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

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Citrix

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 ttty. 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!!

Omg I'm sooo "owned" now! Whatever shall I do?!

I haven't once used f - u - c - k, but fvck and T!T or sht. Wigger is a common term for a white kid who tries to act black, it was not a racial slur in my day, which is why I'm surprised you're so offended. My age must be showing if you're really offended... if you are, I apologize. Just substitute WIGGER with kid who tries to act black.

OMG you've now been "OWNED!" Holy sht I'm the man now!!!!

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Citrix

I'm a scientological buddhist

No surprise.

 

[saturnine]

thats one ugly t!t shot!!

man what happened?

 

[Nitemare]

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

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.

The movie Titanic had a completely bare chested Kate Winslett and it focused on her for several seconds. This was PG

 

[slydecix]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

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

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.

The movie Titanic had a completely bare chested Kate Winslett and it focused on her for several seconds. This was PG

Titanic was PG-13

Also, the TV ratings system is completely different. The networks themselves assign the ratings, instead of a review board.

 

[y2kc]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Citrix

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 ttty. 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!!

Omg I'm sooo "owned" now! Whatever shall I do?!

I haven't once used f - u - c - k, but fvck and T!T or sht. Wigger is a common term for a white kid who tries to act black, it was not a racial slur in my day, which is why I'm surprised you're so offended. My age must be showing if you're really offended... if you are, I apologize. Just substitute WIGGER with kid who tries to act black.

OMG you've now been "OWNED!" Holy sht I'm the man now!!!!

wigger = white n!gger
white kids that act "black" = wigger
black = n!gger

i don't care what age you are that is offensive, period.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Elitebull

Originally posted by: Nitemare

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

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.

The movie Titanic had a completely bare chested Kate Winslett and it focused on her for several seconds. This was PG

Titanic was PG-13

Also, the TV ratings system is completely different. The networks themselves assign the ratings, instead of a review board.

It was not long ago that you could not curse on TV. Times change

 

[slydecix]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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

But it says "Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 encouraged the broadcast and cableindustry to "establish voluntary rules for rating programming that contains sexual, violent or other indecent material about which parents should be informed before it is displayed to children," and to voluntarily broadcast signals containing these ratings.

The rating system, also known as "TV Parental Guidelines," was established by the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable Television Association and the Motion Picture Association of America."

That still means that the networks submit their own ratings voluntarily...

 

[pulse8]

So we can show sports with men beating each other up, people eating weird things and doing dangerous things, but if half a boob is shown for 3-5 seconds that is crossing the line?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: dabuddha

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.

The movie Titanic had a completely bare chested Kate Winslett and it focused on her for several seconds. This was PG

Uhhh

Also Known As:
Planet Ice (1996) (USA) (fake working title)
Ship of Dreams, The (1996) (USA) (working title)
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language.
Runtime: 194 min
Country: USA
Language: English / French / German / Swedish
Color: Color (DeLuxe)
Sound Mix: DTS 70 mm (70 mm prints) / DTS / Dolby Digital / SDDS


Read the bolded part.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
After reading the ENTIRE thread, it's painfully obvious that there are two sets of opinions: The parents, or people who are mature enough to think from a parents' point of view, and the non parents. It's also painfully obvious that parents such as conjur and thepresence could very well be arguing with people half their age. I'm not even going to bother with responding to anyone in this thread, due to the idiotic repetition of responses that will sure to be posted.

The overall summary: CBS, MTV, and the NFL's reputations are now tarnished by a slut named Janet Jackson, and her wigger accomplice Timberflake. It was inappropriate and highly distasteful to show a bare T!T on TV, you will not even see this on MTV (and if you have, it's most likely NOT a common occurence because my little cousins watch it all the time). It's against the FCC's regulations to have a PG rated show turned R, I don't give a flying fvck what you Europeans have to say, if you think that it's right, then GET THE HELL OUT OUR COUNTRY. We have rules here that are to be followed.

Many of my coworkers said that luckily their kids did not see this fvcking trash that is to be called the halftime show. I agree with them. We don't have sluts in the mall walking around with their T!T out, do we? How about in the gym? Better yet, another public place, the park?

