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

[brigden]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

YOU think it's unacceptable that there's nudity on television. YOU think the world should warn YOU when there may be brief, partial nudity. YOU feel this is going to somehow damage YOUR children. YOU are the minority, YOUR morals are antiquated.

Why should I be forced to sit through warnings and disclaimers every time I open my eyes because a few ignorant people might get their panties in a twist.

Assume you're vacationing in another part of the world and you don't like the nudity you see in a magazine advertisment for bath soap, do you complain and bitch?

So because YOU want to see nudity on PUBLIC TV during PRIME TIME when kids are probably watching, and all I want is a warning, it's ME pushing my views on YOU. OMFG! ATOT never ceases to amaze me.

There's the difference, dullard. I don't want to see nudity, but it doesn't upset me when it does occur because I am normal, well-balanced and rational... unlike you.

So it doesn't upset you. Yippee, we're all proud of you, you are so enlightened. I really don't give a flying fvck about what upsets you and not. All I want is to be able to make a decison to watch something or not. If there will be nudity, tell me first so I can then choose to watch it or not. My kids don't have to see boobs on stage because it doesn't upset you. Sheesh, I'm done arguing with obviously immature youngsters who don't yet understand life.

Of course you don't care what upsets me, or not. You're only interested in making sure that television and other media conforms to your standards.

And thank you for making a wonderful assumption on my age and level of maturity. And since you seem to be in a giving mood, please enlighten me on the way life is meant to be lived. I obviously lack guidance, I mean, what with a two second shot of a woman's breast not upsetting me. Please, how should I live my life?

Okay, let me ask you this. Would you have a problem if they both ripped off their clothes and started humping wildly on stage?

Yes, of course I would. Now let me ask you this: What point are you trying to accomplish, because I fail to see where you're going with this...

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

YOU think it's unacceptable that there's nudity on television. YOU think the world should warn YOU when there may be brief, partial nudity. YOU feel this is going to somehow damage YOUR children. YOU are the minority, YOUR morals are antiquated.

Why should I be forced to sit through warnings and disclaimers every time I open my eyes because a few ignorant people might get their panties in a twist.

Assume you're vacationing in another part of the world and you don't like the nudity you see in a magazine advertisment for bath soap, do you complain and bitch?

So because YOU want to see nudity on PUBLIC TV during PRIME TIME when kids are probably watching, and all I want is a warning, it's ME pushing my views on YOU. OMFG! ATOT never ceases to amaze me.

There's the difference, dullard. I don't want to see nudity, but it doesn't upset me when it does occur because I am normal, well-balanced and rational... unlike you.

So it doesn't upset you. Yippee, we're all proud of you, you are so enlightened. I really don't give a flying fvck about what upsets you and not. All I want is to be able to make a decison to watch something or not. If there will be nudity, tell me first so I can then choose to watch it or not. My kids don't have to see boobs on stage because it doesn't upset you. Sheesh, I'm done arguing with obviously immature youngsters who don't yet understand life.

Of course you don't care what upsets me, or not. You're only interested in making sure that television and other media conforms to your standards.

And thank you for making a wonderful assumption on my age and level of maturity. And since you seem to be in a giving mood, please enlighten me on the way life is meant to be lived. I obviously lack guidance, I mean, what with a two second shot of a woman's breast not upsetting me. Please, how should I live my life?

Okay, let me ask you this. Would you have a problem if they both ripped off their clothes and started humping wildly on stage?

Yes, of course I would. Now let me ask you this: What point are you trying to accomplish, because I fail to see where you're going with this...

Why would that bother you? Sex is a perfectly natural thing. You think kids don't know what daddy and mommy do? It's healthy for them to see!
EDIT: Let's say MTV wanted to have a sex show at halftime on the superbowl. Should they not show it because it's wrong in YOUR view? Who are you to dictate what people should see?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

My kid should be allowed to enjoy his/her childhood and not worry about adult themes at such a young age.

But, again, what is there to "worry" about? It's just a bare breast. Kids can all see that adult women have them, so why is a bare breast something to "worry" about? It's parents, like yourself, that have trained your kids to think it is bad, but why should it be?

