily, but they themselves wouldn't have to freak out and then displace it onto their kids in the first place.

Perhaps we can get our facts straight, for one thing.

<i>I mean, a breast is just a part of the body, damn it, and apparently now a TV series (Dunno which one, ER I think) was forced to take out a scene where an old woman showed her breast.</i> --Shadow Nexus

"Forced" implies that they had no choice. ER voluntarily edited their program. No one forced them to. That's how I understand it.

<i>This rabid call to censorship, i think, says less for upstanding moral value than it does for sexual repression.</i> --Blanco Meow

"Censorship" again implies that they have no choice. The broadcast networks choose what they want to show. CBS chose not to display nudity during the Superbowl, and that choice was taken away from them by the singers. CBS is not "censored" in the sense that they want to display nudity but are not allowed. Their public stance is that they do NOT want to show nudity. In fact many channels do show nudity.

If you want to see nudity or want your kids to, there are plenty of channels you can watch. You do have the right to see anything you want on TV, all the way up to porn and gore-movies and whatever. People also have the right NOT to see those things, however. CBS, and the Superbowl specifically, are things where it is implied that there will not be any nudity or inappropriateness at all. If things that are PROMISED to be appropriate for all ages are allowed to contain random nudity, how can a parent control what a child sees? Every time someone blames the media for something bad, the response is always "The parents should control their children!" But if the companies who produce entertainment don't control their own content, the only way to control what a child sees is to stop them from ever listening to music, watching TV, or playing a video game. That's not acceptable.

Imagine buying Pokemon for a kid and it randomly contains images of naked girls. That's the same thing as the Superbowl. We should (and do) have a guarantee that those things do not happen.

So far as whether or not the incident in the Superbowl itself is appropriate or not, it's not up to you to decide for the entire world what's appropriate. For a Muslim even seeing a girl's face can be inappropriate, from what I understand. For an African tribesperson, you can walk around stark-naked all day long and no one cares. It's a part of culture, and it's arbitrary, but it still has meaning.

To say another person's cultural ideas are "wrong" is ridiculous. I mean, I could argue that we should show private funerals on TV; some people might think it's entertaining to see a hundred people in real misery, mourning death of a loved one. Or maybe we should show death-row inmates being killed. Or how about just put some cameras in the bathroom and we can watch people take a crap during the Superbowl. After all, if people were "mature" enough, we could watch those things and no one would care. How about we all just walk around naked in public 24 hours a day, and we can go to the bathroom on the street corners and have sex in public like wild animals. Are you in favor of that? If not, why not? Are you repressed?

All concepts of privacy and decency are arbitrary to a point, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or don't have significance. I personally agree very much that nudity during the Superbowl is not decent or appropriate.

In the public media, censorship of the self is, in my mind, censorship all the same: it all falls under the category of restriction in some form or another, be it from within the organization or without, in deference to decency. If "censorship" as a term only specifically concerns enforced restrictions from outside agencies, then i've misused it. In any case, i was referring to the network's general taboos for decency's sake.

But my argument isn't against the network for holding that position, but a critique of the beliefs and practices that uphold its spirit. No, i don't believe we need copious amounts of nudity or language or any of the other extremes traditionally avoided by network television to parade the stations. But i do think that our absolute rejection and constant attempts to hide truths - such as sexuality - from our children simply isn't healthy.

We Americans have laws against drinking until the age of 21. The idea is that little kids simply aren't mature enough to deal with alcohol, emotionally and physically, until that age. But the thing about this restriction is that it whips up a very powerful "forbidden fruit" mentality, not only making alcohol that much more interesting a prospect, but also preventing folks from learning responsibly about alcohol consumption from the time and place where it will resonate the most: as a youth in the home. Introducing kids to alcohol in controlled amounts completely shatters one of its best selling points: that it's illegal. That alone makes it far more appealing than your average soft drink. Obviously the other main selling point of alcohol is drunkenness, but that early and controlled introduction is going to instill responsibility about liquor.

It works the same way for issues like this Janet Jackson fiasco. i wasn't impressed, nor do i really approve - it's nothing but a silly stunt, after all - but the resultant backlash has been staggering. i guess i do agree that this particular instance was inappropriate, seeing as people sat down to watch it with no prior notice of any nudity. But i'm using this particular event as a springboard for a more universal issue.

