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

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: 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.

Justin Timberflake fondling would be different? Don't get cold feet now! Stick to your guns!

Guess what! A breast flying out and someone fondling it, then stripping it naked are two ENTIRELY different things. Sht, I can send u a clip a gameshow where a girl was jumping up and down and her breast flew out, so fvcking what? I thought it was hilarious... If the gameshow host had grabbed her T!T, and then ripped her dress down, I would be apalled. Big difference, and I, along with the rest of America, are confounded as to how this is above your comprehension. You apparently think breasts are ok, great! You think Justin Timberflake fondling JJ is ok, GREAT! So why is it NOT OK to show 2 lesbians fondling each others' breasts? Please enlighten me.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: 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.

Not the majority? Why don't you ask some 8th Graders: ""No. 1 -- she should have kept her shirt on," Willis' classmate, Bridget Smith, said. "No. 2 -- the dancing was OK, but they didn't have to be out of their clothes." or "I thought it was all good until the end," Smith said. "I thought the end was a little bit inappropriate, being that kids of all ages were watching it." I wish you were my dad, I could be smoking pot in my room and tell you it's from a science experiment, and you'd believe me. Please crawl out from the cave you're living in, and read the news.

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Justin Timberflake fondling would be different? Don't get cold feet now! Stick to your guns!

Guess what! A breast flying out and someone fondling it, then stripping it naked are two ENTIRELY different things. Sht, I can send u a clip a gameshow where a girl was jumping up and down and her breast flew out, so fvcking what? I thought it was hilarious... If the gameshow host had grabbed her T!T, and then ripped her dress down, I would be apalled. Big difference, and I, along with the rest of America, are confounded as to how this is above your comprehension. You apparently think breasts are ok, great! You think Justin Timberflake fondling JJ is ok, GREAT! So why is it NOT OK to show 2 lesbians fondling each others' breasts? Please enlighten me.

Enlighten you? I'm not sure that's possible, but I'll answer your question anyway. JT was not fondling JJ. If you thought it was, then you have other issues. The whole topic here is that JJ showed her breast. Yes, JT pulled off the piece of clothing that covered it, but I wouldn't call that fondling. So there is a difference between two lesbians fondling each other and this topic. BTW, you can send me the clip that you spoke of anyway.

 

[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

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.

To reiterate for the infinite time: it was not appropriate dinner time TV, and violated FCC regulations. They will be fined. Do you understand what laws are for? Do you know why they have an indecent exposure law? Are you really that stupid? Do kids play PEE WEE FOOTBALL in 3rd grade? Why would they care about watching football on TV, how is that different from THEM playing football? </brokenrecord>

 

[Pixelated]

Not the majority? Why don't you ask some 8th Graders: ""No. 1 -- she should have kept her shirt on," Willis' classmate, Bridget Smith, said. "No. 2 -- the dancing was OK, but they didn't have to be out of their clothes." or "I thought it was all good until the end," Smith said. "I thought the end was a little bit inappropriate, being that kids of all ages were watching it." I wish you were my dad, I could be smoking pot in my room and tell you it's from a science experiment, and you'd believe me. Please crawl out from the cave you're living in, and read the news.

So a few 8th graders interviewed are now the majority? Plus, the only reason they're reacting this way is because they were brought up by people like you. What will you be thinking when this is the norm 5-10 years from now? And what harm has it caused people in Europe when they see it everyday? Just curious, since you have been avoiding the question that has been asked before by someone else, "What is so wrong about seeing a breast on TV?"

 

[ucdbiendog]

teh b00b sucked.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Justin Timberflake fondling would be different? Don't get cold feet now! Stick to your guns!

Guess what! A breast flying out and someone fondling it, then stripping it naked are two ENTIRELY different things. Sht, I can send u a clip a gameshow where a girl was jumping up and down and her breast flew out, so fvcking what? I thought it was hilarious... If the gameshow host had grabbed her T!T, and then ripped her dress down, I would be apalled. Big difference, and I, along with the rest of America, are confounded as to how this is above your comprehension. You apparently think breasts are ok, great! You think Justin Timberflake fondling JJ is ok, GREAT! So why is it NOT OK to show 2 lesbians fondling each others' breasts? Please enlighten me.

