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

[MaxDepth]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thank god he was wearing something under the poncho.
It could have been Pam Anderson on his teat or something.

 

[SaigonK]

I uploaded a pic to my gallery site, a ton of people already viewd the damn thig..so I took it down and then it got posted again....
People like to see this type of thing, they are amazed at nudity and if its someone famous, then it is even better.

 

[virtuamike]

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.

And only in this country would a parent blame someone else for being disempowered.

 

[hpkeeper]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Citrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

nice racist slur...


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

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

See, this is where you explain to your child the situation, you don't turn their heads when it comes on TV, or to cover their eyes... Accept it, they will have something of the sort happen in their lifetime. Assuming they don't become a monk or a nun or something. Even then it's not guaranteed celebacy. To say what he did was alright, is not alright. But you have to sit down with your child and explain that what happened wasn't right, to let them go off and form their own opinion on what they saw is wrong... to shelter them from it is also wrong. Obviously if something like that is planned enough to be in todays society, it's going to be that way for some time to come... and they should get used to it one way or another. But to Shelter them and to not explain to them what they just saw if they did see it is what's wrong. I'm a united states Citizen, and this country is way too concerned with nudity... he didn't rape her... he didn't even fondle her. Everyone is born nude. I'm suprised we're not used to that.

Also, how can you compare grabbing breasts to tearing cloth off of ones body?

 

[steveeast112]

Originally posted by: darkessenz2
Suggestive of the double standard we have here in the US----

Nudity/sexuality is dangerous and corrupting, while violence generally gets the seal of approval.

They show people getting shot all the time on TV, but one 2 second image of a human being naked and everybody throws their arms up. Lighten up a little.

Exactly. This is being blown way out of proportion. Sure it was a bit of a bad timing, but kids in Europe see nudity on the streets and television. Are these kids going to grow up being unclean if they see a breast before age 18? The Europeans turned out fine, and so the Americans will survive too. As for violence, I have a bigger problem with guns than one boob.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: steveeast112

Exactly. This is being blown way out of proportion. Sure it was a bit of a bad timing, but kids in Europe see nudity
on the streets and television. Are these kids going to grow up being unclean if they see a breast before age 18?
The Europeans turned out fine, and so the Americans will survive too. As for violence, I have a bigger problem with
guns than one boob.

You agree with the europeans policies and think violating the goverment's FCC rules is acceptable. You have a
problem with guns do you? In the United States we have a constitution that gives americans the right to bare arms.

As an American, I welcome you to leave the country.

 

[dahunan]

I wonder if the streaker was encouraged by the halftime show or if he already had it all planned?

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: steveeast112

Exactly. This is being blown way out of proportion. Sure it was a bit of a bad timing, but kids in Europe see nudity
on the streets and television. Are these kids going to grow up being unclean if they see a breast before age 18?
The Europeans turned out fine, and so the Americans will survive too. As for violence, I have a bigger problem with
guns than one boob.

You agree with the europeans policies and think violating the goverment's FCC rules is acceptable. You have a
problem with guns do you? In the United States we have a constitution that gives americans the right to bare arms.

As an American, I welcome you to leave the country.

So you'll adhere to anything the FCC rules says as long as it's governed by the government. So if tomorrow the FCC decided to change its stance, then you would go along with it? Try having your own opinion. You make a very weak arguement. And as an American myself, I welcome you to stay in this country (as weak as you may be) since that's what makes this country so grand, our freedom of speech.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: Pixelated

So you'll adhere to anything the FCC rules says as long as it's governed by the government.
So if tomorrow the FCC decided to change its stance, then you would go along with it? Try
having your own opinion. You make a very weak arguement. And as an American myself,
I welcome you to stay in this country (as weak as you may be) since that's what makes this
country so grand, our freedom of speech.

Please don't flip what I said, around or pervert it in anarchists ways. The original poster
was saying things were blown out of proportion saying it was just a breast.The intentions
of my posts have been very clear. The FCC doesn't allow that type of nudity to be displayed.
And Janet Jackson forced it upon all of us. If you check my other posts you'll know
exactly why this is a problem, a good read for no moral idiots like yourselves.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: Pixelated

So you'll adhere to anything the FCC rules says as long as it's governed by the government.
So if tomorrow the FCC decided to change its stance, then you would go along with it? Try
having your own opinion. You make a very weak arguement. And as an American myself,
I welcome you to stay in this country (as weak as you may be) since that's what makes this
country so grand, our freedom of speech.

