If you watch the “Game” for the game, you were treated last night to one of the best Super Bowls in recent memory. Disregarding the made-for-TV ending (a field goal to win with only 4 seconds on the clock), there was never a moment where I found myself wishing I’d drunk enough to pass out before Aerosmith’s pre-game show (as I did during much of last year’s Tampa/Oakland abortion of a game).
Now, if you watch the “Game” for the commercials, it was disappointing as a four-plus hour erection. It is certainly a sign of the crap state of the economy that the Super Bowl commercials sucked more ass than that German cannibal. The commercials also had a not-to-subtle gay undertone – from NFL stars singing show tunes, to a quarterback fondling his center’s ass, to so many people discussing their penis’ that I actually had to tune over to the Queer Eye marathon (more than once), just to see some real men.
And, if you tuned in to the “Game” for the half-time show, what are you, insane? The half-time show is traditionally a cluster f., and this year was no exception. I’m not sure what marketing executive at Viacom figured that Janet Jackson, Nas, and Justin Timberlake satisfied the average football-watching, over-drinking, wife-beating demo, but lets hope that person noticed all the Monster.com ads, because they should be looking for a new job.
What’s worse is that during the “performances” there were more lips flapping with nothing coming out than at a pre-pubescent game of spin the bottle. I hate lip-syncing with a passion. And even more annoyingly, none of the other networks counter-programmed. No Playboy edition of Fear Factor, not even the Simpson’s. I couldn’t even find an infomercial for Ron Popeil’s “Set it and forget.” So I actually had to watch these “super-stars” perform songs, that at best were more than a year past their prime, and at worst (Rhythm Nation?) were more than a decade old, and sounding it.
Now, as infuriating as the half-time show was, I’m glad I tuned in. I was able to witness something I never thought I’d see. An ironic table-turning suitable for an episode of the Twilight Zone. In an outrageous turn of events, a young boy molested a member of the Jackson family.
Justin Timberlake was the surprise guest of the show, and he came out to perform a song with Janet, Miss Jackson if you’re nasty (and I am). At the very end of the performance, he ripped off part of her bra. Now, I couldn’t quite believe what I saw, and though it nagged at the corners of my mind for the second half of the game, I, for the most part, put it out of my consciousness. I mean, they couldn’t really have shown Janet Jackson’s boob on TV, could they? No way.
Well, when the late local news came on, they had a story about all the concerned calls CBS got about the boob-slippage. “So, it really did happen,” I thought. Immediately I sprang to the Internet to see what I could find. And find I did. Here is Janet, sans her right boob cover. Here is a close up of Janet’s nipple. Here is the look of “surprise” on Janet and Justin’s faces.
I hear you on Aerosmith. It was painful listening to Steven Tyler screech his way through Dream On. Man, I would've left the stage and shot myself. Can anyone say "Time to retire"?
I think Janet Jackson's stunt was very inappropriate given the audience. The Superbowl is more of a family event than most think. My nephew, age eight, called me after it happened asking me if I saw the boob too. Good job Janet, that's real classy.
by Ezy at February 2, 2004 2:40 PM
I agree with you, it was innaprorpiate. But why? What is so awful about a nipple that children must be shielded from there very site? Isn't it strange, a child spends it's first year as intimate with that particular body part as can be, then for 17 years must be kept as far away from it as possible, than as soon as they hit 18 its fine again. Stupid.
by mg at February 2, 2004 2:48 PM
Right, we deserve a 12 minute dance routine/dry-hump-fest with lyrics such as: "I'll get you naked by the end of this song," Thatís a great family show, sure.
by MrBlank at February 2, 2004 2:58 PM
Actually, MG, I found almost the entire halftime show to be a bit risque for the audience that would be viewing it. I just think that Janet allowing Justin to rip off her boob cover is sending a pretty shitty message to little boys. I guess next time you're at a school dance what's wrong with ripping your date's bra or top off? Justin and Janet did it so it must be ok. Some kids idolize these snapper-heads almost fanatically, for some reason or another, and are very impressionable.
by Ezy at February 2, 2004 3:21 PM
I fell asleep before that. But when I got in the car they were jabbering about it nonstop on the radio. The gist of it was that Jackson is old and the DJs would have rather seen some nubile 20 year old nippage instead.