Enlighten you? I'm not sure that's possible, but I'll answer your question anyway. JT was not fondling JJ. If you thought it was, then you have other issues. The whole topic here is that JJ showed her breast. Yes, JT pulled off the piece of clothing that covered it, but I wouldn't call that fondling. So there is a difference between two lesbians fondling each other and this topic. BTW, you can send me the clip that you spoke of anyway.

JT had to put his hand on her breast in order to pull it off. Watch the replay, it was close to fondling.

Let me ask you: if you had a daughter, would it be ok for a guy to put his hand on her breast, let alone rip down her bra and expose it? Or would you kill the fvcking bastard? What if this happened at her high school dance? It's a very likely scenario.

EDIT: PM me your email, my friend is going to forward me the gameshow t!tt!e falling out tomorrow at work. I'll fwd to ya... it is quite hilarious...

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: ucdbiendog
teh b00b sucked.

What is this, Russia ? In the U.S., you suck the b00b !

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Not the majority? Why don't you ask some 8th Graders: ""No. 1 -- she should have kept her shirt on," Willis' classmate, Bridget Smith, said. "No. 2 -- the dancing was OK, but they didn't have to be out of their clothes." or "I thought it was all good until the end," Smith said. "I thought the end was a little bit inappropriate, being that kids of all ages were watching it." I wish you were my dad, I could be smoking pot in my room and tell you it's from a science experiment, and you'd believe me. Please crawl out from the cave you're living in, and read the news.

So a few 8th graders interviewed are now the majority? Plus, the only reason they're reacting this way is because they were brought up by people like you. What will you be thinking when this is the norm 5-10 years from now? And what harm has it caused people in Europe when they see it everyday? Just curious, since you have been avoiding the question that has been asked before by someone else, "What is so wrong about seeing a breast on TV?"

There's nothing wrong with it, I watch HBO Real Sex, SATC, Soprano's. But that's cable, not public television. Cable shows are not rated PG. How would you like it if you took your daughter/niece/cousin whoever who was 10 years old to see the Lion King. All of a sudden, a guy grabbing a girl's breast appears for 2 seconds. Would you feel uncomfortable in front of the little girl? Dam right you would.

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Justin Timberflake fondling would be different? Don't get cold feet now! Stick to your guns!

Guess what! A breast flying out and someone fondling it, then stripping it naked are two ENTIRELY different things. Sht, I can send u a clip a gameshow where a girl was jumping up and down and her breast flew out, so fvcking what? I thought it was hilarious... If the gameshow host had grabbed her T!T, and then ripped her dress down, I would be apalled. Big difference, and I, along with the rest of America, are confounded as to how this is above your comprehension. You apparently think breasts are ok, great! You think Justin Timberflake fondling JJ is ok, GREAT! So why is it NOT OK to show 2 lesbians fondling each others' breasts? Please enlighten me.

Enlighten you? I'm not sure that's possible, but I'll answer your question anyway. JT was not fondling JJ. If you thought it was, then you have other issues. The whole topic here is that JJ showed her breast. Yes, JT pulled off the piece of clothing that covered it, but I wouldn't call that fondling. So there is a difference between two lesbians fondling each other and this topic. BTW, you can send me the clip that you spoke of anyway.

JT had to put his hand on her breast in order to pull it off. Watch the replay, it was close to fondling.

Let me ask you: if you had a daughter, would it be ok for a guy to put his hand on her breast, let alone rip down her bra and expose it? Or would you kill the fvcking bastard? What if this happened at her high school dance? It's a very likely scenario.

EDIT: PM me your email, my friend is going to forward me the gameshow t!tt!e falling out tomorrow at work. I'll fwd to ya... it is quite hilarious...

Ah, if we could only protect our children forever. Unfortunately, they have to grow up and experience life without us watching over them 24/7. Yes we're here to guide them and they will eventually choose the right path, but what makes you think that shielding them from a breast shot will prevent them from getting felt up at a high school dance. That's where you are ignorant. Because the fact is, it very much a likely scenario and if I have a daughter, she'll know how to kick the guys ass by herself while yours won't know what to do since she's been protected all her life and most likely give in to the guy. Good luck when that happens.

