View Full Forums : *confused*


Maody
02-04-2004, 08:54 AM
Ok, americans confusing me once again.

Why is the country that inventet Playboy, Eminem, Sex and the City or Pamela Anderson getting mad on a short flash of a womens breast?

To be honest, the whole incident and the overwhelming media coverage of it makes you americans look rather silly in my old european eyes.

Btw. if you want to see thousands of real nice boobs for free, come and spent your next vacation on a european beach. ;)

iegil
02-04-2004, 09:12 AM
Americans are confused people who'd rather see arnold killing 500 human space androids who spectacularly blow up spewing blood and body parts all over the screen than one boob with some wild jewelry on it while complaing that violent crime is up.

/boggle

Chenier
02-04-2004, 09:59 AM
Well, for what it's worth, those things you mentioned are prohibited from children's eyes; Playboy can not be sold to anyone under age 18 and is mailed and sold in a black plastic wrapper, Eminem is sold with parental discretion warnings for explicit lyrics (and the FCC doesn't allow anyone's music to played on the radio without bad words being "blipped"), Sex and the City is on paid cable, late at night and Pam Anderson, well, was in Playboy (see above) and in a TV show with an American actor who's WILDLY POPULAR in Europe (/boggle David Hasselhoff).

Arnold Schwarzengovernor's movies are violent - but you know that going in. You can see in in the previews.

The Superbowl halftime show, however, is not somewhere you expect a boobie to flop out. Personally, I don't give a rats about it, but I'm sure there were plenty of families watching where that was just unexpected. While there are certainly stereotypes of bad parents worldwide, there are some who'd rather control when and where their children see a breast. /shrug

And as far as Europeans being sensational about nothing, hi, British Royals. 'nuf said.

Sobe Silvertree
02-04-2004, 10:00 AM
The problem is not the fact that the breast was shown.. the problem was infact that a lot of people let there kids watch the Superbowl which supposed to be a sport.. IE: Rated for the General Audience.

Is this right? Should people care what their kids watch? Sure to a point.. but a breast? Depends.. I guess on your background.. depends how you want to bring your kids up. Depends on what the kid said after they saw the flash of the breast..

Silly.. perhaps.. degrading to the overall Superbowl.. /shrugs the difference is... you don't have to buy Playboys.. you don't have to buy Eminem.. Sex in the City is on HBO which is a Pay Channel.. and Pamela well.. you have to download her.. The Superbowl.. is a sport.. the end game for that season.. your expecting clean .. you expect that the kids are fine watching their hero's take the field.. your not expecting a streaker.. nor Janet Jackson's showing your youngest her Boob..

As to me.. and my opinion.. I been to nude and topless beaches.. but then I chose to go and expose myself in a setting that was socially exceptable in that part of the world.

Silly.. depends.. but if a lady was walking down your street topless.. in front of your kids.. what would be the reaction..

It's all in how you look at it.

Jinjre
02-04-2004, 11:05 AM
My thought was "well, that was tame compared to the longerie bowl" I suppose they had to compete with that somehow.

Americans are very much not a homogenous society. Some families don't have any problems with nudity at all. Others are very puritanical about it. Which means that those who are offended will speak the loudest.

Kaidian Blade
02-04-2004, 11:12 AM
The United States loves censorship... and being what we call "politically correct".

There is an agency to censor everything from the quality of the food we buy in stores or at restaraunts (FDA), to the trafficing of illegal substances and tradegoods (DTFA), to what we hear on the radio and watch on TV (FCC). The list goes on.

While most of these agencies are in place for obvious, yet VERY GOOD reasons... sometimes they infringe on the average American's constitutional rights. You also have to understand the power that religious organizations and civil rights groups have in our country to dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong". These groups have become so prevalent in the last 40 years that courts are basically re-writing laws on a daily basis. Some would even say that the Constition is barely enforceable anymore.

So while in the great scheme of things, you would think a quick flash of one breast is no big deal, you've got all these parents and groups calling FOUL!

I can agree with them to a point, but I'm getting really tired of being told what I can or can't do without infringing on OTHER people's rights.

Tinsi
02-04-2004, 11:50 AM
The problem is not the fact that the breast was shown.. the problem was infact that a lot of people let there kids watch the Superbowl which supposed to be a sport.. IE: Rated for the General Audience.