Why is indecent exposure bad? Why is it a crime? Why should you tell me what my kids should watch? Why do you have the right to flash porn in a PG rated program?

Time for you to answer my questions.

 

[Thraxen]

Why would that bother you? Sex is a perfectly natural thing. You think kids don't know what daddy and mommy do? It's healthy for them to see!

In all honesty it likely wouldn't be unhealthy at all if sex wasn't treated as such a taboo to begin with. But, again, you can take ANY point to the extreme. There are certain religions that think dancing is vulgar. Or some religions that think women should be shrouded from head to toe. Do you? Likely not, but that would be the going to the extreme of your view.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Why would that bother you? Sex is a perfectly natural thing. You think kids don't know what daddy and mommy do? It's healthy for them to see!

In all honesty it likely wouldn't be unhealthy at all if sex wasn't treated as such a taboo to begin with. But, again, you can take ANY point to the extreme. There are certain religions that think dancing is vulgar. Or some religions that think women should be shrouded from head to toe. Do you? Likely not, but that would be the going to the extreme of your view.

You are saying that porn is ok for kids 8 and 10 to watch. Now it all makes sense!!!!! We have a Grade A pedophile on our hands!

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: ThePresence

YOU think it's unacceptable that there's nudity on television. YOU think the world should warn YOU when there may be brief, partial nudity. YOU feel this is going to somehow damage YOUR children. YOU are the minority, YOUR morals are antiquated.

Why should I be forced to sit through warnings and disclaimers every time I open my eyes because a few ignorant people might get their panties in a twist.

Assume you're vacationing in another part of the world and you don't like the nudity you see in a magazine advertisment for bath soap, do you complain and bitch?

So because YOU want to see nudity on PUBLIC TV during PRIME TIME when kids are probably watching, and all I want is a warning, it's ME pushing my views on YOU. OMFG! ATOT never ceases to amaze me.

There's the difference, dullard. I don't want to see nudity, but it doesn't upset me when it does occur because I am normal, well-balanced and rational... unlike you.

So it doesn't upset you. Yippee, we're all proud of you, you are so enlightened. I really don't give a flying fvck about what upsets you and not. All I want is to be able to make a decison to watch something or not. If there will be nudity, tell me first so I can then choose to watch it or not. My kids don't have to see boobs on stage because it doesn't upset you. Sheesh, I'm done arguing with obviously immature youngsters who don't yet understand life.

Of course you don't care what upsets me, or not. You're only interested in making sure that television and other media conforms to your standards.

And thank you for making a wonderful assumption on my age and level of maturity. And since you seem to be in a giving mood, please enlighten me on the way life is meant to be lived. I obviously lack guidance, I mean, what with a two second shot of a woman's breast not upsetting me. Please, how should I live my life?

Okay, let me ask you this. Would you have a problem if they both ripped off their clothes and started humping wildly on stage?

Yes, of course I would. Now let me ask you this: What point are you trying to accomplish, because I fail to see where you're going with this...

Why would that bother you? Sex is a perfectly natural thing. You think kids don't know what daddy and mommy do? It's healthy for them to see!
EDIT: Let's say MTV wanted to have a sex show at halftime on the superbowl. Should they not show it because it's wrong in YOUR view? Who are you to dictate what people should see?

Nice try, but you're arguing like a child now.

 

[Thraxen]

(1)Why is indecent exposure bad? (2)Why is it a crime? (3)Why should you tell me what my kids should watch? (4)Why do you have the right to flash porn in a PG rated program? Time for you to answer my questions.

Well, you never actually answered my question... but here goes:

(1) What makes it indecent? I don't think it should be considered indecent.
(2) That's my question.
(3) I haven't. I just want to know why people think a bare breast is bad when it clearly isn't. No one has yet answered how it "corrupts" a child.
(4) If you think a breast is porn then you have no idea what real porn is.

 

[OutHouse]

poeple give it up. This guy is beyond resoning.