People are using this as an excuse to crack down on standards across the board, and that's not a good idea. Hiding something from someone only makes their drive to find it stronger, and can even extend it to an unhealthy degree. People scream and shout about "the destruction of decency," but to me that's looking at things the wrong way. Just like alcohol, early and controlled introduction to many of the things we consider taboo is the best way to curb the problems we have with them. Every time someone accuses our culture of having a rabid obsession with sex or violence or language or whatever other decadent things and tries to restrict even more is only going to have the next generation salivating more and more over such prospects.

Ultimately, i think, it has to do with education in the home. Take what culture throws at you and apply it constructively, because shoving our kids away from it and hiding it in the closest is only going to have them eventually pounding at the door to get in. To present it to them with solid explanation and with an undertone of responsibility gives them the tools to deal with it maturely.

Unne, I don't know how voluntary was the ER thing, I mean, they may have eliminatewd the scene due to pressure, and acting under pressure is not something totally voluntary. Still, I don't know much about why they decided to take out the scene, I just know they did.

You say some TV channels that are supposed not to emit scenes of sexual content shouldn't do so? Well, of course they couldn't, but my question is: Isn't it pathetic such a fuzz was made about an error that ended up showing a breast?

And as Blanco said, sexual repression tends to make this things more desirable. Just take for example the hypocrite actitude of the victorian ages. Sexual repression was so bad people were forced to act as puritans on the outside, and on the inside they practiced all kinds of sexual practices. Actually, I think the whole gold shower thing (Person peeing on other person) was one of the most common practices back then. Urgh, I wouldn't like anyone to pee on me.

the thing i have to add is that it was not an accident. Janet Jackson was wearing a moon or sun or some stellar style nipple cover.

and i think ting in the street is abit extreme of an example and as far as televising funerals or death row inamtes being killed whats thats so far off as it involves exploting people. You should have just jumped staright to the child pornography.

It wasnt a nipple cover, it was a ring.

And, even though I'm against freaking out over stuff, I think this stunt was just uncalled for and stupid. Especially for the time and place it was on... on network tv, during the Superbowl, which kids watch. I wouldnt let my kid watch something like that (if I had a kid) and the big fuss is that no one expected that to be on. If it were on Showtime or heck, even Mtv, it wouldnt have been such a big deal. Stuff like that is almost excepted. But it was uncalled for during the Superbowl, where the most you're expecting is scantily clad skanks.

And yes, it was staged. Celebrities do pathetic things for attention.

Yes, I'll thrid, fourth, whatever that the whole thing was staged. Janet has a new album coming out at the end of March, and pre-ordering opened for the album this week. And that's why she did it, to gain notoriety before her album's pre-order time started so pepole would buy it.

<i>In the public media, censorship of the self is, in my mind, censorship all the same: it all falls under the category of restriction in some form or another, be it from within the organization or without, in deference to decency.</i> --Blanco Meow

What you seem to be saying is that TV stations shouldn't have the right to control their own content, or that they have the right but shouldn't exercise it. Isn't that the same thing as censorship, only in reverse?

<i>But i do think that our absolute rejection and constant attempts to hide truths - such as sexuality - from our children simply isn't healthy. </i>

I'm not in favor of completely shielding children from sexuality. I am in favor of TV and music NOT being the places children learn about sex though. Sex is an important, private, moral decision, and it has no place in the media when it comes to children. Especially considering the media's agenda; not morality, but to make money. A child should learn about sex from his/her parents, and possibly school, and likely friends who also learned from their parents. Not from dancing-girls baring their private parts during football games.

<i>Just like alcohol, early and controlled introduction to many of the things we consider taboo is the best way to curb the problems we have with them.</i>

This is a very weak argument, for one thing because you assume that drinking alcohol and such things are 100% likely to happen. Sex is a part of life, yes. People should be educated about sex, yes. Promiscuous sex, however, is NOT a given in life. Sex on TV is promiscuous amoral fantasy sex, 99% of the time. Janet Jackson ripping her clothes off is not teaching a healthy attitude towards sex. Controlled introduction to girls acting like whores on TV teaches what exactly to children? Nothing I'd want my child to learn, in any case.

Alcohol is not a given in life. I don't drink alcohol. Many people don't. I would argue that it is GOOD for people not to do it, and I would never teach my child to do it, just like my parents never taught me to do it. We don't need a world full of drunkards. If someone later in life decides to get drunk, that's their choice (albeit a bad one), and hopefully it's a choice they make knowing the consequences. If a teenager decides to get drunk as an act of rebellion, then that teenager is acting like a moron, and his or her parents should do a better job of keeping him or her under control.