What disturbs me more is how much she looks like Michael with floppy boobs. Oh, and how they claimed it was an accident of some sort. Come on now.
They should have had Kid Rock do it. Then no one would have batted an eye.
by anna at February 2, 2004 6:22 PM
It couldn't have been an accident, she already had a pasty on it. Yeah, like I wear big metal pasties under MY bras all the time. They give that natural look.
by jean at February 3, 2004 3:08 AM
To me the whole thing looked decidedly asexual, more akin to rape than sex. Then again, I felt the same way when the material hag kissed those girls.
by anna at February 3, 2004 9:24 AM
Material hag... oh, that's good stuff Anna...
by Linz at February 3, 2004 10:21 AM
I still don't get the upset about this. It certainly did seem a desperate sort of move by Janet/Justin, but not particularly... I don't know, I wasn't offended. I'm bothered by how people are so focused on her nipple showing. The whole performance previously was sexual, including gyrating, dudes dressed up like the gimp from Pulp Fiction. If you want to get offended, get offended by that. But I've got a feeling that if no one had exposed their breast, people wouldn't have had a problem with any of it. Why is nudity so bad?
by mg at February 3, 2004 1:23 PM
It isn't. But this just seemed like such blatant commercialism. It just smacked of crassness. And I still can't figure out how Janet pulled off looking so genuinely shocked and hurt by it. You know there was a signed contract lest Justin get sued by her army of lawyers. Maybe she is an actress after all.
by anna at February 3, 2004 6:12 PM
First off, for everyone who says that the Super Bowl is a family show is CLEARLY smoking crack. Everyone knows that stupid men getting drunk, talking dirty, and stuffing their faces is the Super Bowl's prime audience. Even if kids are around that, they learn much filthier language/mannerisms from the men around them than the nipple slip. I also hear a lot of women say that they were offended by the "nudity." I ask, "What is offensive about nudity?" Did it say that ALL women do that? Or that all women like for men to do that? No.
Also, I've heard people say that young boys are going to start pulling on girl's bras and touching their breasts now that they've seen Justin do it. This doesn't make sense for two reasons: The first is that boy's are infatuated with breasts from birth. I went to school with several kids who did that to girls with big breasts in elementary school, and that was 20 years ago! The second reason is that most boys do not idolize Justin Timberlake. Young teeny-boppers are Timberlake's target audience.
So, what I'm saying is that boys will be boys whether they see that activity or not. Was it o.k. to show nudity on TV? No, because it's against the law. Did it happen? Yes. But, according to the two, it was an accident. Since there is no proof that it was intentional, they shouldn't be hated for a screw-up. People need to get lives and stop worrying about a breast being shown on TV. You can see breasts on PBS, and it's considered "educational."
Janet is a legend, has a huge fan base, and always will. She doesn't need a "nipple slip" for more fans. Haters need to get a life and talk about something else.
by Ruben at February 7, 2004 12:24 AM
Rubin, first of all, no one here said that Jusin or Janet should be hated for that lame assed stunt they pulled. They both should be fined by the FCC and CBS should have the right to pull them from whatever other gigs they're sponsering, if they so choose. Why shouldn't they be punished for what they did, because they're famous? As you said above, they broke the law. The courts are filled with people who accidentally broke the law but break it they did and they will be punished for it. I like to see nudity as much, or maybe more, than the average person and would've had no problem with the stunt, in an apporpriate setting. I just think it's sad when a "legend" has to resort to props and stunts to try to remain popular. Why couldn't she let her music speak for itself?
