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

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok people, if you don't want your kids to see stuff like this...

THEN DONT LET THEM WATCH TV!

It's a football game, not some family entertainment. Football involves, hitting, swearing, beer, men and boobs.
Hell, lets remove the cheerleaders from all sporting events, they don't promote a positive image.

Sp33demon: I feel sorry for your children they have you as a father.

I feel sorry for imbeciles who cannot intelligently grasp why the FCC was invented.

Your solution to the dilemma proves that you were running France in WWII.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok people, if you don't want your kids to see stuff like this...

THEN DONT LET THEM WATCH TV!

It's a football game, not some family entertainment. Football involves, hitting, swearing, beer, men and boobs.
Hell, lets remove the cheerleaders from all sporting events, they don't promote a positive image.

Sp33demon: I feel sorry for your children they have you as a father.

I feel sorry for imbeciles who cannot intelligently grasp why the FCC was invented.

Your solution to the dilemma proves that you were running France in WWII.

dude STFU!!! Enough with the France bashing. Damn is that your only base for you arguement? Anything France does = bad??

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Do you not see a difference between the Superbowl (read: most watched event of the year) and some PG live shows?

I'm talking about the Grammys, Emmys, and other award shows, as well as anything else that is live. Sure the Superbowl is the most watched event, but everyone knows it has sexually explicit commercials. Where is the outcry over Chevy's oh sh!t commercial? Nudity is natural, so it is much less of an issue to me that profanity. It was kids fake cursing! Call the FCC NOW! See where I am going? Tons of people had tons of things to bitch about regarding the Superbowl. Did you expect Chevy to have Children emulate profanity? Don't you think kids are going to pick up on that more than a tit? They've seen tits before... And was is a tit going to do anyway? Make them die? I want a good reasoning on why a tit is so offensive. There isn't one, so people fall back on the idea that they want to be able to watch something without being shocked. I've said it once and I'll say it again: the Superbowl has had a history of sexually explicit commercials, and MTV was producing the halftime show. If you wanted church I'm sure there were plenty open on Sunday night.

I know what to expect with the Grammy's. I did not expect the Superbowl to become the Grammys. And no, I don't think kids will be more affected by someone simulating profanity than open nudity on stage. I will not be drawn into an argument about why I find it offensive, that's my reasoning, and I'm sure you'd disagree with it. But heck, I don't care if you disagree. You do what you want in your house and I'll do what I want in mine. Just let me make that choice.

You had the ability to make the choice. The Superbowl is known for sexually explicit ads, and MTV is known for their explicit shows. I can't help it you weren't informed.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Jagercola
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT
February 2, 2004 David Fiske 202-418-0513



FCC CHAIRMAN POWELL CALLS SUPER BOWL HALFTIME SHOW A

?CLASSLESS, CRASS, DEPLORABLE STUNT.? OPENS INVESTIGATION

Washington - FCC Chairman Michael Powell today issued the following statement:

?I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl. Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation?s children, parents and citizens deserve better.

?I have instructed the Commission to open an immediate investigation into last night?s broadcast. Our investigation will be thorough and swift.?

- FCC -

There's some good news!

 

[spliffstar69]

SP33Demon = Racist Idoit

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill
I didn't expect it, but I wasn't exactly surprised. It was rumored weeks before the show that Justin was going to do something to top Britney and Madonna's kiss. I can't help it people refuse to read the news. I mean think about it rationally. There is no way any could think an MTV half-time performance wouldn't be sexually charged. How is explicit sexuality worse than a tit? It isn't. Would people have been happier with another lesbian kiss? There was little uproar over that...

Considering the Super Bowl has a PG rating, one would deduce that MTV would keep it down. Who knew they would do something moronic like this. It's just damned sad about all the parents that work hard on trying to raise their kids properly and end up getting this BS from CBS/MTV.

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Ratings are there for parents to decide whether the show is appropriate for their children or not. When the ratings LIE about a show, then someone needs to be held accountable. When you can get that through your head, then come back and try to argue about it. I know you're not as stupid as you sound.

Are ratings guidelines or rules that can be enforced via fines? Ratings now... not content.

You're completely missing the point and going off topic. But then again, this is off-topic so it's expected I suppose.

I don't think the ratings lied. A 2 second shot of boobie to me is still PG.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Do you have something proving the NFL knew?