 

[Thraxen]

You are saying that porn is ok for kids 8 and 10 to watch. Now it all makes sense!!!!! We have a Grade A pedophile on our hands!

One, I never said I was in favor of the idea. Two, how this makes me a pedophile I have no idea... try to avoid insults, it's really childish. All I said was that I didn't think it would be traumatic for a child to see a sexual act if it wasn't treated as such a taboo. I wasn't saying it should be on display. That is a huge difference.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: brigdenNice try, but you're arguing like a child now.

My point is, where do you draw the line? And WHY do you draw the line?
Regardless, here's my main point that I was arguing throughout this thread. I don't care what you do or what you watch. You are entitled to watch whatever suits your fancy as long as it is legal. No problem. But I and my kids should not have to watch what we don't want to. I did not want to watch a bare breast on stage. You dont have to agree with my reasons, that's fine. But I should have the right to watch what I want to and not to watch what I don't want to. When watching the Superbowl I am not expecting to see boobage. If you would tell me beforehand that the superbowl would be featuring nudity, that would be fine (although it would probably end my interest in the NFL). I just want to know what I'll be watching. I'm sure you can understand that.

 

[ShoNuff]

Originally posted by: bbkat

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

which parts? which animals? so many questions...

ROFLMAO!!! You guys are too funny!

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: brigdenNice try, but you're arguing like a child now.

My point is, where do you draw the line? And WHY do you draw the line?
Regardless, here's my main point that I was arguing throughout this thread. I don't care what you do or what you watch. You are entitled to watch whatever suits your fancy as long as it is legal. No problem. But I and my kids should not have to watch what we don't want to. I did not want to watch a bare breast on stage. You dont have to agree with my reasons, that's fine. But I should have the right to watch what I want to and not to watch what I don't want to. When watching the Superbowl I am not expecting to see boobage. If you would tell me beforehand that the superbowl would be featuring nudity, that would be fine. I just want to know what I'll be watching. I'm sure you can understand that.

I appreciate your desire to live your life the way you want, and to expose/protect yourself to/from whatever you choose. I have no beef with that. Granted, the Superbowl is the last place I would expect to see nudity, however fleeting, but given the specific context of the event onstage, I don't think it's worth getting upset about. In all likilhood it was an accident, a stunt gone wrong.

I'm not interested in forcing my views on you; you can live your life any way you please provided it doesn't infringe upon mine. I might think the lessons you teach your children are wrong, but again, that's your business, I suppose.

While I don't care for disclaimers and warnings placed ahead of everything these days, I understand why they exist. However, with that said, you must understand that what you consider taboo is slowly becoming accepted as mainstream. In a decade or two, you will be increasingly asked to change what you consider appropriate, not me. Food for thought.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

You are saying that porn is ok for kids 8 and 10 to watch. Now it all makes sense!!!!! We have a Grade A pedophile on our hands!

One, I never said I was in favor of the idea. Two, how this makes me a pedophile I have no idea... try to avoid insults, it's really childish. All I said was that I didn't think it would be traumatic for a child to see a sexual act if it wasn't treated as such a taboo. I wasn't saying it should be on display. That is a huge difference.

Thank you for clarifying. If you don't think sex should be on display, then why should a male ripping a woman's top off during a PG rated program be on display?

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

You're missing my point. What is so bad about a small shot of a boob when just minutes earlier there was a guy knocking another to the ground? I know it was unexpected, but my question is why is it so bad? Is it bad because it was unexpected? Had they told you there would be a long shot of an exposed breast (not showing nipple) would you have changed the channel? If so, why?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

You're missing my point. What is so bad about a small shot of a boob when just minutes earlier there was a guy knocking another to the ground? I know it was unexpected, but my question is why is it so bad? Is it bad because it was unexpected? Had they told you there would be a long shot of an exposed breast (not showing nipple) would you have changed the channel? If so, why?

Easy, because sporting events ARE NOT RATED. The half time show WAS RATED PG. A woman being stripped naked does not fall within the PG guidelines. Why is this so hard to understand? Parents allow their kids to watch programs according to the ratings, hell, our government even made a VCHIP for the ratings systmes that's embedded in your TV. CBS, MTV, and the NFL all apologized, 2 executives from the FCC expressed outrage and swift enforcement today. How can most of the US get it, and you cannot? I'm confounded as to how you cannot comprehend the difference of right and wrong here.