"It's wrong but unavoidable, so let kids do it!" is just terrible. What other things that are wrong should kids be exposed to? Prostitution? Prostitution will likely NEVER go away; should kids be taught how to pick good whores? How about drugs? Some kids will do crack someday; should we accept crack as a given, let kids do crack in our houses, show crack on TV, educate kids about how to do crack the right way?

I don't believe that people are so weak-minded that if you say "Don't do X", they immediately will do X. Teenagers will do that kind of thing, sure, because teenagers are morons. We shouldn't cater to the inexperience and naiveté of teenagers; we should teach them values.

<i> You say some TV channels that are supposed not to emit scenes of sexual content shouldn't do so? Well, of course they couldn't, but my question is: Isn't it pathetic such a fuzz was made about an error that ended up showing a breast?</i> --Shadow Nexus

I think most people object on principle rather than because they think their brains will explode if they see a nipple. I mean what's next? If we allow girls to flash their breasts for a second, maybe we should allow it for a minute? Maybe full-frontal nudity? Maybe outright sex acts after our Sunday-morning cartoons? We're getting closer and closer to that point as time moves on, and if MTV and whatnot could get away with showing something liek that, they absolutely would. I don't think people can come much closer to being totally naked in their music videos these days. They just keep pushing the envelope further and further. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

And I agree that it seems to be very unlikely that it was an "error". It was likely staged, and what kind of message is that sending? There are probably very young impressionable kids out there who like and admire Janet Jackson (God only knows why), and if they see her waving her boobs around on TV and no one cares about it, what are they going to think? "Being a whore is great! It'll make me rich and popular!" Sure, a parent can say "Now honey, just because she's a whore doesn't mean you should be one", but why should a parent even be forced to teach that to a child? There's a time and place to learn everything, and the Superbowl halftime show is not the time to learn such things.

Originally posted by Dr Unne
I'm not in favor of completely shielding children from sexuality. I am in favor of TV and music NOT being the places children learn about sex though. Sex is an important, private, moral decision, and it has no place in the media when it comes to children. Especially considering the media's agenda; not morality, but to make money. A child should learn about sex from his/her parents, and possibly school, and likely friends who also learned from their parents. Not from dancing-girls baring their private parts during football games.


The problem is that parents don't do that and they wait till the schools teach it too them and leave it to them. By that time it is usually too late and the kids have been over exposed to sex in the media. If the parents took action earlier and taught their kids about anything then the problem with sex in the media wouldn't be as great because the younguns would have an informative background and understanding(at least some) of what they are doing and things like that.

A tit on TV wouldn't be that big of a deal then because the kids would already know about it. But low and behold the parents can't do a damn thing to teach their kids anything or even watch them. They just sit them in front of the TV and look at the TV rating instead of taking an interest in what their kids are doing and finding out if what they are watching is actually approcriate.

I say it is all the parents fault and they just want to be lazier so they at someone to do something so they don't have to.

This whole situation is being way over blown.

i never said anything about the media controlling or not controlling its own content - i was merely explaining that i used censorship to mean "the general control of content for public decency." i make no value judgment on a station's choice to show nudity or not; that's their own prerogative.

i also do not mean that our public media is in any way supposed to teach things like sexuality to kids. The media will do what it wants; it's the job of the parents to teach. My whole point was that this situation is a continually unhealthy cycle: people hide children from certain realities for fear that they'll abuse them; suddenly one of those realities pops up on television, trying to push the envelope, take on a more mature subject, or simply rile people up; and instead of taking it in stride people clamor for more and more restriction. All it does is create a greater and greater tension over the issue, becoming the very cathexis people are attempting to prevent.

Unne, to say that healthy introduction to something like alcohol or sex is the same as "teaching people to do it" is a misinterpretation of the argument. You act as if i'm proposing we should do things like get our kids drunk and tell them to enjoy themselves; or send them out to find prostitutes, which is absolutely not the case. To introduce something like alcohol (which is simply a similar example, not a mandate) in small amounts and show by example responsible drinking habits is absolutely the best thing you can do for a kid's future with alcohol. Everyone will experiment eventually, but it instills far more strongly the idea that alcohol is a pleasure to be enjoyed responsibly than any law. And to introduce the ideas of mature sexuality - not, in this case, by example, but my point stands - will fare far better than outright restriction.