I think the /boggle-part that people here in Europe struggle with is that apparently singing "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song" is no problem, but partly illustrating it IS a problem.


Silly.. depends.. but if a lady was walking down your street topless.. in front of your kids.. what would be the reaction..


"It's not polite to stare and point, son!" :)

alyn cross
02-04-2004, 12:46 PM
all it really boils down to is that we just needed something else to talk about, and it happens to be the most lively discussion at the present time. europeans get just as wound up over inconcequential matters too, dating back to luther and calvin's debates on transsubstantiation in the 1500's.

just must've been a void in the social pages, that needed filling... /cackle

and yes, it was somewhat degrading to the nature of the spirit of the superbowl... though the whole 'halftime show' brings it down, imo. i don't want to see kid rock or janet jackson, i want to see football.

scarbrowed
02-04-2004, 01:16 PM
while complaing that violent crime is up.

/boggle

The sad part is Americans complain about violent crime going up when it's been dropping for over 10 years. (OK, 2003 numbers might be up slightly, but still way down from the early 90's.)

Chenier
02-04-2004, 02:20 PM
My boyfriend claims that his uncle taught him at the age of 3 to wolf whistle at the Page 3 girl...=D

I'm sure his mum was proud...

Aidon
02-04-2004, 03:10 PM
Silly.. depends.. but if a lady was walking down your street topless.. in front of your kids.. what would be the reaction..

In the city of Columbus, Ohio, its legal for a gal to go topless in the streets =D A judge a while back found it was discriminatory for men to be allowed to go w/o shirts and women were not.

You know the real kicker?

Its illegal, still, in Columbus for a man to wear women's clothing in public <dies laughing>

Drake09
02-04-2004, 03:49 PM
I think the /boggle-part that people here in Europe struggle with is that apparently singing "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song" is no problem, but partly illustrating it IS a problem.



Us americans can't imagine things apparantly! :)

Sobe Silvertree
02-04-2004, 03:58 PM
"It's not polite to stare and point, son!" :)

ROFL - Haha!

Thx for the laugh.. I needed that..

Kerech
02-04-2004, 04:09 PM
"It's not polite to stare and point, son!" :)

"But Dad, she's pointing back!"

"Well, yes, son... it is pretty cold out though" :lol:

Callahad
02-04-2004, 04:21 PM
I think the saddest part is that Janet stands to benefit mightily from this. I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that this was done deliberately, to shock people, and that it was bad taste to some degree. Some were outraged, others were mildly surprised.

Yet, this act will get her a tremendous increase in revenues...

To me, that's what the contradiction is : how you can directly profit from doing something that is socially not accepted, and not even because you believe in something different, but because you know you will profit.

Callahad

Rahjeir
02-04-2004, 04:41 PM
Coming from someone who works in TV production, it's how it was aired. The superbowl was aired on CBS which is a "Over The Air" Network. These networks MUST comply with FCC rules. Channels like Comedy Cental, MTV ect ect are cable networks. FCC rules are different for these networks because it's a PAY service. CBS is a free network. Something like that on CBS at 8pm is NOT acceptable in anyway shape or form.

People expect CBS to be a clean network, because it MUST comply to these FCC rules. It isn't the act, it is where it aired and what event it aired on. The Superbowl isn't a place for that. Though if you ask me, I would rather my kid see a 1/2 covered breast then, 2 teams beating themselves silly. And hell, the cheerleaders are 1/2 naked anyway. I'm just explaining the fuss from a network view.

Afew weeks ago Comedy Cental showed the south park movie, uncut. Yes, every F word was left in the movie. How could they do it? It's was cable, FCC rules don't really apply.

If you want my personal opinon I believe she did it to take the heat off of michael for alittle while. She's always been close to her brother. Also Michael Jackson wanted to do the superbowl this year as well. Of course with all the problems he is having, you can guess what the network said. Maybe revenge too?

Scirocco
02-04-2004, 06:00 PM
What I find hypocritical is the fuss over seeing a portion of Janet's breast from distance (and not even fully exposed), while having an ad for male erectile dysfunction with the tagline about erections over 4 hours not being normal and recommending immediate medical help.

My eight-year-old daughter didn't blink at the Janet Jackson exposure. She did, however, ask, "Daddy, what's an erection?"