Please don't flip what I said, around or pervert it in anarchists ways. The original poster
was saying things were blown out of proportion saying it was just a breast.The intentions
of my posts have been very clear. The FCC doesn't allow that type of nudity to be displayed.
And Janet Jackson forced it upon all of us. If you check my other posts you'll know
exactly why this is a problem, a good read for no moral idiots like yourselves.

Troll.

 

[MAME]

yeah, guys...stop quoting 3984209348 lines, it's annoying as all hell

 

[MikeDub83]

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

Originally posted by: Mill


Troll.

As said in your quote from far above in the thread, please stay on topic. Although, I would welcome a logical reason as to why I am a troll.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

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

Originally posted by: Mill


Troll.

As said in your quote from far above in the thread, please stay on topic. Although, I would welcome a logical reason as to why I am a troll.

You are telling people to leave the country if they don't agree with you. You haven't been here long, and you are sitting back saying you know what's best. I've been tolerate enough to say that people are welcome to their viewpoint, and that they can disagree with me. I haven't been telling people to get out of the country just because they disagree with me. With so few posts it seems like you are a troll.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: Mill

You are telling people to leave the country if they don't agree with you. You haven't been here long, and you are sitting back saying you know what's best. I've been tolerate enough to say that people are welcome to their viewpoint, and that they can disagree with me. I haven't been telling people to get out of the country just because they disagree with me. With so few posts it seems like you are a troll.

So in order to have a valid point, and not be considered a troll on the Anandtech forums, you have to have many posts? I think you should check some on my better posts, including ones in the more technical forums to determine whether I am a troll before slandering me. The post you called me out for being a troll was also in reponse to the comment, "I welcome you to stay in this country (as weak as you may be)." Which I took particular offense to considering we are arguing intellectually and I do in fact go to the gym daily.

When people site exaples from second world countries an an example of how the greatest power on Earth, saying another's countries policies are better is like saying IBM should adopt some policies from SCO. It's like when soldiers came back from Vietnam and US citizens spit in their faces. If you live in this country you have to support it's policies and people. If you'd like those policies changed, become elected. If you can't stand it, then leave.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: Mill

You are telling people to leave the country if they don't agree with you. You haven't been here long, and you are sitting back saying you know what's best. I've been tolerate enough to say that people are welcome to their viewpoint, and that they can disagree with me. I haven't been telling people to get out of the country just because they disagree with me. With so few posts it seems like you are a troll.

So in order to have a valid point, and not be considered a troll on the Anandtech forums, you have to have many posts? I think you should check some on my better posts, including ones in the more technical forums to determine whether I am a troll before slandering me. The post you called me out for being a troll was also in reponse to the comment, "I welcome you to stay in this country (as weak as you may be)." Which I took particular offense to considering we are arguing intellectually and I do in fact go to the gym daily.

When people site exaples from second world countries an an example of how the greatest power on Earth, saying another's countries policies are better is like saying IBM should adopt some policies from SCO. It's like when soldiers came back from Vietnam and US citizens spit in their faces. If you live in this country you have to support it's policies and people. If you'd like those policies changed, become elected. If you can't stand it, then leave.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83

Originally posted by: Mill

You are telling people to leave the country if they don't agree with you. You haven't been here long, and you are sitting back saying you know what's best. I've been tolerate enough to say that people are welcome to their viewpoint, and that they can disagree with me. I haven't been telling people to get out of the country just because they disagree with me. With so few posts it seems like you are a troll.

So in order to have a valid point, and not be considered a troll on the Anandtech forums, you have to have many posts? I think you should check some on my better posts, including ones in the more technical forums to determine whether I am a troll before slandering me. The post you called me out for being a troll was also in reponse to the comment, "I welcome you to stay in this country (as weak as you may be)." Which I took particular offense to considering we are arguing intellectually and I do in fact go to the gym daily.

When people site exaples from second world countries an an example of how the greatest power on Earth, saying another's countries policies are better is like saying IBM should adopt some policies from SCO. It's like when soldiers came back from Vietnam and US citizens spit in their faces. If you live in this country you have to support it's policies and people. If you'd like those policies changed, become elected. If you can't stand it, then leave.

You're kidding right? You don't have to become elected to change a policy, nor do you have to be elected to SPEAK out against one. 1st Amendment pal. For the record, I've only expresses my views and said I thought Americans were too puritanical and obsessed with nudity. However, obscenity(what is obscene?) is not protected by the 1st amendment, and the FCC has regulatory controls over the Public Airwaves. If during their investigation they see fit to fine CBS and MTV they will. They are already talking about levying the max fine against all 200 CBS stations. That would be about 5.5 million and we be the highest fine ever. If it was an accident then CBS shouldn't be fined, but if was intentional they should be. They know how puritan America is, and they knew people would get mad, so a fine should have been thought about way before.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: Mill


You're kidding right? You don't have to become elected to change a policy, nor do you have to be elected to SPEAK out against one. 1st Amendment pal. For the record, I've only expresses my views and said I thought Americans were too puritanical and obsessed with nudity.