Second, you must not watch sports too much. Sports transcends age and the Super Bowl is watched by families who don't even drink and just want to see a good game. I know this first hand because I have many friends who choose not to drink and they're rabid football fanatics. Your broad generalization of a football audience is laughable. While I do agree that "stupid men getting drunk, talking dirty, and stuffing their faces" does make up a portion of the crowd, it's not the entire audience. You're clearly a Janet Jackson fan but don't let that blind you to the facts.
"She doesn't need a "nipple slip" for more fans"
Then why in the hell would she pull a stunt like that? If you haven't noticed, Miss Jackson If You're Nasty hasn't exactly been tearing up the charts the last few years. I think a nipple slip is exactly what she needs for more fans.
"You can see breasts on PBS, and it's considered "educational."
Are you seriously making a direct relation to a study of culture and a halftime Super Bowl show? Yes you can see breasts on PBS but it's usually during a National Geographic study of a culture that is not modernized. Also, there isn't a sexual overtone to a documentary like there was with J & J's performance. I have never seen any tribes, shown on a cultural documentary, grinding on one another while singing "I'll get you naked by the end of this song."
I also realize that what I said above is a bit drastic and most kids wouldn't dream of doing anything like that, but you have to grant that there are certain kids who would. Is it directly Janet and Justin's fault? No, I'd blame the parents, but why put it out there for kids to see? I'm not a hater but I do believe what J & J did was tasteless and pathetic.
by Ezy at February 7, 2004 10:36 AM
Janet Jackson sucked in 1987, she still sucks, I'll show my rubberboob, and I be famaous again!!!! DUHH.. Se is invaild, the superbore is ad for junk nobody needs or asked for. If I want to see nice females, with better bodies, I goo to the mall. This is the shit corp.usa thinks we want? At least it will keep the retards thinking about washed up Janets breast, and not our wonderful state of affiars at home and overseas...???
by Erich Eckhardt at February 8, 2004 8:22 AM
send to me sex movies
by zoro at February 8, 2004 8:32 PM
First of all, EZY, I didn't say that they broke the law. I said that showing nudity on TV is against the law. Not only that, if you even thoroughly read my opinion and understood it, I stated that it was an "accident." You can't fine or arrest people for "accidentally" being naked on TV. An accident is an accident, a screw up is a screw up, and that's it. End of story. If this is the biggest story that people can come up to bitch about, then the morals of our country are seriously warped. And yes, Janet is a legend and always will be. And it is because she's a legend that she's being treated like this. Because she's so popular and talented, she's being ostracized for an "accident." I'm sure that if Madonna did something like that (who has been much more vulgar throughout her career), no one would think twice about it.
Also, for your information, I said that "stupid men getting drunk, talking dirty, and stuffing their faces is the Super Bowl's PRIME audience." I didn't say that those men were the "entire audience" as you suggested. I may not watch sports a great deal, but you must not pay attention a great deal or you would have understood what I wrote. You need to READ before you criticize me directly. Your comprehension is "laughable."
As far as Janet not tearing up the charts the last few years, that makes no sense. She's sold millions of albums worldwide, won several awards, and holds many records for albums sold. I suppose that if she doesn't sell 10 million records per album, then she's not "tearing up the charts," in your mind. Her albums are always number one and always sell millions of them. In my opinion, that IS tearing up the charts. Showing a nipple isn't going to get new fans, and she knows this. How would it? People will go to her concerts hoping that it will happen again? Get real!
National Geographic, PBS, whatever. Breasts are breasts. PBS shows breasts, and it's not big deal. They're shown INTENTIONALLY. CBS showed them ACCIDENTALLY. Get over it. Americans are so scared of sexuality, it's ridiculous. Janet and Justin dancing closely is NOT something so "tasteless" that you need to cover kid's eyes. That's probably the main reason why there is so much teen pregnancy since the idea or subject of sex is hidden from them.
