Apparently CBS execs OK'd the Janet bewbie thing...

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: JackBurton


Let's look at this honestly. It wasn't sexual assault that pissed people off, it was JJ's breast being revealed. Now why is it ok for a woman to show her leg, but not her breast. Men can show their chest, why can't women? And why can women show their breast as long as the nipple is covered? What is the point of that? Is the nipple evil?

No, you are partially correct. A breast is a simple thing to explain to a child. A child could watch a mother breast feed her new born on the Discovery channel. Although there is nudity, it's wholesome loving nudity.

However, the context of the nudity at the half time show was not wholesome. It was a man ripping the clothes off a seemingly unconsenting woman. In my part of the United States, you can be arrested for that.

I'll agree with you, nudity should have never been a part of the half time show; however, the context of the nudity made it much worse.

Like I said, it was a SHOW. The problem is, you are assuming kids are dumb animals and can't make the distinction between fact and fiction. Like I said, this promoted sexual assault on women as much as Tom & Jerry promoted violence against animals.

 

[MikeDub83]

I think many people are missing the point, except for Codewiz.

Janet Jackson didn't give parents a choice whether we wanted to see the stunt or not. The bottom line is it was a PG rated program and she put an R rating on it.

 

[Czesia]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: glen
Whats the big deal? Aren't pasties legal on TV? They can have nudity in Europe, so this seems fairly tame.

It's also legal to have sex with animals in some parts of europe. Why would you want us to be like them?

LOL...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83
I think many people are missing the point, except for Codewiz.

Janet Jackson didn't give parents a choice whether we wanted to see the stunt or not. The bottom line is it was a PG rated program and she put an R rating on it.

at worst that would have been given pg13 by the mpaa

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: gordy

Originally posted by: NFS4


Being a parent doesn't make you a moral authority.

neither does not being a parent,

do everyone a favor LEARN HOW TO FREAKING QUOTE

As to your first statement, you're right. Take anything that NE1 here says with a grain of salt b/c bottom line is...a hardware-based internet chatroom/forum is NOT the place to go to get advice on parenting skills.

As to your second statement; Wow!! I didn't know that using the QUOTE button to respond to a statement was seen as not using the...and I might need some help with this one...QUOTE BUTTON!!!! Sheesh.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: JackBurton


Let's look at this honestly. It wasn't sexual assault that pissed people off, it was JJ's breast being revealed. Now why is it ok for a woman to show her leg, but not her breast. Men can show their chest, why can't women? And why can women show their breast as long as the nipple is covered? What is the point of that? Is the nipple evil?

No, you are partially correct. A breast is a simple thing to explain to a child. A child could watch a mother breast feed her new born on the Discovery channel. Although there is nudity, it's wholesome loving nudity.

However, the context of the nudity at the half time show was not wholesome. It was a man ripping the clothes off a seemingly unconsenting woman. In my part of the United States, you can be arrested for that.

I'll agree with you, nudity should have never been a part of the half time show; however, the context of the nudity made it much worse.

Like I said, it was a SHOW. The problem is, you are assuming kids are dumb animals and can't make the distinction between fact and fiction. Like I said, this promoted sexual assault on women as much as Tom & Jerry promoted violence against animals.

I've been to a couple strip joints. Women strip down in front of me and put on a SHOW. Should I bring a child with me?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

I've been to a couple strip joints. Women strip down in front of me and put on a SHOW. Should I bring a child with me?

maybe children shouldn't be watching a game with a high chance of people getting in fights either

edit: last i checked those fights are actual assault and battery, not this contrived sexual assualt that some people are trying to make it to be

 

[JoeKing]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Joeyman
It the Puritan American interest. I find it funny that people are outraged over a little sexuality that was shown amidst the broadcast of a violent sport. So its fine to celebrate men bashing and hitting each other, but god forbid a little skin is shown.

It starts to makes sense why we go to war so often.

Goddamn it, did I miss a war over boobs?

Hey boobs is a better reason than oil IMO

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

I've been to a couple strip joints. Women strip down in front of me and put on a SHOW. Should I bring a child with me?

maybe children shouldn't be watching a game with a high chance of people getting in fights either

edit: last i checked those fights are actual assault and battery, not this contrived sexual assualt that some people are trying to make it to be

Yes, I believe football promotes assault and battery, but as long as it doesn't show breasts it's ok.

Give me a freakin' break people. Get the stick out off your asses.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

I've been to a couple strip joints. Women strip down in front of me and put on a SHOW. Should I bring a child with me?

maybe children shouldn't be watching a game with a high chance of people getting in fights either

I don't really know why I'm going to dignify this with a reponse, but it seems to be a popular question.