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

So let me get this straight: If my kid saw a breast fly out during a Tennis match or Volleyball Tournament due to an accident, then that would be OK because sporting events do not adhere to TV Guidelines' ratings. But because it happened during the halftime show, it's not OK?

And FYI before you make your assumptions, I am a parent. I am older than most of the people on this forum. And I have no problem with there being breasts on TV as I do not believe that it is inappropriate, even for children.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

You're missing my point. What is so bad about a small shot of a boob when just minutes earlier there was a guy knocking another to the ground? I know it was unexpected, but my question is why is it so bad? Is it bad because it was unexpected? Had they told you there would be a long shot of an exposed breast (not showing nipple) would you have changed the channel? If so, why?

Easy, because sporting events ARE NOT RATED. The half time show WAS RATED PG. A woman being stripped naked does not fall within the PG guidelines. Why is this so hard to understand? Parents allow their kids to watch programs according to the ratings, hell, our government even made a VCHIP for the ratings systmes that's embedded in your TV. CBS, MTV, and the NFL all apologized, 2 executives from the FCC expressed outrage and swift enforcement today. How can most of the US get it, and you cannot? I'm confounded as to how you cannot comprehend the difference of right and wrong here.

Those organizations, institutions, and corporations are taking those steps to avoid lawsuits from the likes of you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Pixelated

So let me get this straight: If my kid saw a breast fly out during a Tennis match or Volleyball Tournament due to an accident, then that would be OK because sporting events do not adhere to TV Guidelines' ratings. But because it happened during the halftime show, it's not OK?

And FYI before you make your assumptions, I am a parent. I am older than most of the people on this forum. And I have no problem with there being breasts on TV as I do not believe that it is inappropriate, even for children.

I have an issue in that this was something that was planned by the performer(s) and intended for the shock value.
What entertainment value was there? The lyrics of the song provide an immature excuse only.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

So let me get this straight: If my kid saw a breast fly out during a Tennis match or Volleyball Tournament due to an accident, then that would be OK because sporting events do not adhere to TV Guidelines' ratings. But because it happened during the halftime show, it's not OK?

And FYI before you make your assumptions, I am a parent. I am older than most of the people on this forum. And I have no problem with there being breasts on TV as I do not believe that it is inappropriate, even for children.

Thankfully, you don't have any say in what I DECIDE my kids should watch. Let me send you a clip of 2 women fondling each other's breasts, be sure to show it to your kids. Thanks!

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

You're missing my point. What is so bad about a small shot of a boob when just minutes earlier there was a guy knocking another to the ground? I know it was unexpected, but my question is why is it so bad? Is it bad because it was unexpected? Had they told you there would be a long shot of an exposed breast (not showing nipple) would you have changed the channel? If so, why?

Easy, because sporting events ARE NOT RATED. The half time show WAS RATED PG. A woman being stripped naked does not fall within the PG guidelines. Why is this so hard to understand? Parents allow their kids to watch programs according to the ratings, hell, our government even made a VCHIP for the ratings systmes that's embedded in your TV. CBS, MTV, and the NFL all apologized, 2 executives from the FCC expressed outrage and swift enforcement today. How can most of the US get it, and you cannot? I'm confounded as to how you cannot comprehend the difference of right and wrong here.

Those organizations, institutions, and corporations are taking those steps to avoid lawsuits from the likes of you.

Majority rules. If you don't like it, get the fck out of our country. Oh wait, you already are! *whew* *sigh of relief*

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

So let me get this straight: If my kid saw a breast fly out during a Tennis match or Volleyball Tournament due to an accident, then that would be OK because sporting events do not adhere to TV Guidelines' ratings. But because it happened during the halftime show, it's not OK?

And FYI before you make your assumptions, I am a parent. I am older than most of the people on this forum. And I have no problem with there being breasts on TV as I do not believe that it is inappropriate, even for children.