Again, Hater, EZY, whatever your name is, it was an ACCIDENT. This isn't the 1950s, it's 2004. You need to quit being so uptight and update yourself to the current year. My Grandpa wasn't even as stiff as you ar.
by Rube at February 9, 2004 2:42 PM
It is incredibly naive to say this was an accident. I think Janet herself has already said as much that it wasn't. And though I don't agree with the law, what she did was absolutely illegal. The difference between breasts on PBS and what janet did is a little something called prurient interest. There is no doubt that it was meant to be sexual, and the ripping of clothes (rape fantasy) steps over the line of what most people consider indecent.
As for how successful her career has been recently, heres this:
Between Control (1986), Rhythm Nation (1989), and janet (1993) Jackson sold more than 17 million albums (just in the US) and produced 17 number one singles (weird conincidence with the numbers). Her three albums since (including a Greatest Hits package) have sold only 7 millions copies and produced just 5 number one singles.
The second half of her career is solid enough that most artists would kill for that kind of success. But, once you've been to the highs, people expect more from you. Janet's new album wont be released until March if it only sells 2 million copies it will be considered a failure - that is the unfortunate prive of success, the expectation that you will repeat it. Janet has not in more than a decade.
by mg at February 9, 2004 4:01 PM
MG, you do have a point, I'll admit. It may seem naive that I believe her when she says that it was an accident, but I don't and never will see Janet as indecent. I've followed her career for many years, and she has been nothing but tasteful in her music and career choices.
About my PBS remarks, take that with a grain of salt. It's just funny how you can see long documentaries with nudity, and it's o.k. (and in my opinion, it is). But you see a quick glimpse of a beautiful, famous woman, and it's this big controversy. The ring around her nipple, to me, covers up about as much as a thong does. Yet still you can see a woman in a thong on TV and that covers up nothing but a strand of flesh and that's acceptable. What would people have said if she wore one of those? It's still considered clothing, swimsuit, right? They'd still make a big deal because it's Janet. They'll always blow things out of proportion with her because of her family name.
I do, however, disagree with the "rape fantasy." I just think that women like for a man to take control every now and then with some ripping off of their clothes. But I don't see how that's a rape fantasy. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you, MG. You make more sense than EZY, that's for sure.
by Rube at February 9, 2004 4:44 PM
I'm all for nudity if there is self-respect, and I, like you mg, wonder why bare breasts are such a big no-no in this society. However, they are, unfortunately.
What I worry about with stuff like this is not the nudity, it's the attitude. And it's a damn pathetic attitude about sexuality to have when so much of your fan base is young girls.
Shannon's told me about what high school dances look like these days. It is routine for the girls to be bent over while the guys grind them from behind. Do you think all of these girls are into it? Do you think that it is possible that it corrodes their sense of self-worth, making them think sex is the way to win over men, the only way to get attention? God, it's so liberating that these guys don't care what I think, just if I'll fuck them.
You guys know I'm all for sexual liberation. I've kissed girls! I watch porn with my boyfriend! But my attitude towards sex is because I was lucky enough to have a sister who had naughty books of fantasies under her bed, and a boyfriend who helped me realize at the tumultuous age of 16 that I could be both terribly sexy and utterly respected.
The vicious cycle we have entered as far as the media are concerned is one where talent is superceded by sex, and now people just expect the sex. Christina Aguilera is a prime example of a talentless whore. But god, I bet so many high school girls would love to be her. And if they were, would they find a sense of self-worth? What kind of reality is it? Christina is, in 20 years, going to be scraping desperately to maintain her slowly deteriorating looks. And her music is going to be long gone.
