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

[Mill]

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.

It's bad parenting to freak over an issue rather than explain it to your kids. Plus, link to a thread where I've called someone a bad parent? Anyway, I think people place WAY too much importance on rating GUIDELINES. It makes sense to me that if an event has to rate their halftime show, or has suggestive commercials that something I don't agree with could happen. Especially since MTV has a history of this, it was discussed in the news days before, and the idea that a rating protects kids is asinine. There have been tons of slip ups in which a rating guideline was blown away because of an accident or even something intentional.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: 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...!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually I don't think anyone is commenting on that. It's the usage of "wigger" which means white n!gger. It's not like you were using it as an example. You were using it to slur Timberlake.

 

[ThePresence]

Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: 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.

Please stick with the topic then. 9/11 is not even on the same plane as an inappropriate, distasteful and deplorable act that our kids were subjected to and violated the FCC. 9/11 was an event that affected everyone, and our kids had to understand and ask questions. Parents should not have to answer questions about a T!T being shown while they're eating dinner. There's a difference.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

 

[Mill]

Please stick with the topic then. 9/11 is not even on the same plane as an inappropriate, distasteful and deplorable act that our kids were subjected to and violated the FCC. 9/11 was an event that affected everyone, and our kids had to understand and ask questions. Parents should not have to answer questions about a T!T being shown while they're eating dinner. There's a difference.

I've been sticking to the topic. Your posts are the ones that vary wildly from quote to quote. I've said the events were totally different, but the idea is that parents had a lot of tough questions to answer from 9/11 which was more emotional and dangerous than a t1t. Why would it be beneficial to scare a 5 year old with buildings crashing down? Couldn't they be sheltered of that until they were old enough to truly understand it? That's the same logic you people are using to attack a piece of flesh.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

That kid was taught it was rude. It wasn't something they inferrred. Secondly, I've already answered about 5 very similar questions about over the top displays. My answer doesn't change one bit.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

But what would be wrong with it? It's completely natural! You think kids don't know what goes on in bedrooms?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

its spelled TIT. are breast so offensive to you that you cant even spell it?

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: glen

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)

Billions of other children see boobies and nothing bad happens to them.
Your daughter explode or something?
I grew up in Europe and saw nudity plenty.
If you are really worried about it, you can move to Saudi Arabia. I believe it is outlawed there.

There is a big difference. We have a ratings system here in the US. This was put on during primetime and was given a PG rating. So parents should be able to feel confident in the types their kids will see based on ratings.

This went over that line.....

Boobie!
Oh noes! OMG AIEEE IEEEE etc...
It is just a boobie.
Put the crack pipe down.
no kid ever went bad seeing a boobie.
now, up tight parent's that will make them want to use drugs.

So basically you are saying I shouldn't have any control over what my kids are allowed to see or not see?

You do. Blindfold them and keep them in the basement so the brainwashing can be complete.

Mill, your argument is quickly becoming liquidfied. I too would be upset if my young child was watching a football game with me, and all of a sudden, a boob flys out. This is unneccessary, and I've read reports where CBS was not aware of the situation, and MTV will NOT have any control over half-time. That's if what I read is true, but now i'm going on a tangent. It has nothing to do with brainwashing. There are many things in this world that are age appropriate. What happened between Justin and Janet, was not only inapropriate for young children, it was flat out inapropriate.

Bill

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Please stick with the topic then. 9/11 is not even on the same plane as an inappropriate, distasteful and deplorable act that our kids were subjected to and violated the FCC. 9/11 was an event that affected everyone, and our kids had to understand and ask questions. Parents should not have to answer questions about a T!T being shown while they're eating dinner. There's a difference.

I've been sticking to the topic. Your posts are the ones that vary wildly from quote to quote. I've said the events were totally different, but the idea is that parents had a lot of tough questions to answer from 9/11 which was more emotional and dangerous than a t1t. Why would it be beneficial to scare a 5 year old with buildings crashing down? Couldn't they be sheltered of that until they were old enough to truly understand it? That's the same logic you people are using to attack a piece of flesh.