No, but that's beside the point. The point was that since I was watching the superbowl I didn't expect it.

Well I wasn't expecting to see planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 either. That was pretty traumatic for a lot of kids, but people were ok with it because it showed reality. The same people bitching about this half-time show let their kids watch every Fox craphole show out there, but get enraged over something like that. It's silly.

Again, I'm not concerned with what you think I should allow my kids to watch. Just let me know beforehand that there will be bare breasts shown.

You're missing the point. Where was there fair warning that plane crashes were coming up where hundreds of people died? What about when the building collapsed and 3000 people died? We will let our kids see mass murder and terrorism but not a goddamn titty?

Are you being serious? Are you actually comparing the biggest world-changing event in our lifetime to Janet Jackson's boob?

*Sigh* Look dude, my father died in a plane crash when I was 8. 9/11 was not exactly a freaking happy time for me, but it was reality and we DID let our kids see it. All I'm saying is that it did effect kids very strongly, because I PERSONALLY know how it felt with a tragedy at an age like that. I also read how kids were going to shrinks over it even though they didn't lose anyone in it. Are you seriously telling me that the planes crashing into the builiding weren't a violent event that messed with a lot of kid's minds? Like I said, I feel dirty comparing the two, but the insanity about this needs to stop. How many people had to spend time explaining to their kids what happened when they saw it as school, or at home on the TV? How many parents are mad because they couldn't control that? That's what this comes down to; it's a control issue. Parents want to decide what is right and good for their kids.

You're damn right parents want to decide what's right and wrong for their kids. That's how it should be. So if I decide that I don't want my kids watching Janet's bare boobs, regardless of my reasoning, than I want to make sure that they won't. I think 9/11 was important for kids to see even if it did affect them, because it was an event that changed the world. Janet's boob did not, I hope. By the way, I don't have any kids. This is just the way I feel.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Do you not see a difference between the Superbowl (read: most watched event of the year) and some PG live shows?

I'm talking about the Grammys, Emmys, and other award shows, as well as anything else that is live. Sure the Superbowl is the most watched event, but everyone knows it has sexually explicit commercials. Where is the outcry over Chevy's oh sh!t commercial? Nudity is natural, so it is much less of an issue to me that profanity. It was kids fake cursing! Call the FCC NOW! See where I am going? Tons of people had tons of things to bitch about regarding the Superbowl. Did you expect Chevy to have Children emulate profanity? Don't you think kids are going to pick up on that more than a tit? They've seen tits before... And was is a tit going to do anyway? Make them die? I want a good reasoning on why a tit is so offensive. There isn't one, so people fall back on the idea that they want to be able to watch something without being shocked. I've said it once and I'll say it again: the Superbowl has had a history of sexually explicit commercials, and MTV was producing the halftime show. If you wanted church I'm sure there were plenty open on Sunday night.

I know what to expect with the Grammy's. I did not expect the Superbowl to become the Grammys. And no, I don't think kids will be more affected by someone simulating profanity than open nudity on stage. I will not be drawn into an argument about why I find it offensive, that's my reasoning, and I'm sure you'd disagree with it. But heck, I don't care if you disagree. You do what you want in your house and I'll do what I want in mine. Just let me make that choice.

You had the ability to make the choice. The Superbowl is known for sexually explicit ads, and MTV is known for their explicit shows. I can't help it you weren't informed.

I wasn't aware that the Superbowl was known for it's nude content. I haven't missed a Superbowl in 20+ years and I don't remember seeing it before.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill
I didn't expect it, but I wasn't exactly surprised. It was rumored weeks before the show that Justin was going to do something to top Britney and Madonna's kiss. I can't help it people refuse to read the news. I mean think about it rationally. There is no way any could think an MTV half-time performance wouldn't be sexually charged. How is explicit sexuality worse than a tit? It isn't. Would people have been happier with another lesbian kiss? There was little uproar over that...

Considering the Super Bowl has a PG rating, one would deduce that MTV would keep it down. Who knew they would do something moronic like this. It's just damned sad about all the parents that work hard on trying to raise their kids properly and end up getting this BS from CBS/MTV.

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Ratings are there for parents to decide whether the show is appropriate for their children or not. When the ratings LIE about a show, then someone needs to be held accountable. When you can get that through your head, then come back and try to argue about it. I know you're not as stupid as you sound.