I don't know how to restore the "art" to music. It seems bereft in many cases. You can't make the public suddenly have class or taste. (And I mean quality control, not that they feed their cats Fancy Feast or crook their pinkies while they sip tea.) I personally, honestly, have no bones about nudity except if its unsterile (like, I don't want someone else's sweaty naked ass on my chair). I bet you, Rube, aren't as sexually liberated as you think. How would you feel if you were naked on a nude beach, when you see another naked person, a big fat old dude? Comfortable?
What Ezy is uncomfortable with (if I may speak for you Ezy) is not sexuality, it's about the media's total disrespect for women, where rape fantasies are the norm and women are just pretty little vapid accessories for the men. Boys will be like the boys they see.
I think we would all agree that this should not be front page material on CNN for 3 days in a row, we are just talking about what it reflects about our society on a grander scheme. At least I am. And I guess we're also debating whether Janet is successful. Which I think we would all agree she is. Her quality of music is certainly a matter of opinion.
by Linz at February 9, 2004 4:45 PM
"I bet you, Rube, aren't as sexually liberated as you think. How would you feel if you were naked on a nude beach, when you see another naked person, a big fat old dude? Comfortable?"
Well, Linz, if I were naked on a nude beach and I saw a naked, big, fat old guy, I'd feel pretty good about myself. That'd make me even more comfortable because I'm not big, fat, and old. However, my sexual liberation isn't the topic.
I agree that the media has a disrespect for women, for the most part. I'll be the first to admit that. But if it isn't an accident (and it may not be), and Janet chose to do it herself, then isn't that on her? She may have felt empowered knowing that she's wanted by men. She's accomplished so much in her career that maybe she just really wanted to experience that. Who knows?
I, like you and MG, think that bare breasts aren't a big deal. But I seriously think that if it wasn't an accident, then Janet, herself, chose to do it. It's more an empowerment issue with her more than if she felt like she had to do that. She respects herself and her sexuality, that much is obvious. It's just too big of a deal! The world is just sexually uptight. I live in California, and the view from the camera was VERY far away. People make it sound like the view was blown up on the screen or something, focused right on her nipple. No way.
by Rube at February 9, 2004 5:29 PM
Hey Linz, just because the new style of dance has gals bent over and grinding into them, doesn't mean the girls aren't into it. Just because you can't understand that, doesn't make it wrong. Isn't sex in general (any position) seem like one person taking advantage of another? Does that mean whoever is "on the bottom" is not enjoying themself/doesn't want to be there? Speaking from experience, that isn't the case. If, as a society, we choose to say that something like Sex in the City is about female empowerment, I don't think we are allowed to say a 13 year-old giving her boyfriend a hummer is some kind of abuse. You always see on Ricki Lake about fat chicks who like to dress sexy. They say that even though they don't fit the model for attractiveness, they think they are still sexy. Personally, I'd rather claw my eyes out then see a 400 lb woman in a thong and halter top, but that is about my schism, not hers. Right? I wonder what you think about legalizing prostitution...
by mg at February 9, 2004 10:04 PM
I never said none of the girls are into it, first of all. I bet a lot of them are. I danced all naughty-like at highschool dances. But when my ninth grade boyfriend asked me to give him a BJ I said no. Even when he repeatedly gave me head and then repeatedly asked for BJs, I denied him. But I know a lot more girls that regret how freely they gave it up when they were young than girls that are cool with it. I am not saying there aren't exceptions. Hell, I am one! But let me tell you, that girl that gave all the guys blowjobs when none would actually date her? I really don't think she went to bed alone with a warm snuggly feeling, and I doubt she was sucking dick and loving it, either.
What don't I understand exactly? I think you missed my point. There is a sad trend in our society in which women's supposed empowerment is indivisible from sex. I think the idea of female empowerment is cheapened by people like Christina and Brittany and Janet. But I didn't really explain this fully. I don't just hate how they act like objects, how empty their lyrics are, and how narcissistic they are. I hate how they eat two carrots a day, get primped for 7 hours to perform, and believe they are role models when all they do is show their young fans that the only way to be happy and successful is to be an airbrushed image of perfection with enormous tits. I'm not afraid of kids being sexually active; I was, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. What I don't like is the way that it's a pressure thing now, it's expected. It was that way when I was in high school, and it's still that way, and frankly, I think it's worse. Image is everything. It is not cool to be a tightass.