These fvcking artists are always trying to push the envelope, and guess what, they went too far this time. What's on next year's agenda? Britney showing her crotch? Would you geeks be ok with this? Of course you would, cuz you haven't had p*ssy in, let's say, your whole life. Now I finally see where you're coming from!

Last but not least, any woman who did this in the states that I've lived in (NJ, NY, VA, MD, DE, and yes even WV) would be arrested for indecent exposure and corruption of a minor (if a male had ripped it off in front of kids). That's what makes this country so great, is our first amendment rights. But that's also why we have LAWS.

Kudos to all the parents who know how to raise their kids the right way, and understand that kids should be able to enjoy their childhood before growing up. To all the non parents who think this was an acceptable act: One day, you will reach a level of maturity and empathsize. That is all, back to your regular scheduled immature geekspeak where omg, b00bs are sooooooo cool!!!!!! Yeah dude!!!!!!

nice racist slur...


Im 35 and have 3 kids. I do know how to raise my kids and my 10 and 7 year old daughters saw what happend last night. My wife and I did not make it a big deal and they were ho-hum about it, it was no big deal to them. Im raising my kids the right way, maybe you should take a parenting class and learn something.

How would you feel if your daughter came home from high school crying, and said she was assaulted (inappropriately touched) on her breasts? The boy would say, I saw Justin do it so why is it wrong? Your ignorance and advocation breeds the perpetuation of an overly sexual society, and we are passive until IT HITS HOME.

It's because of those goddamn black people and their rap music!

WTF is your problem? Not all black people listen to rap, and not all people who listen to rap are black. You need to get off your high horse and start sucking it's c@ck.

Bill

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe

WTF is your problem? Not all black people listen to rap, and not all people who listen to rap are black. You need to get off your high horse and start sucking it's c@ck.

Bill

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: pulse8
So we can show sports with men beating each other up, people eating weird things and doing dangerous things, but if half a boob is shown for 3-5 seconds that is crossing the line?

Yes and we can have boxing matches, GTA Vice City with half naked women in it, as long as the parent is aware and forewarned of the content. They know that boxing involves people beating each other to a pulp, and hockey. They know that if they buy their kids GTA, there is nudity in it. They did not know a T!T would come flying out of JJ during a PG rated show. That's like the video game Mario Cart and Mario's penis comes out for 2 seconds b/c he took a turn too sharp while Luigi had his hand on Mario's pants riding shotgun; the programmer made it so that the "joke" only appeared on a certain date so nobody knew about it in advance.

To reiterate for the 20th time in this thread, the parent was disempowered when CBS/MTV broke the law.

 

[brigden]

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.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly. Bravo.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Deeko
It was clear that it was intentional. But I still don't think its THAT big a deal.

I totally agree... It was a flash of a boob that was done for nothing more than shock value and publicity (which worked very well BTW). And the truth is there wasn't that much to see because it was unexpected and difficult to make out. If you don't think so then why was there so much debate as to what she was actually wearing (pasty or piercing)? In other words, if you watched it live and didn't rewind or search for more pics/vids of it you really didn't see much.

And as far as offending... How about the numerous "male enhancement" commercials that don't take a genius to figure out what they're advertising (4 hour constant wood)? Or the CBS commercials with Britney wearing a see through outfit with only sequins covering the goodies? Or Nelly grabbing his crank about 50 times during his short time on camera? Or P Diddy being there at all instead of jail? Oh wait, he's rich and he was acquitted of the charges.

And to anyone who wants to complain about the halftime show being overly sexy, WTH did you expect from a show produced by MTV containing Nelly, P Diddy, Janet Jackson, Timberlake, Kid Rock, etc? I'm sorry but they delivered exactly what everyone expected. If you watched and were surprised and offended then you are very naive.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: brigden

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.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly. Bravo.

Are you people really that dense? Let me repeat for the 300th time. IT'S NOT ABOUT SEEING THE BOOBIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's about watching what you want to and not watching what you don't.

 

[Red Dawn]

JJ was wearing a piercing called a Nipple Shield, not a pasty

BTW, work safe!

 

[Ikonomi]

I'm sorry, guys -- I haven't read this thread, but I have to chime in. If someone has already said the following, I'm sorry.