The NFL fosters a familly oriented atmoshphere. Five year old boys around the US dream about playing in the NFL. Some even get involved with town league football. When the game is played within the spirit of the rules there is nothing wrong with it. I thought the referees and players did a good job at keeping such a defense oriented game within the rules. In fact there was less than a handful personal fouls, and I only recall 1 call of uneccesary roughness.

EDIT: The event was rated PG, let's not forget that.

 

[vi edit]

As a 26 year old married male with no children, I have to say that it was a very poor decision. If I WANT to see titties, I can easily flip over to Cinemax or HBO and catch some boobage there, or grab one of the many Playboys laying around the house. The Superbowl halftime is not the place for it.

I was actually pretty disgusted with the entire performance myself. The whole "I wanna rip your clothes off" was rather lewd IMHO and I felt that it was out of place, especially considering the age group that it was largely aimed at - 12-18 year olds...being as they are the largest buyers of JT's music.

Maybe I'm just an old and crusted prude, but it just wasn't appropriate for primetime television.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
DAMN.....are you people just so dense you can't understand this simple idea??? PARENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THEIR KIDS WATCH. It does not matter if you agree or not. They are parents and decide what their kids watch. CBS/MTV took away that ability.

You keep wanting to harp on the fact that it was just a boob. Well that isn't the point. It is the whole damn idea that CBS/MTV didn't follow the rating system they agreed too and put on something sexual during a show that should not contain such things.

AGAIN for the dense. Parent have to be able to decide how to raise their kids. You do not have to agree because opinions are like assholes and you opinion on parenting doesn't mean sh*t to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83


I don't really know why I'm going to dignify this with a reponse, but it seems to be a popular question.

The NFL fosters a familly oriented atmoshphere. Five year old boys around the US dream about playing in the NFL. Some even get involved with town league football. When the game is played within the spirit of the rules there is nothing wrong with it. I thought the referees and players did a good job at keeping such a defense oriented game within the rules. In fact there was less than a handful personal fouls, and I only recall 1 call of uneccesary roughness.

EDIT: The event was rated PG, let's not forget that.

who cares what the hell the event was rated? do they know everything that could happen on a live show like the superbowl? no. so how could they possibly rate it accurately? you know that there is a likelihood of physical violence outside the rules of the game. sure, they try to make it a "family atmosphere" so that the good ship football can go sailing along at the top of the ratings, but take a look at what is really going on. is the black hole "family atmosphere"? is drug use "family atmosphere"? are somewhat common fights "family atmosphere"? is the off-field conduct of players (including rape, assault, murder, etc) "family atmosphere"?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: Mill


And after all of that you failed to convince me(based on prior year's shows) why you would tell your kids to come watch a half-time show that was advertised to include Kid Rock, Justin Timberlake, and Janet Jackson.

Look, I'm not saying it was right for this to happen, but there is zero evidence that CBS knew it was going to happen or allowed it to. Now if they did then the FCC will fine them, and their advertisers will probably be whizzed off as well. However, saying it was sexual assault is so stupendous that I fear for your kid's safety. They need a father not an over-reactionary disciplinarian. I'd be ticked off too if I had kids and they saw that(and I didn't want them to). The best thing you all can do is what you are doing. Complain to CBS and to the FCC. Calling it "Sexual Assault" however is simply asinine, and saying that you thought a Nelly, Kid Rock, Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson show was for kids well... it just shows you are either naive, or ineffective.

I'm 20 years old, not a father but a brother. I'm not trying to say whether CBS knew or not. I simply wanted to show
why it was not a correct venue for the stunt.

Kids watching Half-Time Show-
I am unwaivered on saying that the show should have been for kids. If Jenna Jameson made a kids movie with a PG rating should I not allow them to see it because of Jenna Jameson's association with hardcore pornography? No, the show has a PG rating and is therefore appropriate to show to children, the same as the Super Bowl.

Sexual Assault-
I'm not saying that Justin sexually assaulted Janet in front of millions of people. I'm saying the way the act was done, with Justin just grabbing the breast of a suprised Janet, appeared to condone the act of males grabbing the breast of unconsenting females.

I think the problem with you people is you think kids are some dumb animals. This was a big SHOW. Anyone can tell the difference between a show and reality. If you think it should not have been shown because it promoted sexual assault, I suggest you ban your kids from watching cartoons. When I was a kid, cartoons were promoting hitting animals over the head with HUGE hammers.

Let's look at this honestly. It wasn't sexual assault that pissed people off, it was JJ's breast being revealed. Now why is it ok for a woman to show her leg, but not her breast. Men can show their chest, why can't women? And why can women show their breast as long as the nipple is covered? What is the point of that? Is the nipple evil?