Do you honestly think that the trash reality shows on TV and MTV are pointing the youth of our country in a good direction? Kids are considered lame if they read the newspaper. Other countries actually educate their children about the rest of the world. We are so irresponsible and arrogant that our "news" consists of 60% celebrity gossip.
"Doesn't sex seem like one person taking advantage of another?" Please hunny, of course I like to pretend that that's what's happening. But other times I like to feel that I am totally connecting with the other person's soul. I think we learn about sex from the media, and the media really don't make you see what's good about it. I had to learn that on my own, and it's been quite a tough journey, with tons of obstacles.
Legalizing prostitution... I am in favor of it, as long as prostitutes get respect from the law if their clients go beyond their boundaries. I think our law enforcement needs to focus on the kind of crimes that leave people hurt or dead.
Sex in the City... I laugh my ass off at this show, but don't see why people try to instill so much social commentary in it. It is pretty absent of any real depth, but it probably has taught a lot of in-the-dark women that it is possible to be assertive and get what you want in the sack. I guess it might undo some of the damage that's done by being objectified by societal norms that are utterly silent about how to really understand your body. I still remember my prom queen high school friend talking at age 18 about how masturbation was gross. I remember raising my eyebrow at her and thinking, "but I have been doing that since I was 13!"
by Linz at February 10, 2004 9:51 AM
"First of all, EZY, I didn't say that they broke the law. I said that showing nudity on TV is against the law"
Did JJ show nudity on TV? If so, she broke the law. Even if it was an accident it was caused by a stunt of her design. Had she not tried it then her breast wouldn't have been showing. Sorry, that's the truth of it. If Madonna did that stunt I'd expect her to get fined too. I'm not against Janet Jackson showing her breast. I wouldn't mind seeing more of it but I don't think she should be exempt from laws or rules set down by society. That's what gets me.
"Also, for your information, I said that "stupid men getting drunk, talking dirty, and stuffing their faces is the Super Bowl's PRIME audience."
I left out "or even prime audience" in my sentence above. I apologize. Just because that is what the beer companies show on commercials doesn't make it the truth. I can't refute this with numbers because I don't think anyone has done a study and I'm too busy to look for it if they did. I have been to many professional football games and the people tailgating, being stupid, getting drunk, talking dirty and stuffing their faces didn't make up the majority of the crowds I've been in. They're there but not the majority. Maybe the games I've been to aren't the norm, I don't know, but I am talking from first hand experience and not speculation.
"I suppose that if she doesn't sell 10 million records per album, then she's not "tearing up the charts," in your mind."
You know what the sad thing is? I have always liked Janet Jackson but you can't tell me that har overall popularity hasn't fallen off over the last decade. MG crunched the numbers so I don't have to. Yes, that is a solid performance which most artists would be proud to call their own but it isn't the norm for JJ. That's what spurred my comment of tearing up the charts. She's not tearing up the charts by her standards.
"National Geographic, PBS, whatever. Breasts are breasts. PBS shows breasts, and it's not big deal."
It's not a big deal because, as I said before, It's not done in an overtly sexual manner. I'm far from a prude and agree with you about our puritanical views of sexuality but until society changes the rules then those are the ones we live by. I've travelled Europe and seen, first hand, how much better their views are on sexuality. Personally, I enjoyed the relaxed sexuality there and wish we could be more like that. I wouldn't have cared if Janet Jackson did the entire halftime show in the buff but I'm not the norm and that's just not what is accepted in our society. If you exempt certain people from the law but not all then what kind of message would that send?
"Janet and Justin dancing closely is NOT something so "tasteless" that you need to cover kid's eyes."