Drake09
02-04-2004, 06:04 PM
What I find hypocritical is the fuss over seeing a portion of Janet's breast from distance (and not even fully exposed),


It was fully exposed, minus the decoration that went around her nipple and partially covered her areolas. Of course, that was from a close up picture not shown on tv, but.. cha'know.

Chenier
02-04-2004, 07:41 PM
My eight-year-old daughter didn't blink at the Janet Jackson exposure. She did, however, ask, "Daddy, what's an erection?"
/watches whatever-liquid-Scirocco's-drinking-at-the-time come out of his nose, comic book style

I would guess that as a parent, you think about these questions coming up but I would find it hard to imagine that you're ever prepared for them...how'd you do?

alyn cross
02-04-2004, 07:58 PM
/cackle

Diggins
02-04-2004, 08:36 PM
In the city of Columbus, Ohio, its legal for a gal to go topless in the streets =D A judge a while back found it was discriminatory for men to be allowed to go w/o shirts and women were not.

You know the real kicker?

Its illegal, still, in Columbus for a man to wear women's clothing in public <dies laughing>

Sigh. It's the exact opposite here. No exposed boobies allowed but up in certain parts of Hollywood no one even looks twice at hairy drag queens wearing women's clothing. Want to trade cities?

Along with Janet exposing her weird nipple piercing, we also had Kick Rock wearing a shredded American flag as a poncho during his performance. That caused quite a stir too I hear. I just yawned through the whole half time thing. At least the game was pretty good.

Panamah
02-04-2004, 11:35 PM
Ok, americans confusing me once again.

It's ok, I'm confused too and I am one.


The important thing is, she had a star pasted over her nipple so it's ok! God knows if the children had seen nipple it would have corrupted them completely and they would be in a youth authority lock up within days, no doubt.

Actually, it is our elected leaders exerted their morality. Just recent the feds, most likely at the prompting of people being prompted (and having their campaigns financed) by the religious right, declared they would be cracking down on obscenity over broadcasting. They're leving fines like mad if you say naughty words. So of course this happens and with our conservative government in office right now they'll make a big fuss over it.

You can go to just about any beach in my city and see a hell of a lot more skin than Janet showed, and I don't see anyone having qualms about taking their kids there.

I think its silly. You just take our little flesh taboos a bit further and you've got women in black bourka's not daring to show even their eyes lest they tempt some poor man, defenseless against evil feminine wiles, to rape her.

Rahjeir
02-05-2004, 12:25 AM
/shrug it's 100% legal in NYC to breast feed in public. You see the same exposed flesh as Janet showed.

The big deal is it aired on CBS, for 89 million people to see. Though, I don't get why CBS is blaming MTV(the producers of the event) so openly. They are owned by the same parent company the lastime I checked. That's bad form to rip your own company in public like that.

Yea, Scirocco some of those ads kids shouldn't of seen. Alot was tastless. But one 30 second slot for the superbowl is 2.3million a spot. Yes, 2.3 MILLION. Noone has the balls to say no to 2.3million at CBS. I think Beer ad's shouldn't be shown on TV either. Everyone knows what beer is. We don't need ad's to know it's out there.

Jinjre
02-05-2004, 12:50 AM
We don't need ad's to know it's out there.

Ah, but without the beer ads, how would us silly girls learn ourselves to catch a man? Before beer commercials, I never wooda thot to put on my beekeeny an go ski in snow.

And without beer ads, how would you big burly men learn to be manly?

Obviously beer ads are actually a public service along the lines of the old "how to have a good first date" social propaganda films of the 50s.

Aquila Swiftspirit
02-05-2004, 12:50 AM
I'm an American and I have to agree, it's darned confusing.

We in the US have an incredibly puritanical background in some ways. The English colonists were originally largely people who thought that England was way to hedonistic and not properly religious. We still have fundamentalist religious movements that are very powerful.

We're particularly anxious about sex and sexuality, and our bodies. *Playboy* is so successful here in part because it's sort of forbidden fruit.

And despite dressing our children, especially little girls, in miniature versions of rather sexualized outfits (tank tops, bikinis, short shorts, etc), we freak out when we think of anyone having sex before the age of 18 or after the age of 45. We have more stupid laws about sexuality than you can throw a stick at! As a culture, we do a lousy job teaching our children about sexuality.

We allow children to view incredibly violent material, however. Our cartoons are often really violent, and that's not anything recent. Go look at some *Three Stooges* or *Our Gang* episodes and really think about what that says to kids.