Yes, I agree with you. Everyone is welcome to have an opinion. It's their first amendmant right. I also have a first amendmant right to welcome someone to leave the country.

However, obscenity(what is obscene?) is not protected by the 1st amendment, and the FCC has regulatory controls over the Public Airwaves. If during their investigation they see fit to fine CBS and MTV they will. They are already talking about levying the max fine against all 200 CBS stations. That would be about 5.5 million and we be the highest fine ever. If it was an accident then CBS shouldn't be fined, but if was intentional they should be. They know how puritan America is, and they knew people would get mad, so a fine should have been thought about way before.

Accidental or not I hope all CBS stations are fined. Although, I feel bad for CBS because they did all they could to stop the act from happening. I just wish there was some way CBS could make Janet Jackson feel the 5.5 million they'll have to shell out.

EDIT:
Obscene Broadcasts Prohibited at All Times

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Source

 

[MikeDub83]

FCC chairman Michael Powell appeared on NBC's today show and clarified that the incident
did not fall under the obscenity rules. It falls under the indecent rules. Which the FCC defines as:


The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast
medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium"
criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive
is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an
average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming
contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that
indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted
in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.


Source

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: MikeDub83
FCC chairman Michael Powell appeared on NBC's today show and clarified that the incident
did not fall under the obscenity rules. It falls under the indecent rules. Which the FCC defines as:


The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast
medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium"
criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive
is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an
average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming
contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that
indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted
in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Source

Hey little boys and girls, was this a surprise? Guess who was saying it was indecent exposure all along? Hey Mill, how do you feel about paying for someone else to tell you what's indecent programming and what's not? Whether you like it or not, it's coming out of your little biweekly college dishwashing paycheck. In fact, all of you classless weenies who actually thought this was ok are paying for someone to now tell you that this was indecent. Time to suck it up!

 

[snidy1]

Originally posted by: AntMan530
wow...did you see janets fat part? its shiny!!! justin is such a lucky dog

thanks for the clip man

Justin could care less, he likes men.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: MikeDub83
FCC chairman Michael Powell appeared on NBC's today show and clarified that the incident
did not fall under the obscenity rules. It falls under the indecent rules. Which the FCC defines as:


The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast
medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium"
criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive
is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an
average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming
contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that
indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted
in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Source

Hey little boys and girls, was this a surprise? Guess who was saying it was indecent exposure all along? Hey Mill, how do you feel about paying for someone else to tell you what's indecent programming and what's not? Whether you like it or not, it's coming out of your little biweekly college dishwashing paycheck. In fact, all of you classless weenies who actually thought this was ok are paying for someone to now tell you that this was indecent. Time to suck it up!

You've got mental problems.

 

[XtremepH]

It was definately staged and planned by the comments made by Janet Jackson but I still don't see the big deal with it. TV is already corrupt and the fact of the matter is our kids are already used to this stuff from watching music vids etc.. so if we are going to attack this we should attack all the other sh*t on tv. what about all these award shows with stars dressed up half naked and all these top hit reality shows like joe millionaire etc... promoting romance but we all know its sex driven??? if they wanna ban stuff they need to start looking elsewhere as well and the fact of the matter is i noticed it when it happen but cbs cameras zoomed out (just like when i didn't get to see that guy streakin which would have had me cracking me up) very fast and you could hardly even realize it until you saw the reply of close up on tv the next morning.

 

[ThePresence]

This thread has to die already.

 

[wampa]

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.

fo shizzle

 

[Jeff7181]

I don't see what the big deal is. I see people here saying their daughter likes Timberlake, then you heard the lyrics and tried to usher her out of the room. Why does she like Timberlake if his lyrics are so unacceptable? Why is she even allowed to listen to him at all? Do you copy the clean songs from all his CD's onto one CD for her to listen to?

This is so amazing that the FCC is getting this worked up about this, but they decided it's ok to say fvck on TV if you use it in acceptable context. In that case... I thought Janet's breast was fvcking awesome! I want to fvcking see her other fvcking breast too!

There are much more offensive things on TV than Justin Timberlate showing the country Janet Jacksons breast.