Also, like you said "it was close to fondling" which means it wasn't.

 

[shimsham]

anyone that thinks any of that was an accident and wasnt planned is a fool.

the fact that i think a lot of people are missing is the context in which said breast was shown. when shown as an art or biological form, theres no problem. i dont know a single parent that shields their childrens eyes when watching national geographic, a show on breast cancer, or observing the nude in an artistic rendition. when shown in a sexual content, such as this(yes it was sexual, as they were humping each other the whole perfomance), is when many parents, myself included, have a problem. why is it a problem? because i dont think my children should have to ask/wonder "why did that guy rip off her bra and show her boob to everyone on tv?" when watching a football game. i shouldnt be forced to have to answer it. i will explain sex when i feel the time is right to my children, according to their maturity level. i dont need tv to shove it in our faces if we arent ready as a family to discuss it.

i wasnt watching the super bowl to see some skank no talent hacks breast. i was watching to see a good football game, for the championship, with my family. parents using the rating system as the tool it was meant to be, and i am one, are not being unreasonable to expect the ratings to reflect the content. PG does not equal breasts being flung out. period. why anyone would become hostile over that fact is beyond me. its also beyond my how anyone could deny the fact that something like that CAN have an influence on children. little girls, and boys, watching that could think that is acceptable behavior to flash ones breast in public, or rip off a womans top. just as exposure to violence could lead to violent behavior.

on the subject of violence, i find it ridiculous to compare the two in relation to sports. sports arent about violence. sports are about team work, discipline, dealing with success/failure, pushing yourself to be better than the competition. not gratuitous violence. its football, not that WWE trash.


if what happened wasnt a problem for someone, fine. good for them. i just dont think that its fair to jump on people who do have a problem with it, for valid reasons. if people didnt care what their children watched on tv, im sure those people that didnt have a problem with this would come out of the woodwork to criticize them for not being a good parent.

thankfully, we were not watching the half time show, and i didnt have to deal with any awkwardness surrounding this debacle.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Justin Timberflake fondling would be different? Don't get cold feet now! Stick to your guns!

Guess what! A breast flying out and someone fondling it, then stripping it naked are two ENTIRELY different things. Sht, I can send u a clip a gameshow where a girl was jumping up and down and her breast flew out, so fvcking what? I thought it was hilarious... If the gameshow host had grabbed her T!T, and then ripped her dress down, I would be apalled. Big difference, and I, along with the rest of America, are confounded as to how this is above your comprehension. You apparently think breasts are ok, great! You think Justin Timberflake fondling JJ is ok, GREAT! So why is it NOT OK to show 2 lesbians fondling each others' breasts? Please enlighten me.

Enlighten you? I'm not sure that's possible, but I'll answer your question anyway. JT was not fondling JJ. If you thought it was, then you have other issues. The whole topic here is that JJ showed her breast. Yes, JT pulled off the piece of clothing that covered it, but I wouldn't call that fondling. So there is a difference between two lesbians fondling each other and this topic. BTW, you can send me the clip that you spoke of anyway.

JT had to put his hand on her breast in order to pull it off. Watch the replay, it was close to fondling.

Let me ask you: if you had a daughter, would it be ok for a guy to put his hand on her breast, let alone rip down her bra and expose it? Or would you kill the fvcking bastard? What if this happened at her high school dance? It's a very likely scenario.

EDIT: PM me your email, my friend is going to forward me the gameshow t!tt!e falling out tomorrow at work. I'll fwd to ya... it is quite hilarious...

Ah, if we could only protect our children forever. Unfortunately, they have to grow up and experience life without us watching over them 24/7. Yes we're here to guide them and they will eventually choose the right path, but what makes you think that shielding them from a breast shot will prevent them from getting felt up at a high school dance. That's where you are ignorant. Because the fact is, it very much a likely scenario and if I have a daughter, she'll know how to kick the guys ass by herself while yours won't know what to do since she's been protected all her life and most likely give in to the guy. Good luck when that happens.