Are ratings guidelines or rules that can be enforced via fines? Ratings now... not content.

You're completely missing the point and going off topic. But then again, this is off-topic so it's expected I suppose.

I don't think the ratings lied. A 2 second shot of boobie to me is still PG.

Well there lies the problem. To me, a 2 second or 1000 second shot of booie is not PG. It is definitely PG-13 at least and R when combined with the "dance moves"

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
So I guess the message to kids is: It's okay to rip women's clothes off.

CBS can go fvck themselves.

HOW THE HELL DOES IT SEND THAT MESSAGE? ARE YOU FVCKING STUPID? Is your kid retarded? If not, I do not understand.

Then every video game gives the message that killing is 'Ok', that running over people is 'Ok'. TV has WAY more violence that you should be worried about if you are going to be a fvcking stickler about this.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Do you have something proving the NFL knew?

No, but that's beside the point. The point was that since I was watching the superbowl I didn't expect it.

Well I wasn't expecting to see planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 either. That was pretty traumatic for a lot of kids, but people were ok with it because it showed reality. The same people bitching about this half-time show let their kids watch every Fox craphole show out there, but get enraged over something like that. It's silly.

Again, I'm not concerned with what you think I should allow my kids to watch. Just let me know beforehand that there will be bare breasts shown.

You're missing the point. Where was there fair warning that plane crashes were coming up where hundreds of people died? What about when the building collapsed and 3000 people died? We will let our kids see mass murder and terrorism but not a goddamn titty?

Are you being serious? Are you actually comparing the biggest world-changing event in our lifetime to Janet Jackson's boob?

*Sigh* Look dude, my father died in a plane crash when I was 8. 9/11 was not exactly a freaking happy time for me, but it was reality and we DID let our kids see it. All I'm saying is that it did effect kids very strongly, because I PERSONALLY know how it felt with a tragedy at an age like that. I also read how kids were going to shrinks over it even though they didn't lose anyone in it. Are you seriously telling me that the planes crashing into the builiding weren't a violent event that messed with a lot of kid's minds? Like I said, I feel dirty comparing the two, but the insanity about this needs to stop. How many people had to spend time explaining to their kids what happened when they saw it as school, or at home on the TV? How many parents are mad because they couldn't control that? That's what this comes down to; it's a control issue. Parents want to decide what is right and good for their kids.

You're damn right parents want to decide what's right and wrong for their kids. That's how it should be. So if I decide that I don't want my kids watching Janet's bare boobs, regardless of my reasoning, than I want to make sure that they won't. I think 9/11 was important for kids to see even if it did affect them, because it was an event that changed the world. Janet's boob did not, I hope. By the way, I don't have any kids. This is just the way I feel.

But, are you agreeing with me that you didn't know what was happening because you were uninformed? I mean MTV is known for this, and it had been reported that they were going to try to top the VMAs.

 

[Jagercola]

Go here and have a laugh... <-- Professional Streaker Strikes Super Bowl as "Super Bowel"

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Do you have something proving the NFL knew?

No, but that's beside the point. The point was that since I was watching the superbowl I didn't expect it.

Well I wasn't expecting to see planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 either. That was pretty traumatic for a lot of kids, but people were ok with it because it showed reality. The same people bitching about this half-time show let their kids watch every Fox craphole show out there, but get enraged over something like that. It's silly.

Again, I'm not concerned with what you think I should allow my kids to watch. Just let me know beforehand that there will be bare breasts shown.

You're missing the point. Where was there fair warning that plane crashes were coming up where hundreds of people died? What about when the building collapsed and 3000 people died? We will let our kids see mass murder and terrorism but not a goddamn titty?

Are you being serious? Are you actually comparing the biggest world-changing event in our lifetime to Janet Jackson's boob?

*Sigh* Look dude, my father died in a plane crash when I was 8. 9/11 was not exactly a freaking happy time for me, but it was reality and we DID let our kids see it. All I'm saying is that it did effect kids very strongly, because I PERSONALLY know how it felt with a tragedy at an age like that. I also read how kids were going to shrinks over it even though they didn't lose anyone in it. Are you seriously telling me that the planes crashing into the builiding weren't a violent event that messed with a lot of kid's minds? Like I said, I feel dirty comparing the two, but the insanity about this needs to stop. How many people had to spend time explaining to their kids what happened when they saw it as school, or at home on the TV? How many parents are mad because they couldn't control that? That's what this comes down to; it's a control issue. Parents want to decide what is right and good for their kids.