My parents, for example, hardly ever let me have sweets or soft drinks growing up. At the time, i hated it, and took advantage of any chance for sugar i could get. But once i grew up a bit more, i quickly fell out of that, and it's because they taught me not to gorge. Rather than denying me entirely of such things, they only let me indulge in them sparingly, and solidified their status as indulgences. It's a similar case for any of these other topics, be it sexuality or alcohol or <i>whatever</i> you happen to be dealing with. Some form of controlled introduction to teach responsibility by example will always carry the most force.

You're making straw men out of my arguments; i said nothing about how we should just irresponsibly throw kids into the adult world. To me, this outright restriction is <i>less</i> responsible than the active presentation of responsibility through experience and example. It's easily the most powerful way for a child to learn.

i'm also not saying any parent has to force anything on their child - obviously, bringing up that child is a matter of the parents' own philosophy. i mean simply that, if i ever have kids, i would rather allow them small sips of whatever beer or wine i might happen to have every so often to reinforce that it's to be taken in small doses than anything else. And at the same time, i would rather introduce them to a responsible view and understanding of sex than a hard-coded restraint, because that teaches a true and mature responsibility rather than seeding more of that "forbidden fruit" mentality.

But it's also my opinion that if more people brought up their children this way, and more people learned a real-world responsibility over adult issues rather than a hard-coded and inhuman restriction, all of this media obsession would die out as well. Our entertainment is soaked in these issues because folks know we as a culture respond to that. We know our own odd obsession with these issues. If that obsession dies, there's nothing off of which to play anymore, and the media accomplishes nothing by focusing on sex and etc.

My ultimate point is that this constant restriction is more counterproductive than anything else. People need to learn that maturity starts in the home, and learn the most effective ways to teach that maturity. Harsh cultural lawmaking isn't <i>it</i>.

<i>My whole point was that this situation is a continually unhealthy cycle: people hide children from certain realities for fear that they'll abuse them; suddenly one of those realities pops up on television, trying to push the envelope, take on a more mature subject, or simply rile people up; and instead of taking it in stride people clamor for more and more restriction.</i> --Blanco Meow

Children should be allowed to be children. No one should be forced to learn the harsh realities of life just because TV decides to show it. There is a time and a place to learn everything, like I said. I'm all in favor of teaching kids responsibility and keeping them informed about sex. But when and where a child is ready to learn it should be up to the parent. When boobs are being shown during football games, that takes the choice away from the parent.

I'm not in favor of "hiding" information from people to keep them from doing something bad. I am in favor of teaching things at the appropriate time. Children aren't ready to understand things like sex until they grow up a bit. Before they're ready or even capable of understanding it, then yes, it should be hidden from them, to keep them from being confused or getting the wrong ideas.

<i>Unne, to say that healthy introduction to something like alcohol or sex is the same as "teaching people to do it" is a misinterpretation of the argument. You act as if i'm proposing we should do things like get our kids drunk and tell them to enjoy themselves; or send them out to find prostitutes, which is absolutely not the case. To introduce something like alcohol (which is simply a similar example, not a mandate) in small amounts and show by example responsible drinking habits is absolutely the best thing you can do for a kid's future with alcohol.</i>

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.

<i>Everyone will experiment eventually, but it instills far more strongly the idea that alcohol is a pleasure to be enjoyed responsibly than any law. </i>

I once again disagree with your premise that experimenting with alcohol is a certainty in life that should be accepted as a given. It isn't. Do you think that people are inherently depraved to the point where people can't learn right from wrong no matter what? It's a matter of saying "Don't drink alcohol; it's wrong", explain why it's wrong, and keep your kid from doing it, period, whether they understand the reasons at the time or not. There is no need to make sure that a kid drinks alcohol responsibly if you make sure your kid never drinks alcohol at all.

<i>i'm also not saying any parent has to force anything on their child - obviously, bringing up that child is a matter of the parents' own philosophy.</i>

I am saying that though. Parents should foce their kids to do the right thing, and at the same time teach them why; teach them the difference between right and wrong. That's the job of parents. It's less and less of a job as a child gets older and wiser and more able to make his or her own decisions, but still.