Also, like you said "it was close to fondling" which means it wasn't.

It was definitely fondling. From dictionary.com:
tr.v. ca·ressed, ca·ress·ing, ca·ress·es
To touch or stroke in an affectionate or loving manner.

Look, it's the pot calling the kettle black! The fact that you find this behavior acceptable contributes to the problem. It should have never happened in the first place. By you telling your son "Oh it was in good fun!" advocates him to do it to someone's daughter, and shows him it's ok. See the problem here? It's not what will happen in life, it's how YOU act as a role model for your kids and condemn it, not advocate it.

 

[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

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.

To reiterate for the infinite time: it was not appropriate dinner time TV, and violated FCC regulations. They will be fined. Do you understand what laws are for? Do you know why they have an indecent exposure law? Are you really that stupid? Do kids play PEE WEE FOOTBALL in 3rd grade? Why would they care about watching football on TV, how is that different from THEM playing football? </brokenrecord>

blah blah blah

You still can't give me a reason why you'd rather your child watch guys hit each other and not a half covered breast. I don't give a rat's ass what the law is or what it's for, I'm questioning your judgement as a parent, not the government's. Kids play football in 3rd grade and they breast feed even earlier.

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Pixelated

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Justin Timberflake fondling would be different? Don't get cold feet now! Stick to your guns!

Guess what! A breast flying out and someone fondling it, then stripping it naked are two ENTIRELY different things. Sht, I can send u a clip a gameshow where a girl was jumping up and down and her breast flew out, so fvcking what? I thought it was hilarious... If the gameshow host had grabbed her T!T, and then ripped her dress down, I would be apalled. Big difference, and I, along with the rest of America, are confounded as to how this is above your comprehension. You apparently think breasts are ok, great! You think Justin Timberflake fondling JJ is ok, GREAT! So why is it NOT OK to show 2 lesbians fondling each others' breasts? Please enlighten me.

Enlighten you? I'm not sure that's possible, but I'll answer your question anyway. JT was not fondling JJ. If you thought it was, then you have other issues. The whole topic here is that JJ showed her breast. Yes, JT pulled off the piece of clothing that covered it, but I wouldn't call that fondling. So there is a difference between two lesbians fondling each other and this topic. BTW, you can send me the clip that you spoke of anyway.

JT had to put his hand on her breast in order to pull it off. Watch the replay, it was close to fondling.

Let me ask you: if you had a daughter, would it be ok for a guy to put his hand on her breast, let alone rip down her bra and expose it? Or would you kill the fvcking bastard? What if this happened at her high school dance? It's a very likely scenario.

EDIT: PM me your email, my friend is going to forward me the gameshow t!tt!e falling out tomorrow at work. I'll fwd to ya... it is quite hilarious...

Ah, if we could only protect our children forever. Unfortunately, they have to grow up and experience life without us watching over them 24/7. Yes we're here to guide them and they will eventually choose the right path, but what makes you think that shielding them from a breast shot will prevent them from getting felt up at a high school dance. That's where you are ignorant. Because the fact is, it very much a likely scenario and if I have a daughter, she'll know how to kick the guys ass by herself while yours won't know what to do since she's been protected all her life and most likely give in to the guy. Good luck when that happens.

Also, like you said "it was close to fondling" which means it wasn't.

It was definitely fondling. From dictionary.com:
tr.v. ca·ressed, ca·ress·ing, ca·ress·es
To touch or stroke in an affectionate or loving manner.

Look, it's the pot calling the kettle black! The fact that you find this behavior acceptable contributes to the problem. It should have never happened in the first place. By you telling your son "Oh it was in good fun!" advocates him to do it to someone's daughter, and shows him it's ok. See the problem here? It's not what will happen in life, it's how YOU act as a role model for your kids and condemn it, not advocate it.

See! Finally you make a reasonable point. You said "it's how YOU act as a role model for your kids and condemn it, not advocate it." You just assumed that I would say that it was in good fun. But it's what you say about the situation that matters. My point is that you can't shield your children from these type of events from happening. It can happen at any time but it's better if you're around to explain it to them. Hopefully you can understand that.