US Football itself is a violent sport, controlled somewhat, but still, there's a great deal of violence. And the language we use to talk about it is full of war and rape imagery. But somehow, we introduce little kids to it very early. (I remember wanting and receiving a football jersey and helmet at age 6.)

LOTS of kids grow up watching "professional wrestling," a form of entertainment which glorifies violence in the extreme.

We're a pretty confused bunch sometimes.

Rahjeir
02-05-2004, 01:47 AM
Most cartoons was made for adults, funny enough. Stuff like Bugs Bunny, was really made for adults. Somehow the lines on that got viewed as, oh it's not real, it's ok to kids. There was a good book written about the history of cartoon making about 15 years ago. I have it somewhere, forgot the name.

I use to watch Professional Wrestling as a kid. I knew it was fake, I knew it was all a story. When I did my first WWF/WWE event as a adult cameraman, I took on a whole new repect for those people. Just shocking at how much damage they really take you don't see. Then I also learned just how violent the "sport/entertainment" was. When I do have kids, wrestling is something I really don't want them watching. Even though I loved it as a kid.

Bannis
02-05-2004, 09:31 AM
I'm very glad we weren't watching with young children, but man did we have fun coming up with what kind of professional help you seek if you have an erection lasting over 4 hours!

Greggo
02-05-2004, 09:51 AM
I have 4 daughters and the correct answer to your question, Chenier, is "go ask your mother" :)

Chenier
02-05-2004, 10:28 AM
I have 4 daughters and the correct answer to your question, Chenier, is "go ask your mother" :)
To which she'll respond with a huff, glaring at you, "I wouldn't know anymore."

Aquila Swiftspirit
02-05-2004, 11:06 AM
/cry

Chenier made coffee go through my nose!

Arienne
02-05-2004, 11:17 AM
I have a question....

Does anyone know of a child of an age that would be "corrupted" by the sight, who actually could sit still long enough to watch the game?

I think the hoopla is simply due to the fact that it was not planned by those who thought they were in control.

Aerokella
02-05-2004, 11:51 AM
To which she'll respond with a huff, glaring at you, "I wouldn't know anymore."

I just can't stop laughing at that.....lololol

Araxx Darkroot
02-05-2004, 12:17 PM
Ya know, Americans might be confusing, but what hapenned at the super bowl isn't really so.
I don't have a problem with nudity (I actually encourage female super-model type nudity) but the problem was as I think has been mentioned before was the time it hapenned. Yea, some kids might not be able to sit still for the whole game, but even if they can't, watching JJ and JT might just catch their attention and they might sit still for that. So they see a breast on public TV. Whilst not the end of the world it was out of context, and of course all the conservatives began screaming Censorship!!

In Spain we have TV ads with nudity in them at every time of the day. I actually think I see more during the daytime than at night. But do people cry Censorship over this? No. They did during Dragonball and that was removed and put on later. Funny old world.

Censorship, imo is counter productive. Being told what you can and cannot see, read, say causes more anger than it fixes. Whilst something like what hapenned at the supwer bowl can't really be censored, and CBS was kind of "forced" to offer an apology, what the people think, the common Joe in the street - ok, and you and me - is what's important. They are, after all, who keep the countries up and running.

We all know what they say about receiving a strict education in a catholic school don't we?

Panamah
02-05-2004, 12:36 PM
You know, I actually think the nudity taboo actually sexualizes nudity. I mean, if nudity were typical, you'd probably look at a breast and think "there's some infant's lunch pail". If naked breasts are only associated with sex, well then! Guess what people think of when they see naked breasts?

Greggo
02-05-2004, 01:15 PM
/pout You so mean Chenier :P

I doubt any of my kids could be bothered watching the Superbowl (even for me its a bit of a chore) but I certainly wouldnt have cared if that had seen the Janet Jackson thing. They see far more graphic stuff just sitting and watching Futurama with me.

Seriena
02-05-2004, 02:30 PM
It shouldn't be that confusing. The issue is that CBS and other networks like it have to follow FCC regulations. If the superbowl were aired on a pay per view type network, then as americans we know that certain things might be shown that we don't want our kids to see. It's just like putting warnings before a show "viewer discretion is advised" or Rated R for nudity, etc. You don't see those warnings before the Superbowl though, which is why there is such an outcry.