You're damn right parents want to decide what's right and wrong for their kids. That's how it should be. So if I decide that I don't want my kids watching Janet's bare boobs, regardless of my reasoning, than I want to make sure that they won't. I think 9/11 was important for kids to see even if it did affect them, because it was an event that changed the world. Janet's boob did not, I hope. By the way, I don't have any kids. This is just the way I feel.

But, are you agreeing with me that you didn't know what was happening because you were uninformed? I mean MTV is known for this, and it had been reported that they were going to try to top the VMAs. Oh, and parents had a huge ability to monitor what their kids saw. It's obvious that during play you aren't going to see anything sexual, but during commercials and half-time you might. People just want to have something to complain about.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Question for you guys that didn't mind seeing the titty - would you have had the same reaction if Timberlake flipped his cock out on the station?

Well traditionally full male nudity has been a bit more intense than the female chest, but I wouldn't of had a problem. I have a question for you in return. How can you say this isn't about just a titty? Incredibly sexually explicit thoughts are posted here daily, as well as pictures that are much more sexual in nature than just a titty. Admit it, Americans are just afraid of the nude flesh. You can't honestly tell me that Janet Jackson's tit is more sexually provocative than the Alizee(or whoever the hell) thread which is a few away from this one. The mods locked all the JJ ones, but the Alizee one isn't that big of a deal. Babes thread are disallowed, but we can post images of chicks wearing NOTHING as long as there is no nudity. Americans are scared of flesh. It's silly, puritanical, and shows our archaic nature.

Again, you are missing the point of this discussion. I have nothing against you going to a strip bar and watching naked girls dance all night. I have nothing against you watching a nude halftime show that was advertised as such (although that would probably end my interest in football). I DO have a problem of them showing nudity on the superbowl without informing anyone that it would be there. They took away my choice to watch what I want and not to watch what I don't.

What did you think an MTV produced half-time show with Rap Artists would show? The 700 club with a brief intro to Ultra-Orthodox Judaism?

I did not expect nudity. I don't think ANYONE else did either.

I didn't expect it, but I wasn't exactly surprised. It was rumored weeks before the show that Justin was going to do something to top Britney and Madonna's kiss. I can't help it people refuse to read the news. I mean think about it rationally. There is no way any could think an MTV half-time performance wouldn't be sexually charged. How is explicit sexuality worse than a tit? It isn't. Would people have been happier with another lesbian kiss? There was little uproar over that...

Considering the Super Bowl has a PG rating, one would deduce that MTV would keep it down. Who knew they would do something moronic like this. It's just damned sad about all the parents that work hard on trying to raise their kids properly and end up getting this BS from CBS/MTV.

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

If you think PG = T!TS, then I don't know what to say to you. Ratings DO protect our kids, that's what they're there for. That's like you saying, "Well the T!TS flashed by Lizzy McGuire at her concert on CBS, I expected that. Next time I watch Micheal Jackson live on TV, I expect him to whip his little weiner out and jerk it to the tunes of "BEAT IT"!










ou've previously proven what a moron you are in other threads, this makes it **OFFICIAL**.

What's funny is that everyone is being calm and discussing this issue is a nice non-insulting way except for you. You've got issues my friend, but please point out how ratings are anything other than guidelines? Again, how old are you, your kids, and what is your religion?

In response to your questions: a) I'm older than you, do a search I've posted it before b) 10 and 8 c) None of your fvcking business, I'm not going into religious debates in this thread and it doesn't pertain to this discussion.

From www.tvguidelines.org

"That's why the television industry designed a TV ratings system to give parents more information about the content and age-appropriateness of TV programs. These ratings, called the TV Parental Guidelines, are modeled after the familiar movie ratings which parents have known and valued for nearly 30 years. They are designed to be simple to use, easy to understand and handy to find. The Guidelines apply to all television programs, including those directed specifically to young children. Sports and news shows will not carry the Guidelines."
These "guidelines" are modeled after the movie ratings... If a movie had JJ doing what she did, it would NOT be PG.

To the idiots who claim sports are violent, well they aren't regulated by the TV Ratings system so your argument is invalid. What goes on, ON the football field, is NOT rated by CBS. Things PLANNED, like the halftime show, ARE. Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out for you?