Nope, it's not entirely MY job, as a parent, to protect what the kids view. I pay taxes which funds the FCC which sets the ratings. They aren't required to rate the news, which is real life, and not entertainment. Entertainment is a voluntary thing, you can decide what to watch, and guage what its content is by the ratings. If I'm watching the Soprano's, I expect to see blood, sex, and violence. If I'm watching Lizzy McGuire, I don't. To compare what I watch as entertainment and reality (9/11) is like comparing apples and oranges.

If JJ had been assaulted in a restaurant with her top pulled off, THAT would have been censored in the news if there was a video. And the news isn't even rated...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

That kid was taught it was rude. It wasn't something they inferrred. Secondly, I've already answered about 5 very similar questions about over the top displays. My answer doesn't change one bit.

Um, no. A crotch shot is a private part such at a T!T. It is NOT a sexual act, which u deem as over the top. Are you going to stick to your guns, or run from them? Answer the question.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

its spelled TIT. are breast so offensive to you that you cant even spell it?

Not offensive. I have class, something you are in dire need of.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

But what would be wrong with it? It's completely natural! You think kids don't know what goes on in bedrooms?

You are going off on a tangent. I compared a 2 second breast shot saying it wasn't too out of the spectrum for the commercials and what MTV has done in the past. You retort by trying to poison my argument. Let me explain the differences here. A breast is natural. Most kids know what mommy has, and most kids realize what adult females have. That is natural. Nudity is natural. Sex is natural, but kids having sex is not natural. People who insist on everything being black and white typically are illogical.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

its spelled TIT. are breast so offensive to you that you cant even spell it?

Not offensive. I have class, something you are in dire need of.

Well, you already posted profanity(including the F-word) several times, insulted me, insulted Citrix, used a racial slur, and then say you have class? I think not.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

That kid was taught it was rude. It wasn't something they inferrred. Secondly, I've already answered about 5 very similar questions about over the top displays. My answer doesn't change one bit.

Um, no. A crotch shot is a private part such at a T!T. It is NOT a sexual act, which u deem as over the top. Are you going to stick to your guns, or run from them? Answer the question.

I've already answered it. I believe it was vi-edit who asked me if I was ok with Timberlake whipping out his penis. I said typically Female chest nudity is much different than male frontal nudity. Same goes with female genitals. Like I said if you can't see the difference that isn't my problem. I'm sticking to my guns 100% even though I seem to be answering the same questions over and over. Are you going to tell me what religion you are?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Please stick with the topic then. 9/11 is not even on the same plane as an inappropriate, distasteful and deplorable act that our kids were subjected to and violated the FCC. 9/11 was an event that affected everyone, and our kids had to understand and ask questions. Parents should not have to answer questions about a T!T being shown while they're eating dinner. There's a difference.

I've been sticking to the topic. Your posts are the ones that vary wildly from quote to quote. I've said the events were totally different, but the idea is that parents had a lot of tough questions to answer from 9/11 which was more emotional and dangerous than a t1t. Why would it be beneficial to scare a 5 year old with buildings crashing down? Couldn't they be sheltered of that until they were old enough to truly understand it? That's the same logic you people are using to attack a piece of flesh.

Nope, it's not entirely MY job, as a parent, to protect what the kids view. I pay taxes which funds the FCC which sets the ratings. They aren't required to rate the news, which is real life, and not entertainment. Entertainment is a voluntary thing, you can decide what to watch, and guage what its content is by the ratings. If I'm watching the Soprano's, I expect to see blood, sex, and violence. If I'm watching Lizzy McGuire, I don't. To compare what I watch as entertainment and reality (9/11) is like comparing apples and oranges.

If JJ had been assaulted in a restaurant with her top pulled off, THAT would have been censored in the news if there was a video. And the news isn't even rated...

You keep displaying a rudimentary understanding of the FCC. TV ratings are voluntary and done by the networks. The FCC doesn't set the ratings. It enforces indecency standards.

 

[ThePresence]

This should not be off the front page. BUMP!

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

But what would be wrong with it? It's completely natural! You think kids don't know what goes on in bedrooms?