 

[insite]

Originally posted by: shimsham
anyone that thinks any of that was an accident and wasnt planned is a fool.

the fact that i think a lot of people are missing is the context in which said breast was shown. when shown as an art or biological form, theres no problem. i dont know a single parent that shields their childrens eyes when watching national geographic, a show on breast cancer, or observing the nude in an artistic rendition. when shown in a sexual content, such as this(yes it was sexual, as they were humping each other the whole perfomance), is when many parents, myself included, have a problem. why is it a problem? because i dont think my children should have to ask/wonder "why did that guy rip off her bra and show her boob to everyone on tv?" when watching a football game. i shouldnt be forced to have to answer it. i will explain sex when i feel the time is right to my children, according to their maturity level. i dont need tv to shove it in our faces if we arent ready as a family to discuss it.

i wasnt watching the super bowl to see some skank no talent hacks breast. i was watching to see a good football game, for the championship, with my family. parents using the rating system as the tool it was meant to be, and i am one, are not being unreasonable to expect the ratings to reflect the content. PG does not equal breasts being flung out. period. why anyone would become hostile over that fact is beyond me. its also beyond my how anyone could deny the fact that something like that CAN have an influence on children. little girls, and boys, watching that could think that is acceptable behavior to flash ones breast in public, or rip off a womans top. just as exposure to violence could lead to violent behavior.

on the subject of violence, i find it ridiculous to compare the two in relation to sports. sports arent about violence. sports are about team work, discipline, dealing with success/failure, pushing yourself to be better than the competition. not gratuitous violence. its football, not that WWE trash.


if what happened wasnt a problem for someone, fine. good for them. i just dont think that its fair to jump on people who do have a problem with it, for valid reasons. if people didnt care what their children watched on tv, im sure those people that didnt have a problem with this would come out of the woodwork to criticize them for not being a good parent.

thankfully, we were not watching the half time show, and i didnt have to deal with any awkwardness surrounding this debacle.

Hear hear!!

 

[Peetoeng]

Stop with those long indented quotes! They are more an eyesore Janet's boob. Just use pertinent quotes you want to reply to.

FCC should fine those CBS execs involved for lack of decency! C'mon, man, you could've flashed much more decent boobie than that!

 

[conjur]

Janet Jackson admits that it was planned:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/7858273.htm

"The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals. MTV was completely unaware of it," Jackson said. "It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended - including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL."

 

[Mill]

But she doesn't say the exposed breast was planned. There was supposed to be clothing that covered the breast that remains. At least that's what the article states. Don't start pulling a dmcowen on us.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mill
But she doesn't say the exposed breast was planned. There was supposed to be clothing that covered the breast that remains. At least that's what the article states. Don't start pulling a dmcowen on us.

Yeah...right. And I've got some beachfront property in Arizona for ya...really cheap!

 

[godspeedx]

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.....

Agreed.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mill
But she doesn't say the exposed breast was planned. There was supposed to be clothing that covered the breast that remains. At least that's what the article states. Don't start pulling a dmcowen on us.

Yeah...right. And I've got some beachfront property in Arizona for ya...really cheap!

No sh!t.

"It was an accident! I swear it was an accident!!!! Ok, you got me... But it wasn't supposed to be fully bare! I'm only half a slut. Not a full one!!! I swear. Don't you believe me?"

Uh, no Janet. You're just another washed up piece of trash who now fits perfectly with the rest of the Jacko family. Go away.

I honestly can't believe the people defending this. If nothing else aren't your smart enough to be insulted by the spin?

 

[hytek369]

espn

 

[brigden]

You Americans are way too anal.

Click here, and pay attention to picture 6 of 8.

The BBC don't think it's too much for their users.

 

[shimsham]

good for the bbc. the english decide what is decent for them to show in their own country, as is their right and ours. i dont see how speaking your mind on what you decide is right for you and your family is anal. but then again we are all just stupid americans, right?

 

[brigden]

The vast majority of the western world is laughing at the ridiculous uproar you yanks are making over such a silly non-event.