 

[vi edit]

This is going to be my last post simply because there really isn't any more that I can say that I haven't said already. Obviously with 300+ posts this thread is motivated by both rational and emotional responses and neither side will really prove their point any further.

My only wish is that the performers and producers would have reserved a bit of deceny and performed the act without the final two seconds that they chose to include.

My opinion would have been the same if the jackasses...well....from jackass had been on stage shooting bottle rockets from their asses. My thoughts are the same. It wasn't about a square inch of skin that was shown. It's about practicing some discretion for things that really had no positive outcome from them. If we wanted to see that type of thing it's wildly available in many mediums. No need to drag it to primetime programming.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill
I didn't expect it, but I wasn't exactly surprised. It was rumored weeks before the show that Justin was going to do something to top Britney and Madonna's kiss. I can't help it people refuse to read the news. I mean think about it rationally. There is no way any could think an MTV half-time performance wouldn't be sexually charged. How is explicit sexuality worse than a tit? It isn't. Would people have been happier with another lesbian kiss? There was little uproar over that...

Considering the Super Bowl has a PG rating, one would deduce that MTV would keep it down. Who knew they would do something moronic like this. It's just damned sad about all the parents that work hard on trying to raise their kids properly and end up getting this BS from CBS/MTV.

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Ratings are there for parents to decide whether the show is appropriate for their children or not. When the ratings LIE about a show, then someone needs to be held accountable. When you can get that through your head, then come back and try to argue about it. I know you're not as stupid as you sound.

Are ratings guidelines or rules that can be enforced via fines? Ratings now... not content.

You're completely missing the point and going off topic. But then again, this is off-topic so it's expected I suppose.

I don't think the ratings lied. A 2 second shot of boobie to me is still PG.

Well there lies the problem. To me, a 2 second or 1000 second shot of booie is not PG. It is definitely PG-13 at least and R when combined with the "dance moves"

TV-PG (Parental Guidance Suggested -- This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children.) Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).

Did you know that there are 3 rating labels before you get to PG? It's naive to think a PG rating was going to have Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker on there raising money.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Mill

But, are you agreeing with me that you didn't know what was happening because you were uninformed? I mean MTV is known for this, and it had been reported that they were going to try to top the VMAs. Oh, and parents had a huge ability to monitor what their kids saw. It's obvious that during play you aren't going to see anything sexual, but during commercials and half-time you might. People just want to have something to complain about.

I don't think ANYBODY expected to see a bare breast on stage. Sure, you may have seen a show with vaguely sexual dance moves, but I don't think anyone expected this, hence the pending FCC investigation. The commercials too may have had something vaguely sexual to an adult's mind, but not nudity. If you think that's a fine line, fine. Think as you want, but a parent should have the right to draw that line wherever they want to. No, parents did NOT have the ability to monitor this. It was completely unexpected. Yes, MTV produced the show. They also produced the show in 2001. I don't remember seeing boobage then. It's the freaking Superbowl for heaven's sake, not the Grammys.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Do you have something proving the NFL knew?

No, but that's beside the point. The point was that since I was watching the superbowl I didn't expect it.

Well I wasn't expecting to see planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 either. That was pretty traumatic for a lot of kids, but people were ok with it because it showed reality. The same people bitching about this half-time show let their kids watch every Fox craphole show out there, but get enraged over something like that. It's silly.

Again, I'm not concerned with what you think I should allow my kids to watch. Just let me know beforehand that there will be bare breasts shown.

You're missing the point. Where was there fair warning that plane crashes were coming up where hundreds of people died? What about when the building collapsed and 3000 people died? We will let our kids see mass murder and terrorism but not a goddamn titty?

Are you being serious? Are you actually comparing the biggest world-changing event in our lifetime to Janet Jackson's boob?

*Sigh* Look dude, my father died in a plane crash when I was 8. 9/11 was not exactly a freaking happy time for me, but it was reality and we DID let our kids see it. All I'm saying is that it did effect kids very strongly, because I PERSONALLY know how it felt with a tragedy at an age like that. I also read how kids were going to shrinks over it even though they didn't lose anyone in it. Are you seriously telling me that the planes crashing into the builiding weren't a violent event that messed with a lot of kid's minds? Like I said, I feel dirty comparing the two, but the insanity about this needs to stop. How many people had to spend time explaining to their kids what happened when they saw it as school, or at home on the TV? How many parents are mad because they couldn't control that? That's what this comes down to; it's a control issue. Parents want to decide what is right and good for their kids.