He's got a point. you guys really underestimate the intelligence of your children/siblings. Kids aren't that stupid that you need to spend days figuring out how to explain this.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

I've been to a couple strip joints. Women strip down in front of me and put on a SHOW. Should I bring a child with me?

maybe children shouldn't be watching a game with a high chance of people getting in fights either

I don't really know why I'm going to dignify this with a reponse, but it seems to be a popular question.

The NFL fosters a familly oriented atmoshphere. Five year old boys around the US dream about playing in the NFL. Some even get involved with town league football. When the game is played within the spirit of the rules there is nothing wrong with it. I thought the referees and players did a good job at keeping such a defense oriented game within the rules. In fact there was less than a handful personal fouls, and I only recall 1 call of uneccesary roughness.

EDIT: The event was rated PG, let's not forget that.

Man you are right, sports are family oriented events. Now let's take hockey. It falls into the FCC guidelines, right? Why are they allowed to fight in every game. The refs don't break it up until it hits the ground. Should they take hockey off the air? I think it promotes assault when they let players fight like that.

And what is up with boxing? Should that even be shown on TV. I mean, that doesn't promote a good "family oriented atmosphere." Kids will think they can just go beat up someone.

 

[JoeKing]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Codewiz
DAMN.....are you people just so dense you can't understand this simple idea??? PARENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THEIR KIDS WATCH. It does not matter if you agree or not. They are parents and decide what their kids watch. CBS/MTV took away that ability.

You keep wanting to harp on the fact that it was just a boob. Well that isn't the point. It is the whole damn idea that CBS/MTV didn't follow the rating system they agreed too and put on something sexual during a show that should not contain such things.

AGAIN for the dense. Parent have to be able to decide how to raise their kids. You do not have to agree because opinions are like assholes and you opinion on parenting doesn't mean sh*t to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Its commendable that parents here are trying to shield their child from society. But its also naive for you to think you can complelty shield your child from every source of sexuality. If they go to school I bet they've witnessed worse. If they watch TV, read magazines, listen to radio. Our society is permeated with sexual overtones..... if you think your child lives in a perfect sexless microcosm then I hate to break it to you but your wrong. While you may think you have complete control of your youngsters (yes I'm talking the sub preteen age group) it human nature to be curious and you can't be around your child 24/7

 

[Darkstar757]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: glen
Whats the big deal? Aren't pasties legal on TV? They can have nudity in Europe, so this seems fairly tame.

How about the fact that it happened during what should be a family event at about 8:45pm while plenty of little children were watching (including my daughter)

Yea,

I dont have kids but I think you should explain to your child about that. I think that overall americans need to get over this nudity issue.

 

[Darkstar757]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: glen
Whats the big deal? Aren't pasties legal on TV? They can have nudity in Europe, so this seems fairly tame.

How about the fact that it happened during what should be a family event at about 8:45pm while plenty of little children were watching (including my daughter)

Yea,

I dont have kids but I think you should explain to your child about that. I think that overall americans need to get over this nudity issue.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Joeyman

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Codewiz
DAMN.....are you people just so dense you can't understand this simple idea??? PARENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THEIR KIDS WATCH. It does not matter if you agree or not. They are parents and decide what their kids watch. CBS/MTV took away that ability.

You keep wanting to harp on the fact that it was just a boob. Well that isn't the point. It is the whole damn idea that CBS/MTV didn't follow the rating system they agreed too and put on something sexual during a show that should not contain such things.

AGAIN for the dense. Parent have to be able to decide how to raise their kids. You do not have to agree because opinions are like assholes and you opinion on parenting doesn't mean sh*t to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Its commendable that parents here are trying to shield their child from society. But its also naive for you to think you can complelty shield your child from every source of sexuality. If they go to school I bet they've witnessed worse. If they watch TV, read magazines, listen to radio. Our society is permeated with sexual overtones..... if you think your child lives in a perfect sexless microcosm then I hate to break it to you but your wrong. While you may think you have complete control of your youngsters (yes I'm talking the sub preteen age group) it human nature to be curious and you can't be around your child 24/7

This is not about you agreeing or disagreeing about how I raise my children, because frankly, I don't really care what others think. I will do what I believe is the right thing. It's about letting people make choices about what they want to and not want to watch.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: ElFenix


who cares what the hell the event was rated? do they know everything that could happen on a live show like the superbowl? no. so how could they possibly rate it accurately? you know that there is a likelihood of physical violence outside the rules of the game. sure, they try to make it a "family atmosphere" so that the good ship football can go sailing along at the top of the ratings, but take a look at what is really going on. is the black hole "family atmosphere"? is drug use "family atmosphere"? are somewhat common fights "family atmosphere"? is the off-field conduct of players (including rape, assault, murder, etc) "family atmosphere"?