The "unhealthy cycle", to me, is shaving down your morals for the sake of convenience. "Kids will drink, so let's teach them to drink 'well'". "Kids will have sex, so let's make sure they do it 'safely'". That's a load of crap, in my opinion. There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to right and wrong. My parents never gave me compromise; if I did something wrong, they punished me and made sure I never did it again. They didn't try to make sure I did that wrong thing "healthily" next time in the future. I plan to do the same with my kids, if I have any.

To me, responsibility in these areas is all about preparation. i do agree that things like alcohol and sex aren't necessarily a given in anyone's life, but to look at the current cultural landscape and <i>assume</i> people can get by on a mere "don't do that" is foolish. Plenty of folks may work fine with general principle; many of my friends, for example, have no taste for these sorts of things. But to assume that, as a parent, is to take a serious risk. After all, many of these same friends only threw off their particular vices when some sort of bad (<i>extremely</i> bad, in some cases) personal experience hammered the truth of that vice home. Personal experience always speaks the loudest, and granting that carefully and watchfully in the home is the best possible place for it.

To me, it's better to prepare for a kid for such things in a controlled environment rather than simply decree law and hope for the best. No, i certainly wouldn't want my kids having promiscuous sex and getting drunk every weekend, but do i simply tell them so and hope it works out when they go off to college? No. That 'decreed' morality is the most distant brand thereof, and while for some, that's more than enough, education needs that extra level of personal experience to truly sit well. It's a far more stable moral education to present a respectable idea of what's out there, instilling respectable virtues in the process. People need to be prepared adequately for the world around them, because eventually they're going to live in it. And controlled introduction seems to me the most effective route.

And yes, there's a chance that my hypothetical kid could get to college and remember all my warnings, turning down this or that vice on general principle. But when i look at my own college campus and see folks getting drunk by the truckload on the weekends, at least a portion of whom will eventually come back with someone on their arm - either from the college or otherwise - for "a good time" back at the room, i can know for a fact that every kid is eventually getting some exposure to the more adult issues of the world. The question, then, is the choice he makes to either involve himself or stay out of it. And he may or may not partake, but he should at least be <i>fully</i> aware beforehand - because then it's something he'd be more likely to avoid.

It seems our debate has come to a diametric standstill of general principle, though. :)

<i>To me, it's better to prepare for a kid for such things in a controlled environment rather than simply decree law and hope for the best.</i> --Blanco Meow

I don't think that anything should be left to hope. I think that parents should instill in their children a sense of right and wrong. Children should respect their parents, recognize wisdom when they see it, and act according to what their brains tell them is right and avoid what their brains tell them is wrong. If they're taught that that's the way things work in the world, then they will do the right thing, or at least try to do the right thing. There is no "hope" involved. You speak as though it's impossible to teach a child right from wrong. Like we're all hopelessly stupid to the point that we will act randomly in any given circumstance, and that parents should realize and accept this as fact.

<i>Plenty of folks may work fine with general principle; many of my friends, for example, have no taste for these sorts of things. But to assume that, as a parent, is to take a serious risk.</i>

It is no risk at all if you raise a child to be a good person. You can't go around parenting on the assumption that your child is a hopelessly bad person. Your argument makes no sense at all to me because that seems to be your base premise, and I don't agree with it. You can't just accept that, or rather you can, but if you do, you're a terrible parent.

I can't find the quote or the url or anything, but someone really put it all quite nicely when they said something similar to how stupid it was that everyone gets all worked up over the showing of a single breast for ten seconds in the middle of over an hour of gratuitious (sp) violence.

EDIT: On a sidenote, can someone explain to me the harm of seeing a boob? I mean, women breastfeed in public on the odd occasion that they might need to do just that because they don't have a place to go straight away. I don't see the big deal about boobs. They're fascinating to me and a lot of guys because they have sexual appeal, but so do legs and a nice back, so what's the super harm?

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.

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.

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? ;)

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.

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.

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.

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/mundoarte/grandesgenios/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.

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.

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.

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.

BOOOOOOOBS!!!! *drools like an idiot*


Seriosuly, I'd rather think people can be more mature than that.

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.
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.

The worst part is that America fears sexuality, but is generally indifferent to violence.

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.

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. 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 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.

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.

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.

<i>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. </i> --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.

<i>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.</i> --The Captain

This is true, to a large degree.

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.

Fair enough. But I do agree that we do need to get our priorities stright. Here's another example:

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

<i>Not that all of the blame falls to the government, because the public's reaction to both cases mirrors the official reaction.</i> --Anaralia

I agree with you.

<i>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...</i> --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.