You're damn right parents want to decide what's right and wrong for their kids. That's how it should be. So if I decide that I don't want my kids watching Janet's bare boobs, regardless of my reasoning, than I want to make sure that they won't. I think 9/11 was important for kids to see even if it did affect them, because it was an event that changed the world. Janet's boob did not, I hope. By the way, I don't have any kids. This is just the way I feel.

But, are you agreeing with me that you didn't know what was happening because you were uninformed? I mean MTV is known for this, and it had been reported that they were going to try to top the VMAs.

Hey Mill, didn't do your homework again, before taking a losing stance again.

From www.tvguidlines.org:

"That's why the television industry designed a TV ratings system to give parents more information about the content and age-appropriateness of TV programs. These ratings, called the TV Parental Guidelines, are modeled after the familiar movie ratings which parents have known and valued for nearly 30 years. They are designed to be simple to use, easy to understand and handy to find. The Guidelines apply to all television programs, including those directed specifically to young children. Sports and news shows will not carry the Guidelines."

Your 911 argument has now been shot to sht. You should just stop posting now.

 

[aphex]

some sexual situations

Im sorry, but i dont think nudity falls within that category.

 

[Mill]

In response to your questions: a) I'm older than you, do a search I've posted it before b) 10 and 8 c) None of your fvcking business, I'm not going into religious debates in this thread and it doesn't pertain to this discussion.

From www.tvguidelines.org

"That's why the television industry designed a TV ratings system to give parents more information about the content and age-appropriateness of TV programs. These ratings, called the TV Parental Guidelines, are modeled after the familiar movie ratings which parents have known and valued for nearly 30 years. They are designed to be simple to use, easy to understand and handy to find. The Guidelines apply to all television programs, including those directed specifically to young children. Sports and news shows will not carry the Guidelines."
These "guidelines" are modeled after the movie ratings... If a movie had JJ doing what she did, it would NOT be PG.

To the idiots who claim sports are violent, well they aren't regulated by the TV Ratings system so your argument is invalid. What goes on, ON the football field, is NOT rated by CBS. Things PLANNED, like the halftime show, ARE. Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out for you?

Religion does pertain to this thread, because you come off as a holy roller racist that thinks God is give you carte' blanche to hate the evil black people that will one day cause your children to rape and murder. Anyway back to a rational discourse.

"Did you know that the television industry has [/b]voluntary[/b] ratings for TV programs?" The ratings are voluntary. CBS didn't even have to post them, and there is still no proof yet that CBS knew. MTV certainly knew, but Drudge is not exactly a reliable source. I'll wait for a bit more information before I crank up the Enola Gay. I think waiting for the FCC investigation will be a good thing. Then we can identify who is responsible and they can be taken care of. It was idiotic for that to air during prime time because Americans like to keep their vices hidden. They hide everything from their children and then wonder how they failed when their children grow up to be just like them, or rebel and starting doing everything they didn't do.

I'm stilling waiting for an explanation on how the TV commercials during the Superbowl were ok with you people. Some had some pretty heavy suggestions to them.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

But, are you agreeing with me that you didn't know what was happening because you were uninformed? I mean MTV is known for this, and it had been reported that they were going to try to top the VMAs. Oh, and parents had a huge ability to monitor what their kids saw. It's obvious that during play you aren't going to see anything sexual, but during commercials and half-time you might. People just want to have something to complain about.

I don't think ANYBODY expected to see a bare breast on stage. Sure, you may have seen a show with vaguely sexual dance moves, but I don't think anyone expected this, hence the pending FCC investigation. The commercials too may have had something vaguely sexual to an adult's mind, but not nudity. If you think that's a fine line, fine. Think as you want, but a parent should have the right to draw that line wherever they want to. No, parents did NOT have the ability to monitor this. It was completely unexpected. Yes, MTV produced the show. They also produced the show in 2001. I don't remember seeing boobage then. It's the freaking Superbowl for heaven's sake, not the Grammys.

I'm not saying nudity is the same a Budweiser commercial, but this wasn't as much of a jump as people think. Implicit vs Explicit. Who is stupid? Us or our kids? They figure things out as wel...