This is the part of responsibility you might not grasp. The executives at CBS have the responsiblity of making sure the program stays within the PG rating. The NFL endorses wholesome famlilly sports. You won't see them endorsing drug use or fighting during the games. If the program went as planned, it would have stayed PG.

Janet Jackson took it upon herself to scour the event by having Justin Timberlake strip her in a raunchy way. Janet Jackson fouled the relationship between MTV and CBS and the NFL. She also spoiled the familly atmosphere that the NFL has sponsored.

 

[vi edit]

I really don't think that many of us complaning about it feel that children will forever be mentally tarnished by seeing a has been, washed up pop artist starving for attention showing her titty. I think we can agree on that.

What *I think* those of us with our negative opinion of the performance are trying to say is that we feel that the half time of the Superbowl on prime time television at 8:00 at night on a Sunday night is not the place for it.

I don't care about the fighting of players. That's expected, although not encouraged. The commercials are moderated to some extent although I was suprised to see a farting horse . What is upsetting is that they planned this from the beginning and went through with it. It was just a terrible decision and it looks like MTV will pay a big price for it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: ElFenix


who cares what the hell the event was rated? do they know everything that could happen on a live show like the superbowl? no. so how could they possibly rate it accurately? you know that there is a likelihood of physical violence outside the rules of the game. sure, they try to make it a "family atmosphere" so that the good ship football can go sailing along at the top of the ratings, but take a look at what is really going on. is the black hole "family atmosphere"? is drug use "family atmosphere"? are somewhat common fights "family atmosphere"? is the off-field conduct of players (including rape, assault, murder, etc) "family atmosphere"?

This is the part of responsibility you might not grasp. The executives at CBS have the responsiblity of making sure the program stays within the PG rating. The NFL endorses wholesome famlilly sports. You won't see them endorsing drug use or fighting during the games. If the program went as planned, it would have stayed PG.

Janet Jackson took it upon herself to scour the event by having Justin Timberlake strip her in a raunchy way. Janet Jackson fouled the relationship between MTV and CBS and the NFL. She also spoiled the familly atmosphere that the NFL has sponsored.

Exactly.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Man you are right, sports are family oriented events. Now let's take hockey. It falls into the FCC guidelines, right? Why are they allowed to fight in every game. The refs don't break it up until it hits the ground. Should they take hockey off the air? I think it promotes assault when they let players fight like that.

And what is up with boxing? Should that even be shown on TV. I mean, that doesn't promote a good "family oriented atmosphere." Kids will think they can just go beat up someone.

A parents knows what happens during a Hockey or Football game. Yes, there are occasionally fights. If a parent allows their child to watch a sport, they know what they are getting into.

Parents didn't have a choice last night when Janet Jackson commited her raunchy act. Parents didn't invite their children to watch the PG rated half time show with the notion that Janet would make headlines the next morning with her nasty display.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I really don't think that many of us complaning about it feel that children will forever be mentally tarnished by seeing a has been, washed up pop artist starving for attention showing her titty. I think we can agree on that.

What *I think* those of us with our negative opinion of the performance are trying to say is that we feel that the half time of the Superbowl on prime time television at 8:00 at night on a Sunday night is not the place for it.

I don't care about the fighting of players. That's expected, although not encouraged. The commercials are moderated to some extent although I was suprised to see a farting horse . What is upsetting is that they planned this from the beginning and went through with it. It was just a terrible decision and it looks like MTV will pay a big price for it.

Haha, that is funny. MTV will pay a big price? How? The NFL needs MTV MUCH more than MTV needs the NFL. What is the NFL going to do for the next superbowl? Hire some college bands to play for half-time? OOOOO, that is exciting! If the NFL doesn't want anything to do with the NFL, so what. MTV will still be making money hand over fist.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I really don't think that many of us complaning about it feel that children will forever be mentally tarnished by seeing a has been, washed up pop artist starving for attention showing her titty. I think we can agree on that.

What *I think* those of us with our negative opinion of the performance are trying to say is that we feel that the half time of the Superbowl on prime time television at 8:00 at night on a Sunday night is not the place for it.

I don't care about the fighting of players. That's expected, although not encouraged. The commercials are moderated to some extent although I was suprised to see a farting horse . What is upsetting is that they planned this from the beginning and went through with it. It was just a terrible decision and it looks like MTV will pay a big price for it.

Haha, that is funny. MTV will pay a big price? How? The NFL needs MTV MUCH more than MTV needs the NFL. What is the NFL going to do for the next superbowl? Hire some college bands to play for half-time? OOOOO, that is exciting! If the NFL doesn't want anything to do with the NFL, so what. MTV will still be making money hand over fist.

Perhaps they'll get some decent music acts.

And, nothing wrong with letting some high-school or college bands getting into the limelight. It's called style and tradition.