Not if the kids are brought up in that kind of atmosphere. Not all kids are brought up in that environment though and to subject people to it without warning is wrong, in my opinion. If all of these people had attended a Janet Jackson concert and this happened I would say it's their fault for going, if they don't want to see that. This was a Super Bowl halftime show, viewed by families as well as beer swilling men, and I'll bet any amount of money that no one was expecting to see that kind of display. If people want to raise their kids in an atmosphere without nudity or sexuality who am I. or you, or Janet Jackson to make that decision for them?
"Again, Hater, EZY, whatever your name is, it was an ACCIDENT. This isn't the 1950s, it's 2004. You need to quit being so uptight and update yourself to the current year. My Grandpa wasn't even as stiff as you ar."
First of all you have no idea of who I am. If you knew me you would be laughing at yourself for branding me as such. Just because I don't agree with what Janet and Justin did, in that venue, doesn't mean I am outdated or uptight. I just don't think they should be exempt from the rules. If I go driving right now and, while thinking about something else, speed and get a ticket then I deserve it. I might have done it accidentally and I will hope the cop lets me off but if he doesn't then I have no one but myself to blame. Why don't you read a few of my posts and get a better idea of who you're talking about before you brand people with labels.
by Ezy at February 10, 2004 10:42 AM
I found this article interestingly relevant. I have heard myself say "I will take advantage of my gender if it will help me advance."
It's so fun to be a hypocrite. I'd feel worse if I didn't believe everyone was a hypocrite in some way or another.
by Linz at February 10, 2004 11:35 AM
All right, EZY, you make more sense this time. Not that I agree with you, because I don't. I more see your point, but you all like to quote without showing the following sentences. That's cool, whatever.
O.K., first off, we ALL know that INTENTIONALLY getting naked on TV is illegal, right? Well, all I'm saying, and all I've BEEN saying, is that there is NO PROOF right now that shows that it was intentional or "a stunt." None. Maybe if/when the FCC investigates, they might find something that shows that it was intentional. If they do, then it's only right to fine her for that (although I don't see the point since she's worth millions and a few thousand dollars won't be a big deal). But as of right now, NOTHING has been found, so no one can claim that it was intentional. You may disagree with me, and you obviously do, but that's the truth. You and many others only THINK that she did it. Since there's no proof, there's nothing to claim. You seemed to have left out that part of my column last time.
And as for the Super Bowl audience, I'm not going to argue much further about that. I say that the MAJORITY of people who watch the Super Bowl are men who eat, drink, and are merry, while you seem to think that it's a family show. Whatever, that's your opinion. I've never met a family with young kids that all gather around watching the Super Bowl. Teenagers, yes, but not with young kids watching. It's merely opinions that clash. But, it's common knowledge that men are more abusive on Super Bowl Sunday, largely due to drinking, and that more police are on patrol on Super Bowl Sunday because of alcohol consumption.
"This was a Super Bowl halftime show, viewed by families as well as beer swilling men, and I'll bet any amount of money that no one was expecting to see that kind of display. If people want to raise their kids in an atmosphere without nudity or sexuality who am I. or you, or Janet Jackson to make that decision for them?"
Well, everyone knows by now that Janet's performances show her wearing snug outfits, showing off her stomach, and dancing sexy. That's common knowledge. Janet oozes sexuality, so the parents should have known that it would have at least been a performance INVOLVING sexuality. They didn't know that a breast was going to be shown, but they knew that it was going to be sexual in some manner. If that offended them and they didn't want their children around that, then she shouldn't have let them watch it.
With that being said, who the hell cares about if her popularity hasn't been what it was? What does that have to do with anything? It's all assumption, nothing more. All people are thinking is, "Hey, she showed her boob on TV. It's must have been on purpose. She must need more fans." Who in their right mind thinks like that? Again, assumptions.