Either way, I'm thankful for the entire episode because it made what is normally a very boring Telecommunications Law class pretty fun for a day! The prof even showed the video clip of it ;p

Greggo
02-05-2004, 03:26 PM
Ahh good old FCC..the other one that made me laugh was the FCC ruling that the use of the word "****" (I think by Bono or someone like that receiving an award) was ok because it was not being used to describe a sexual act. Unsurprisingly some prudes appealed the whole thing.

Arienne
02-05-2004, 04:23 PM
You know, I actually think the nudity taboo actually sexualizes nudity.Yeah.... if most of the people I see in the stores and airports were more open with their own nudity, there would be NO chance of nudity being seen as sexual! :devil-lau

Fairweather Pure
02-05-2004, 04:53 PM
America is all about bad priorities. The Janet incident is one of many. Anotehr example is we're the only country I've ever been to that has more fat clinics than cancer clinics.

Araxx Darkroot
02-05-2004, 05:13 PM
We idolize actores, singers, writers, et al whilst medical researchers, doctors, etc. have to fight to get money for their researches which should save our lives. Yet we prefer to spend thousands of $$ a year on crap and we cringe when offered a small box to offer money for some kind of medical donation.
I say "we" in the general term, I know not everyone is like that.
The human race as a whole has its priorities mixed up.

Kerech
02-05-2004, 05:51 PM
I was more offended by other parts of the half-time show than I was by Janet's flash-dance (although that was totally inappropriate).

Things bothered me like Nelly grabbing his hoo-diddy (it's a medical term :)) and yanking on it for so long during his song... Kid Rock wearing the American Flag made into a poncho... the actual content of the songs they were singing, etc. The entire half-time show was inappropriate for the venue in which it was performed.

And no, I have no problem with most of those things in the right venue, just not during half-time of the Super Bowl on national TV.

And don't even get me started on the commercials! We had dogs biting crotches, horses "breaking wind" and torching a lady's hair, 2 different commercials for erectile dysfunction products among others. I know 2.3 million is a lot of money, but CBS really needs to watch what they are showing more closely. I remember when people used to complain about that commercial where the women "didn't feel fresh" for a few days each month. Nobody seems to complain about the ads these days. Like Enzyte who promises "enhancement" and shows a "very satisfied wife back at the clubhouse". Give me a break!

Oh, and I just loved that one ad that promised you'd be "ready" for 36 hours, but if you were erect for over 4 hours see a doctor immediately! I can just see lawsuits forming over that already.

LauranCoromell
02-05-2004, 06:24 PM
/agree Kerech

It was almost as if everyone decided to go for shock value, the performers, the comercials. Half time is sometimes an entertaining show although I could usually do without them entirely. And most years we've gotten some pretty good comercials, this year didn't have any real stand out's for me though, in any way other than the negative.

I don't think young children have any need to see people grabbing private parts on stage or men and women suggestively bumping one another in a sexual way. Or a man singing that he will have the woman naked shortly and then ripping away her clothing to reveal a nude breast. This certainly sends a much different picture than seeing a mother breast feeding her child. Quite honestly I didn't enjoy it myself, and the flag poncho only served to tick me off. I'm not shocked by seeing a nude breast, I see them every morning when I shower and dress, but there are places where it's expected and places where a family should be able to go and not worry about what their children will see or hear.

On the other hand, much too much has been made of it. If she's going for publicity she certainly got what she was aiming for. I really wish we just wouldn't feed the ego's.

edit: fixed typo: a man not an man

Fyyr Lu'Storm
02-06-2004, 12:26 AM
What I was immediately struck with was the crass materialism of the move.

JT and JJ did it only to spark controversy, just like his ex and Madonna. To sell more records. To make more money. It depends on your sensibilities, but what do you normally call people who take off their clothes for money?

Well, besides 'well paid'.

But of course this was in the middle of the most crass and materialistic show of the year, so I dunno. I already know that the superbowl is just a show, the action well rehearsed, and the outcomes predetermined. I expect that.

But football players do not really need the appearance of integrity or credibility to sell their product. Most of musical artists do, see Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, Monkees, etc for what happens if they do not.