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill
I didn't expect it, but I wasn't exactly surprised. It was rumored weeks before the show that Justin was going to do something to top Britney and Madonna's kiss. I can't help it people refuse to read the news. I mean think about it rationally. There is no way any could think an MTV half-time performance wouldn't be sexually charged. How is explicit sexuality worse than a tit? It isn't. Would people have been happier with another lesbian kiss? There was little uproar over that...

Considering the Super Bowl has a PG rating, one would deduce that MTV would keep it down. Who knew they would do something moronic like this. It's just damned sad about all the parents that work hard on trying to raise their kids properly and end up getting this BS from CBS/MTV.

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Ratings are there for parents to decide whether the show is appropriate for their children or not. When the ratings LIE about a show, then someone needs to be held accountable. When you can get that through your head, then come back and try to argue about it. I know you're not as stupid as you sound.

Are ratings guidelines or rules that can be enforced via fines? Ratings now... not content.

You're completely missing the point and going off topic. But then again, this is off-topic so it's expected I suppose.

I don't think the ratings lied. A 2 second shot of boobie to me is still PG.

Well there lies the problem. To me, a 2 second or 1000 second shot of booie is not PG. It is definitely PG-13 at least and R when combined with the "dance moves"

TV-PG (Parental Guidance Suggested -- This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children.) Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).

Did you know that there are 3 rating labels before you get to PG? It's naive to think a PG rating was going to have Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker on there raising money.

Still not PG. The dancing and all was more than just "some sexual situations."
One thing, I like how in other threads, you tend to come down on people for being bad parents. Then when parents complain about something like this, you come down on them. Try to stick with one ideal.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Mill
I didn't expect it, but I wasn't exactly surprised. It was rumored weeks before the show that Justin was going to do something to top Britney and Madonna's kiss. I can't help it people refuse to read the news. I mean think about it rationally. There is no way any could think an MTV half-time performance wouldn't be sexually charged. How is explicit sexuality worse than a tit? It isn't. Would people have been happier with another lesbian kiss? There was little uproar over that...

Considering the Super Bowl has a PG rating, one would deduce that MTV would keep it down. Who knew they would do something moronic like this. It's just damned sad about all the parents that work hard on trying to raise their kids properly and end up getting this BS from CBS/MTV.

Plenty of live events have PG ratings and have had much worse happen. It's idiotic to assume a rating precludes something "offensive" from happening on a stage. Ratings don't protect anything and they are merely guidelines at best anyway.

Ratings are there for parents to decide whether the show is appropriate for their children or not. When the ratings LIE about a show, then someone needs to be held accountable. When you can get that through your head, then come back and try to argue about it. I know you're not as stupid as you sound.

Are ratings guidelines or rules that can be enforced via fines? Ratings now... not content.

You're completely missing the point and going off topic. But then again, this is off-topic so it's expected I suppose.

I don't think the ratings lied. A 2 second shot of boobie to me is still PG.

Well there lies the problem. To me, a 2 second or 1000 second shot of booie is not PG. It is definitely PG-13 at least and R when combined with the "dance moves"

TV-PG (Parental Guidance Suggested -- This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children.) Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).

Did you know that there are 3 rating labels before you get to PG? It's naive to think a PG rating was going to have Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker on there raising money.

"Some sexual situations" does not equal "NUDITY". We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

In response to your questions: a) I'm older than you, do a search I've posted it before b) 10 and 8 c) None of your fvcking business, I'm not going into religious debates in this thread and it doesn't pertain to this discussion.

From www.tvguidelines.org

"That's why the television industry designed a TV ratings system to give parents more information about the content and age-appropriateness of TV programs. These ratings, called the TV Parental Guidelines, are modeled after the familiar movie ratings which parents have known and valued for nearly 30 years. They are designed to be simple to use, easy to understand and handy to find. The Guidelines apply to all television programs, including those directed specifically to young children. Sports and news shows will not carry the Guidelines."
These "guidelines" are modeled after the movie ratings... If a movie had JJ doing what she did, it would NOT be PG.

To the idiots who claim sports are violent, well they aren't regulated by the TV Ratings system so your argument is invalid. What goes on, ON the football field, is NOT rated by CBS. Things PLANNED, like the halftime show, ARE. Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out for you?