You are going off on a tangent. I compared a 2 second breast shot saying it wasn't too out of the spectrum for the commercials and what MTV has done in the past. You retort by trying to poison my argument. Let me explain the differences here. A breast is natural. Most kids know what mommy has, and most kids realize what adult females have. That is natural. Nudity is natural. Sex is natural, but kids having sex is not natural. People who insist on everything being black and white typically are illogical.

Most kids know what mommy does with daddy behind closed doors. It's just natural. It's not natural for kids to have boobs either.

 

[Tanner]

on an unrelated note, bump meh

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Please stick with the topic then. 9/11 is not even on the same plane as an inappropriate, distasteful and deplorable act that our kids were subjected to and violated the FCC. 9/11 was an event that affected everyone, and our kids had to understand and ask questions. Parents should not have to answer questions about a T!T being shown while they're eating dinner. There's a difference.

I've been sticking to the topic. Your posts are the ones that vary wildly from quote to quote. I've said the events were totally different, but the idea is that parents had a lot of tough questions to answer from 9/11 which was more emotional and dangerous than a t1t. Why would it be beneficial to scare a 5 year old with buildings crashing down? Couldn't they be sheltered of that until they were old enough to truly understand it? That's the same logic you people are using to attack a piece of flesh.

Nope, it's not entirely MY job, as a parent, to protect what the kids view. I pay taxes which funds the FCC which sets the ratings. They aren't required to rate the news, which is real life, and not entertainment. Entertainment is a voluntary thing, you can decide what to watch, and guage what its content is by the ratings. If I'm watching the Soprano's, I expect to see blood, sex, and violence. If I'm watching Lizzy McGuire, I don't. To compare what I watch as entertainment and reality (9/11) is like comparing apples and oranges.

If JJ had been assaulted in a restaurant with her top pulled off, THAT would have been censored in the news if there was a video. And the news isn't even rated...

You keep displaying a rudimentary understanding of the FCC. TV ratings are voluntary and done by the networks. The FCC doesn't set the ratings. It enforces indecency standards.

TV ratings are not set by the networks, but by an independent organization in conjunction with the VChip, which the FCC does set.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

its spelled TIT. are breast so offensive to you that you cant even spell it?

Not offensive. I have class, something you are in dire need of.

Well, you already posted profanity(including the F-word) several times, insulted me, insulted Citrix, used a racial slur, and then say you have class? I think not.

owned!!

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Mill: Would you have had a problem if they both stripped naked and started humping on stage? Just curious where YOU draw the line.

Slippery slope argument right? If they did x, then y is inevitable. I think it's pretty easy to understand why intimate sexual contact is different than a 2 second shot of a breast. It's a HUGE jump to go from a breast shot to all out fvcking, but not a huge leap to go from a commercial that reeks of sex to a shot of a titty. I've never said I was ok with what happened, but that CBS is not the sole entity to blame here.

Let me ask you a question Mill: If they showed Britney's crotch for 2 seconds, would that be ok? Spread Eagled, no panties on, for the world to see, doing a bridge.

BTW, what happened was a sexual act, b/c Justin had his hand on her T!T. To quote another poster's 5 yr old earlier in this thread: "That was so rude." Seems like some kids AREN'T as stupid as you think, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that kids aren't stupid.

That kid was taught it was rude. It wasn't something they inferrred. Secondly, I've already answered about 5 very similar questions about over the top displays. My answer doesn't change one bit.

Um, no. A crotch shot is a private part such at a T!T. It is NOT a sexual act, which u deem as over the top. Are you going to stick to your guns, or run from them? Answer the question.

I've already answered it. I believe it was vi-edit who asked me if I was ok with Timberlake whipping out his penis. I said typically Female chest nudity is much different than male frontal nudity. Same goes with female genitals. Like I said if you can't see the difference that isn't my problem. I'm sticking to my guns 100% even though I seem to be answering the same questions over and over. Are you going to tell me what religion you are?

Ah, so you've finally explained yourself. The female GENITALS are where you draw the line, but not the breasts! lmao... So if they had shown a little pvssy u would have been up in arms, am I right? Yes, I'm a scientological buddhist. What are you?

 

[OutHouse]

I'm a scientological buddhist