"I'm not a prude (no)
I just want some respect (that's right)
So close the door if you want me to respond (ooh ooh yeah)
'Cause privacy is my middle name
My last name is Control
No my first name ain't baby
It's Janet
Miss Jackson, if you're nasty"

Kerech
02-06-2004, 06:53 AM
But what is her name if she's the one that's nasty? :)

Drake09
02-06-2004, 11:54 AM
drudgereport.com has a close up of the offending chesticle! (I think, and I hope you can find it, it was posted right after it happened that sunday.)

Stormhaven
02-06-2004, 12:01 PM
Rahjeir - you said you worked in the TV business - can you explain something to me?

I've got a friend in talk radio who told me that FCC regulations require "live" broadcasts to have a delay (3 or 5 seconds, I forget the actual time length) in order to censor possible "accidents". Now, I had a friend who worked at Fox Sports back when they were regional who told me the same thing. Was the Superbowl not delayed in the same manner? I know that pixieing a breast is harder than bleeping a word (usually pixelation is post production), but at an event with over a hundred (?) cameras, they surely could have cut to another shot....?

Glynna1
02-06-2004, 12:50 PM
Heh the cameraman was probably distracted :p. Personally there is a place and time for nudity, go to one of those beaches and yes I have been there! Although baring it all is not what I am for. Got to leave something to the imagination now don't we :D. Give me nudity over violence any day and we would all be happier (again nudity in it's place. There is never a place for violence )

Aidon
02-06-2004, 12:56 PM
Heh the cameraman was probably distracted :p. Personally there is a place and time for nudity, go to one of those beaches and yes I have been there! Although baring it all is not what I am for. Got to leave something to the imagination now don't we :D. Give me nudity over violence any day and we would all be happier (again nudity in it's place. There is never a place for violence )

There is a time and place for violence, as there is a time and place for most anything.

Defense of liberty. Protection of resources. Defense of person. Protection of those unable to protect themselves. Just to name a few.

Glynna1
02-06-2004, 01:02 PM
My reference to violence was intended to be in regards to everyday life not in a war situation. War occurs to protect our rights for what we stand for and want to protect generally. Should have made that clear.

Defense of liberty. Protection of resources. Defense of person. Protection of those unable to protect themselves. Just to name a few

Actually I don't consider the above to be acts of violence but more so defending oneself.

Greggo
02-06-2004, 02:05 PM
..and of course the game itself.....

Panamah
02-06-2004, 02:46 PM
So, is it nudity if the nipple is covered? Just how much of the breast must be covered?

Why can men show their breasts?

Araxx Darkroot
02-06-2004, 02:49 PM
Only in America (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html)

Link shows JJ's naked breast, so no minors click the link!

Stormhaven
02-06-2004, 04:18 PM
Apparently the line is drawn from the indecent and the obscene...

Indecent material is covered by the first amendment, the obscene is not. What's what?
<i>
The Courts have said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be considered obscene, material must meet a 3-prong test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient (arousing lustful feelings) interest;

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecency is defined as language or material that, in context, describes or depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. As such, broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.
</i>

Linkage:
http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

Aidon
02-06-2004, 05:15 PM
Gobbledy-guck and balderdash.

Freedom of expression should have no limitations outside of the "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" context.

Jinjre
02-06-2004, 06:40 PM
I solve the whole free speech thing by just not listening to anyone else anyway. After all, my opinions are the right ones anyway. /giggle /snort

Raloda
02-06-2004, 10:19 PM
EDIT:... Pics are of adult nature.. ( by law )


Quoted from our private mb's


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omg are we really that represed as a nation that a single breast on national television is going to cause an "outrage"? I can think alot of other things to be outraged about =P Rofl its jsut some skin sheesh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's not "just some skin." It's a woman in leather, violently and unwillingly stripped as spectacle in front of my 5-year-old sons and 2-year-old daughter.

Look at www.drudgereport.com/mattjj.htm again --- that's rape imagery, and something I don't want anywhere near my kids right now, especially as entertainment. I already had enough fun explaining to them what "bikini waxing" was (from the Bud Light ad).

I've got no problem with breasts, naked or otherwise. But there's a big difference between:

www.mystudios.com/art/nca...eading.jpg
www.breastfeeding.com/art.../28big.jpg

and

www.drudgereport.com/mattjj.htm

(and yes, it is a nice piercing).

/end quote from mb



I have to agree.. It's not that her breast was shown.. it was the WAY it was done.

Edit:.. yes the 2 links dont work.. they did when this was first posted on our MB.