Religion does pertain to this thread, because you come off as a holy roller racist that thinks God is give you carte' blanche to hate the evil black people that will one day cause your children to rape and murder. Anyway back to a rational discourse.

"Did you know that the television industry has [/b]voluntary[/b] ratings for TV programs?" The ratings are voluntary. CBS didn't even have to post them, and there is still no proof yet that CBS knew. MTV certainly knew, but Drudge is not exactly a reliable source. I'll wait for a bit more information before I crank up the Enola Gay. I think waiting for the FCC investigation will be a good thing. Then we can identify who is responsible and they can be taken care of. It was idiotic for that to air during prime time because Americans like to keep their vices hidden. They hide everything from their children and then wonder how they failed when their children grow up to be just like them, or rebel and starting doing everything they didn't do.

I'm stilling waiting for an explanation on how the TV commercials during the Superbowl were ok with you people. Some had some pretty heavy suggestions to them.

Ahahhahhahha... did you really think that when I said "silverback gorilla" and "chimpanzee" I meant black people? Please tell me you're joking...!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Do you have something proving the NFL knew?

No, but that's beside the point. The point was that since I was watching the superbowl I didn't expect it.

Well I wasn't expecting to see planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 either. That was pretty traumatic for a lot of kids, but people were ok with it because it showed reality. The same people bitching about this half-time show let their kids watch every Fox craphole show out there, but get enraged over something like that. It's silly.

Again, I'm not concerned with what you think I should allow my kids to watch. Just let me know beforehand that there will be bare breasts shown.

You're missing the point. Where was there fair warning that plane crashes were coming up where hundreds of people died? What about when the building collapsed and 3000 people died? We will let our kids see mass murder and terrorism but not a goddamn titty?

Are you being serious? Are you actually comparing the biggest world-changing event in our lifetime to Janet Jackson's boob?

*Sigh* Look dude, my father died in a plane crash when I was 8. 9/11 was not exactly a freaking happy time for me, but it was reality and we DID let our kids see it. All I'm saying is that it did effect kids very strongly, because I PERSONALLY know how it felt with a tragedy at an age like that. I also read how kids were going to shrinks over it even though they didn't lose anyone in it. Are you seriously telling me that the planes crashing into the builiding weren't a violent event that messed with a lot of kid's minds? Like I said, I feel dirty comparing the two, but the insanity about this needs to stop. How many people had to spend time explaining to their kids what happened when they saw it as school, or at home on the TV? How many parents are mad because they couldn't control that? That's what this comes down to; it's a control issue. Parents want to decide what is right and good for their kids.

You're damn right parents want to decide what's right and wrong for their kids. That's how it should be. So if I decide that I don't want my kids watching Janet's bare boobs, regardless of my reasoning, than I want to make sure that they won't. I think 9/11 was important for kids to see even if it did affect them, because it was an event that changed the world. Janet's boob did not, I hope. By the way, I don't have any kids. This is just the way I feel.

But, are you agreeing with me that you didn't know what was happening because you were uninformed? I mean MTV is known for this, and it had been reported that they were going to try to top the VMAs.

Hey Mill, didn't do your homework again, before taking a losing stance again.

From www.tvguidlines.org:

"That's why the television industry designed a TV ratings system to give parents more information about the content and age-appropriateness of TV programs. These ratings, called the TV Parental Guidelines, are modeled after the familiar movie ratings which parents have known and valued for nearly 30 years. They are designed to be simple to use, easy to understand and handy to find. The Guidelines apply to all television programs, including those directed specifically to young children. Sports and news shows will not carry the Guidelines."

Your 911 argument has now been shot to sht. You should just stop posting now.

Hmm... I don't recall saying the 9/11 footage should have been rated. I recall saying that people didn't complain about it. Networks in the US didn't show certain footage of the war(that were not against the Geneva convention), but other networks in other countries did. They do censor themselves. Just because they don't show rating doesn't mean that anyone should expect uncensored content. News stations bleep out interviews all the time, and Fox received some hell for Shephard Smith's "blowjob" slip awhile back. I don't think I ever said that the ratings thing related to 9/11. I said it was an event that traumatized a lot of people, and that we are making a bigger deal out of a tit and it's impact than the impact of 9/11. I'd think I'd be more upset that my kids saw planes crashing into building without me there to explain and comfort them than a tit.