Thankfully, you don't have any say in what I DECIDE my kids should watch. Let me send you a clip of 2 women fondling each other's breasts, be sure to show it to your kids. Thanks!

Right, because two women fondling each other is the same as what I said. Great analogy. Thank YOU!

It's people like you that should leave our country of ours. It's people like you that contribute to the decay of our society. Thanks again.

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

You're missing my point. What is so bad about a small shot of a boob when just minutes earlier there was a guy knocking another to the ground? I know it was unexpected, but my question is why is it so bad? Is it bad because it was unexpected? Had they told you there would be a long shot of an exposed breast (not showing nipple) would you have changed the channel? If so, why?

Easy, because sporting events ARE NOT RATED. The half time show WAS RATED PG. A woman being stripped naked does not fall within the PG guidelines. Why is this so hard to understand? Parents allow their kids to watch programs according to the ratings, hell, our government even made a VCHIP for the ratings systmes that's embedded in your TV. CBS, MTV, and the NFL all apologized, 2 executives from the FCC expressed outrage and swift enforcement today. How can most of the US get it, and you cannot? I'm confounded as to how you cannot comprehend the difference of right and wrong here.

Those organizations, institutions, and corporations are taking those steps to avoid lawsuits from the likes of you.

Majority rules. If you don't like it, get the fck out of our country. Oh wait, you already are! *whew* *sigh of relief*

Unfortunately, it's not the majority. They'll do anything to avoid a lawsuit that will come from even a small group of people.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

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.

Good question, there are many variables that come into play, I don't have the answer for you. It's sort of the same question as to why our society views drinking as an acceptable drug vice marijuana, when drinking is physically and psychologically addicting whereas marijuana is the latter. Not to mention more families will be broken up by alcohol addiction, and alcohol abusers are much more likely to exhibit acts of violence (bar fights). Why is one legal, or illegal, and the other not?

The magnitude of how each "inappropriate" act/thing in our culture varies for many reasons.

I wasn't wondering why society accepts one over the other, I was wondering why YOU accept one over the other.

I was generalizing for our culture, which includes AT parents. Doesn't mean that I am included in that group.

I don't think violence is better than nudity. You haven't defined violence yet. Are you talking about sports? Wrestling? Movies? Punching and kicking or weapons? Blood vs no blood? Please clarify. There is a line to be drawn in the magnitude of violence, just as the bikini is where the line is drawn for the kids. Give an example.

Would you let your child attend a hockey game?

What if the two football teams had started a huge fight in the middle of the field, would you be blaming them for doing something you didn't know was going to happen?

TV Guidlines' ratings do NOT apply to sporting events, so I would not care, the viewer knows what to expect and what could happen during a sporting event. Am I not going to let my child watch baseball b/c there are bench clearing brawls? Of course not. The half time show was rated PG, that's the difference.

You're missing my point. What is so bad about a small shot of a boob when just minutes earlier there was a guy knocking another to the ground? I know it was unexpected, but my question is why is it so bad? Is it bad because it was unexpected? Had they told you there would be a long shot of an exposed breast (not showing nipple) would you have changed the channel? If so, why?

Easy, because sporting events ARE NOT RATED. The half time show WAS RATED PG. A woman being stripped naked does not fall within the PG guidelines. Why is this so hard to understand? Parents allow their kids to watch programs according to the ratings, hell, our government even made a VCHIP for the ratings systmes that's embedded in your TV. CBS, MTV, and the NFL all apologized, 2 executives from the FCC expressed outrage and swift enforcement today. How can most of the US get it, and you cannot? I'm confounded as to how you cannot comprehend the difference of right and wrong here.

I understand the difference and I understand what you're saying, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'M SAYING.

I know the difference between right and wrong, but I don't depend on television ratings to tell me what that is. What i want to know is why it's ok that your kids can watch guys get pounded by each other, but they can't see a half covered breast? You seem to be avoiding the question and just go back to the ratings which just leads me to believe that the only reason you raise your children this way is because the government says it's ok which doesn't make sense to me.