Fairweather Pure
02-07-2004, 01:16 PM
Over react much?

Children will only pay attention to things that the adults around them make a big deal out of. Read that again, it's one of the truest statements you will ever read. My 6yr old little sister didn't bat an eylash at the boob, especially since it was such an obscure distance. However, she did ask what an erection was after seeing the Ditka commercials for whatever the hell the new male "potency" pill is. I immediately shot my mom a gigantic smile and awaited her stammered reply. We all laughed when the ad said something about seeing a doctor if your erection lasts 4 hours.

People often forget how smart children really are, and how many things we think are important/scary/sexual/ect. don't mean a damn thing to them (or vice versa!). People speaking for thier children is often pretty ironic, since most of the time the kids could care less. Make no mistake, these are people speaking for themselves and using their children as tools to get thier point across. If I was a child and saw a boob on TV, I would've laughed. My parents would have laughed with me and moved on. Parents that dwell are creating the problem themselves. An angry parent is still angry even after the boob has had it's 1 sec in the world spotlight.

We're a hypocritical nation. Those that are showing the strongest outrage are generally the most hypocritical. Like I said earlier, or nation's priorities are totally obscured by the stupidest things. Imagine if we focused on real solutions for real problems for awhile.

Drake09
02-07-2004, 01:31 PM
Edit:.. yes the 2 links dont work.. they did when this was first posted on our MB.


Next time, right click on the link, click properties, and get the full link from their... if you highlight it and then copy the link, it gives you a "..." in the middle of it, from where the forum software shortens a displayed link.

Araxx Darkroot
02-07-2004, 02:26 PM
You know, what is so wrong with a child seeing a boob?
Don't women breastfeed their children?
Do we fear they will grow up to be perverted, have the wrong sense of what sex really is, or some other distorted reality?
Are we all perverted?
I know I'm not.
Sex is a reality in this world we cannot escape.
Your child's first experiences will come from his/her friends at school. I'd prefer them to be educated as soon as possible rather than later, for the obvious reasons.
Then, when they move on to highschool and then the university you do not want to know what kind of things they will get up to. They will decide, their personality will take over - hopefully - and they will either fall for the pleasures, or not. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is done intelligently.
But then I guess you prefer your child to see ads about alcohol and how cool drinking is and having 4 hour long erections, because that has absolutely nothing to do with sex...

Anka
02-09-2004, 10:04 AM
Just to change the subject slightly ...

Why was Janet Jackson refused entry to the Grammies while Justin Timberlake was allowed to appear on stage and apologise? She seems to being blamed for his exposing her on television.

Arienne
02-09-2004, 10:50 AM
Just to change the subject slightly ...

Why was Janet Jackson refused entry to the Grammies while Justin Timberlake was allowed to appear on stage and apologise? She seems to being blamed for his exposing her on television.Aww... you know how it is! Boys will be boys. He couldn't help himself for his actions. DAMN her for tempting him! Good thing he didn't try to rape her onstage or she would probably be in jail today!

Stormhaven
02-09-2004, 10:59 AM
Janet's getting blamed because she said she planned it without the studio's or the producer's knowledge. She still maintains that the red bra was supposed to remain.

Araxx Darkroot
02-09-2004, 01:19 PM
This is stupid no matter how you look at it.

It took Bush less time to make a committee of people to "clean the airwaves" than it did to find the missing "weapons of mass destruction".

Anka
02-09-2004, 01:41 PM
Janet's getting blamed because she said she planned it without the studio's or the producer's knowledge. She still maintains that the red bra was supposed to remain.


But Justin must have been planning it too, or he wouldn't have been pulling off her clothing (presumably)?

Drake09
02-09-2004, 02:02 PM
Planning to remove the outer portion, not the red bra.

Glynna1
02-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Janet's getting blamed because she said she planned it without the studio's or the producer's knowledge. She still maintains that the red bra was supposed to remain._________________

So they both went along with the plan and they both allegedly maintain that the bra was supposed to remain?

Aidon
02-09-2004, 04:17 PM
As much as certain people would like to absolve the woman of "blame" and lay it squarely on the male for being a boorish, insensitive, sexist, rapist, oaf...it need be remembered, that he did nothing without her consent...and she was the one wearing rip away clothing, not the man. Don't try to turn this into some sort of feminist rally cry. He wasn't raping her. He did only what he was asked to do. He didn't plan to bare her breast. It wasn't his parts getting nekkid.