In addition, I wasn't even making a big deal about PBS showing breasts, I just used that as a comparison that breasts are natural, they're a part of the female form, and that was it. I even said that I thought that it was appropriate of them to show on TV because it's for educational purposed. BUT, I also stated that those are very long shots of naked women (which, like I said is for educational purposed), but the "slip" was a short viewing. It was a 2-second glimpse that was BARELY visible (not even enough to enjoy, to be honest). So what is with this major backlash? If people are THAT offended by breasts (especially 2-second glimpses), then they shouldn't allow their kids to see the long, drawn-out shots of naked women in other countries, for that matter. I guess it's o.k. to be naked on TV as long as you don't live in the United States?
Well, EZY, since you make more sense this time around, I retract what I "labeled" you. You make a decent point, but it's all speculation right now. I'll admit that she should be fined (still pointless, though) if either she admits that she did it on purpose, or if there is strong evidence that it was intentional. Until then, there's not much to say about it.
by Rube at February 10, 2004 11:58 AM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point Rube. I enjoyed the banter though and thanks for the retraction. Peace out.
by Ezy at February 10, 2004 2:13 PM
Likewise, EZY. Maybe we can "debate" over another topic sometime. E-mail me if interested.
by Rube at February 10, 2004 3:03 PM
I think we've just made a love connection.
by mg at February 10, 2004 3:08 PM
Smart ass, MG. Nothing homosexual about the two of us, that's for sure. We may not agree on the "slip," but I think that we can agree that we'd like to see BOTH boobs if she willingly shows them at the appropriate time. Disagree?
by Rube at February 10, 2004 3:59 PM
Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing both boobs.
by Linz at February 10, 2004 4:20 PM
I'm all for seeing both boobs and an ass shot, if I can get it. Wouldn't that be sweet?
I won't cheat on you MG. Don't worry. You're still my #1 noogie.
by Ezy at February 10, 2004 4:25 PM
Do you mean nookie?
by Linz at February 10, 2004 4:28 PM
EZY, you are TOO right. I'd LOVE to see an ass shot of hers!
by Rube at February 10, 2004 4:31 PM
Nookie, noogie, tomato, tamato......... ;-)
She do have a fine booty, no?
by Ezy at February 10, 2004 4:51 PM
Hell yeah she does! One of the best!
by Rube at February 10, 2004 5:48 PM
why was justin's hand there anyway? he wanted to see her boob but never thought he would. maybe they planed it maybe she wanted him to tough it but not see it!!! did u ever think of that!!!
by Jennifer at January 16, 2005 10:43 PM
if you look at the picture janet had a thing around her nipple. do you think they planned it?why would you wear something like that if no one was goin to see it!!
by Jennifer at January 16, 2005 10:48 PM
if you look at the picture janet had a thing around her nipple. do you think they planned it?why would you wear something like that if no one was goin to see it!!
by Jennifer at January 16, 2005 10:48 PM
At this point, if they planned it, WHATEVER. It's only a tit and tits are harmless last time I (physically) checked. But with that, Janet has been into piercings, including the one on her "southern area." So, I think she's just a freak with that and would wear that anyway. She's shown lots of pictures where you can see the outline of a ring of some sort.
by RUBE at February 22, 2005 7:18 PM
I'd be dumb to think you're the same Rube, to be coming back after a year to offer the well put 'Whatever' wouldn't I?
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at February 23, 2005 8:54 AM
The same RUBE indeed! WHATEVER (in case no one understands) means BIG FUCKIN' DEAL! A tit does not cause problems in the world. Whether a tit is on public TV or on HBO, it's o.k. so long as you're paying extra for it? Stupid ass ideology right there. It was a FAR AWAY shot of the tit, and you couldn't even see it clearly. People need to get the hell over it. It's making me wonder whether this whole ordeal would be the same if it was a white tit as opposed to a black tit.
by Rube at April 26, 2005 4:43 PM