On my radio station here in Houston, 97.9 the Box, someone from the TSU band that was out during halftime called in. There had been rehearsals with Janet, Justin, dancers, and everyone Wednesday through Friday leading up to the Superbowl, and the boobage was not rehearsed. What they did rehearse was Justin ripping just the top Janet was wearing, to expose the red undergarment beneath. Unfortunately (fortunately), it uh, all came together.

The band guy (Brian) said that Janet was really upset backstage after the show, and was crying and whatnot. So it was definitely not rehearsed: The boob was a mistake.

A good mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. You know H-Town rolls hard.

The alternative, of course, was that the plan was changed at the last minute, but I find that difficult to believe. Learning that Janet was actually upset about it throws this whole CBS exec conspiracy into doubt, in my opinion.

 

[PCHPlayer]

Don't know if this was covered by the hundreds of other replies (too many to read) here but... I was asking in the days before the superbowl who was the half-time entertainer: Byonce (sp?) or someone like that. I was shocked when I heard it was Janet Jackson. My initial response was: why are they using a has-been for the half-time show. Then I heard it was her and Justin Timberlake. Two has-beens (IMHO). This stunt was just to get their names back into the media so they can sell records again.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

How would you feel if your daughter came home from high school crying, and said she was assaulted (inappropriately touched) on her breasts? The boy would say, I saw Justin do it so why is it wrong? Your ignorance and advocation breeds the perpetuation of an overly sexual society, and we are passive about it until IT HITS HOME.

your ignorant and an idiot if you think someone thinks its ok to grab a girl cause of that. they are performers performing. kids know this. especially in highschool dumb ass
JB

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

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.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly. Bravo.

Are you people really that dense? Let me repeat for the 300th time. IT'S NOT ABOUT SEEING THE BOOBIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's about watching what you want to and not watching what you don't.

Who are you to determine what is considered appropriate for the masses?

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8
So we can show sports with men beating each other up, people eating weird things and doing dangerous things, but if half a boob is shown for 3-5 seconds that is crossing the line?

Yes and we can have boxing matches, GTA Vice City with half naked women in it, as long as the parent is aware and forewarned of the content. They know that boxing involves people beating each other to a pulp, and hockey. They know that if they buy their kids GTA, there is nudity in it. They did not know a T!T would come flying out of JJ during a PG rated show. That's like the video game Mario Cart and Mario's penis comes out for 2 seconds b/c he took a turn too sharp while Luigi had his hand on Mario's pants riding shotgun; the programmer made it so that the "joke" only appeared on a certain date so nobody knew about it in advance.

To reiterate for the 20th time in this thread, the parent was disempowered when CBS/MTV broke the law.

I'm just wondering why violence is so accepted among the parents on this forum, but nudity (however minor and brief) is not.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: brigden

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.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly. Bravo.

Thank you for completely missing the point. Bravo.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

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.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly. Bravo.

Are you people really that dense? Let me repeat for the 300th time. IT'S NOT ABOUT SEEING THE BOOBIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's about watching what you want to and not watching what you don't.

Who are you to determine what is considered appropriate for the masses?

WTF?! Watch you want I don't care. Just tell me beforehand that there will be nudity. Parents have a right to know, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8
So we can show sports with men beating each other up, people eating weird things and doing dangerous things, but if half a boob is shown for 3-5 seconds that is crossing the line?

Yes and we can have boxing matches, GTA Vice City with half naked women in it, as long as the parent is aware and forewarned of the content. They know that boxing involves people beating each other to a pulp, and hockey. They know that if they buy their kids GTA, there is nudity in it. They did not know a T!T would come flying out of JJ during a PG rated show. That's like the video game Mario Cart and Mario's penis comes out for 2 seconds b/c he took a turn too sharp while Luigi had his hand on Mario's pants riding shotgun; the programmer made it so that the "joke" only appeared on a certain date so nobody knew about it in advance.

To reiterate for the 20th time in this thread, the parent was disempowered when CBS/MTV broke the law.

I'm just wondering why violence is so accepted among the parents on this forum, but nudity (however minor and brief) is not.

Tell me about it.

Seems to me that many of the people on this forum are comfortable with all kinds of violence and violent acts against men, women, and animals, but when the topic is sexual in nature it's considered taboo. For example, my recent thread about climaxing was locked quickly. However, threads discussing drug and alcohol abuse are prevelant and obviously considered acceptable.

Very odd set of morals.