FFS, don't blame him just because he's a ****ing man. Pathetic.

Araxx Darkroot
02-09-2004, 05:34 PM
They are both to blame.
Let me re-phrase that, they both had a part in the act. She planned it, he went along with it. Oh, and the red part was not meant to stay, it clearly came off without any extra tug from Justin, it didn't rip, it came off.
Blame is a bit harsh in my opinion because for me what they did is no worse than a prank from some high school kids. The fact it was screwed by the media and the highly sensitive moralists every way possible in the wrong direction up certain people's "where the sun don't shine" does not make it the sin of all sins.
Do people in the USA not watch documentaries where they show African tribes - and other tribes around the world - with tribesmen and tribeswomen in the buff going about their businness?

Yes, I'm still /boggling at this and all the media coverage such a paltry thing has caused and all the steps going to be taken to avoid anything similar from hapenning again.

Rahjeir
02-09-2004, 05:59 PM
Rahjeir - you said you worked in the TV business - can you explain something to me?

I've got a friend in talk radio who told me that FCC regulations require "live" broadcasts to have a delay (3 or 5 seconds, I forget the actual time length) in order to censor possible "accidents". Now, I had a friend who worked at Fox Sports back when they were regional who told me the same thing. Was the Superbowl not delayed in the same manner? I know that pixieing a breast is harder than bleeping a word (usually pixelation is post production), but at an event with over a hundred (?) cameras, they surely could have cut to another shot....?

Sorry for the delay, in anwsering this question Storm. Havn't followed the thread in afew days.

Eep, memory joging question. Yes, live programs do require a delay. And you are correct, it's normally 5-7 seconds. The delay though is for only certain live programs, and doesn't require cable to do it. The law was rewrote years ago for cable, and I think for "over the air" networks as well. I do not know, if the superbowl was on a delay or not. I can ask though, a friend of mine worked on the event.

Even with a delay of 7 seconds, it's very hard to censor a bad shot. The best thing to do is the dump the feed from the delay framesync and go to break. The shot wasn't up for too long, the director did cut to a different shot within a matter of seconds. Also the camera was on a wide shot of the 2. Really, you couldn't see a thing, unless someone paused it and blew it up. It's isn't the fact the public saw the nipple. It's the fact a man ripped off her top exposing her. That act alone, causes out cry. Once it happened there is no way to repair the damage, but cut to a different camera, which they did.

Anka
02-09-2004, 06:16 PM
she was the one wearing rip away clothing, not the man. Don't try to turn this into some sort of feminist rally cry.

I'm sure no feminists have anything to argue about there. I'm not a feminist so for all I know it might be female empowerment to wear rip away clothes nowadays. Whatever, I'll accept that might be a slip of the keyboard on your part and ignore your anti-feminist tirade ;).

As much as certain people would like to absolve the woman of "blame" and lay it squarely on the male

Quite the opposite. The Grammies absolved the man of blame by letting him make a public apology and laid it squarely on the female.

Anyway this might not be a male female thing. I never posted that it was (if you read carefully). It might be a race thing. It might be just that the whole Jackson family isn't popular at the moment. It still seems double standards to bar Janet but let Justin be instantly forgiven.

Aidon
02-09-2004, 07:46 PM
I'm sure no feminists have anything to argue about there. I'm not a feminist so for all I know it might be female empowerment to wear rip away clothes nowadays. Whatever, I'll accept that might be a slip of the keyboard on your part and ignore your anti-feminist tirade ;).

Please don't. It wasnt' a slip, and in many ways I'm quite the anti-feminist.

Which, I'm sure, many will insist means I'm a sexist. It doesn't, but I won't hope to able to differentiate.

Glynna1
02-10-2004, 04:44 AM
As much as certain people would like to absolve the woman of "blame" and lay it squarely on the male for being a boorish, insensitive, sexist, rapist, oaf...it need be remembered, that he did nothing without her consent...and she was the one wearing rip away clothing, not the man. Don't try to turn this into some sort of feminist rally cry. He wasn't raping her. He did only what he was asked to do. He didn't plan to bare her breast. It wasn't his parts getting nekkid.

No where am I trying to blame the "male" squarely. They were both to blame. As stated He went along with it.