Why Janet Jackass's tit on tv was a bad thing
lab~rat
red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
it wasn't a sanctioned act.
2> I don't think children necessarily look at Janet Jackson as a role
model, but acting out in a sexual display by a highlighted performer
exemplifies an acceptance of lower and lower mores allowed by the
public.
3> The way that the presentation was applied was an implied sexual
assault against the will of the female. This sends a message that
this behavior is somehow acceptable.
If all of this happened on HBO on an R rated movie, I would have no
problem. Fortunately, my kids didn't watch the Superbowl and I wasn't
in the position to explain anything to them.
And besides, Janet Jackson creeps me out on too many other levels...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
BTR1701
SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>
> 1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
> will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
> it wasn't a sanctioned act.
Apparently neither was Jackson's act. It was no more sanctioned by CBS
or the NFL than the streaker. She was basically just a more well-known
streaker.
And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
psychologically.
Hard core sex acts, sure. I don't argue that children shouldn't be
exposed to that. But just plain old naked people? Explain to me how that
harms a child. Hell, every child already knows what half the population
looks like naked just from looking at themselves naked.
lab~rat
puked:
>In article <5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com>,
>SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
>> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>>
>> 1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
>> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
>> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
>> will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
>> it wasn't a sanctioned act.
>
>Apparently neither was Jackson's act. It was no more sanctioned by CBS
>or the NFL than the streaker. She was basically just a more well-known
>streaker.
Jackson's act was paid for by CBS. CBS broadcast the product they
paid for, and therefore, it was sanctioned by them. It would be their
responsibility to set the standards of the content of the
presentation.
CBS holds the broadcasting license, and therefore, FCC will fine CBS.
Whatever CBS gets out of MTV and Janet/Justin to compensate them for
the fines will be CBS's to pursue. But you knew that, didn't ya?
Simple contract law.
>
>And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
>understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
>nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
>psychologically.
>
>Hard core sex acts, sure. I don't argue that children shouldn't be
>exposed to that. But just plain old naked people? Explain to me how that
>harms a child. Hell, every child already knows what half the population
>looks like naked just from looking at themselves naked.
Mocking a sexual assault during the half time of a Superbowl isn't
Kosher in my book. Exactly what kind of message do you think it
sends?
alphakitten
You forgot the most important thing - it was a stunt intented to help
promote her new record and to deflect attention from her freakshow of a
brother (Michael, not Jermaine).
~Angel
~Angel
Shorty
Actually its been reported on tthe Drudge Report that top CBS
officials knew about the stunt before hand. They have only
demonstrated outrage when the NFL jumped so far down their throats
they squashed their toes.
As an after effect, thank God MTV wont be producing the halftime shows
any more. If I had to see Nelly, Britney, and Justin on the biggest
stage in the world yet again I might lose my lunch.
Shorty
Mark Nobles
BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
> understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
> nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
> psychologically.
Not just any body part, either. The first thing a mother does after she
has a kid is stick that particular body part in the kid's mouth. The
kid is supposed to know what to do with it.
So where's the harm? Why inflict this dangerous thang on a kid if you
really think it's harmful?
Bizarre is the right word.
Buckaroo Banzai
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo.
<Not that there's anything wrong with that...>
BTR1701
SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:39:44 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> puked:
>
> >In article <5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com>,
> >SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> >
> >> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
> >> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
> >>
> >> 1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
> >> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
> >> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
> >> will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
> >> it wasn't a sanctioned act.
> >
> >Apparently neither was Jackson's act. It was no more sanctioned by CBS
> >or the NFL than the streaker. She was basically just a more well-known
> >streaker.
>
> Jackson's act was paid for by CBS. CBS broadcast the product they
> paid for, and therefore, it was sanctioned by them.
Oh, give me a break.
> CBS holds the broadcasting license, and therefore, FCC will fine CBS.
> Whatever CBS gets out of MTV and Janet/Justin to compensate them for
> the fines will be CBS's to pursue. But you knew that, didn't ya?
> Simple contract law.
I wasn't talking about contracts and fines. I was talking about the
"shocking outrage" over Jackson compared to the streaker.
Stay on topic.
> >And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
> >understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
> >nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
> >psychologically.
> >
> >Hard core sex acts, sure. I don't argue that children shouldn't be
> >exposed to that. But just plain old naked people? Explain to me how that
> >harms a child. Hell, every child already knows what half the population
> >looks like naked just from looking at themselves naked.
>
> Mocking a sexual assault during the half time of a Superbowl isn't
> Kosher in my book.
No sexual assault occurred. Jackson issued a statement saying she
planned the whole thing ahead of time. Therefore, she gave consent,
making assault a legal impossibility.
But you knew that, didn't ya?
> Exactly what kind of message do you think it sends?
I frankly don't care. I'm sick to death of hearing that trite phrase
trotted out any time someone doesn't like what someone else has done.
Why does everything in life have to be about "sending a message?"
Espen Schjønberg
>SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
>> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>>
>> 1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
>> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
>> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
>> will be no nudity. []
>
>Apparently neither was Jackson's act. It was no more sanctioned by CBS
>or the NFL than the streaker. She was basically just a more well-known
>streaker.
What I don't get is why they just don't say "it was planned to rip the
outer top away, but the inner part was supposed to stay - like, so it
would have been a bikini-top on the inside getting revealed...." or
something.
Anyhow, you americans really surprise me. Women have _boobies_?
Please note: the thread is crossposted. Do set follow-up.
I am setting mine to -duh- it doesn't belong anywhere here. What about
alt.dev.null?
--
Espen
BTR1701
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
> You forgot the most important thing - it was a stunt intented to help
> promote her new record and to deflect attention from her freakshow of a
> brother
Do you really think that she honestly believed that a half-second shot
of her tit was going to make anyone forget that her brother is on trial?
alphakitten
Not forget, no. But she's taking some of the heat. Plus, record promotion...
~Angel
lab~rat
puked:
The Jackson thing was sanctioned by CBS. They were responsible for
bringing it into the living rooms of America. The streaker was some
jackass operating on his own.
>
>> >And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
>> >understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
>> >nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
>> >psychologically.
>> >
>> >Hard core sex acts, sure. I don't argue that children shouldn't be
>> >exposed to that. But just plain old naked people? Explain to me how that
>> >harms a child. Hell, every child already knows what half the population
>> >looks like naked just from looking at themselves naked.
>>
>> Mocking a sexual assault during the half time of a Superbowl isn't
>> Kosher in my book.
>
>No sexual assault occurred. Jackson issued a statement saying she
>planned the whole thing ahead of time. Therefore, she gave consent,
>making assault a legal impossibility.
>
>But you knew that, didn't ya?
>
What part of 'mocking' don't you understand? She 'mocked' not giving
consent.
>> Exactly what kind of message do you think it sends?
>
>I frankly don't care. I'm sick to death of hearing that trite phrase
>trotted out any time someone doesn't like what someone else has done.
>
>Why does everything in life have to be about "sending a message?"
Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to
see a naked breast on the Superbowl. If it were on HBO I would have
no reason to complain about the effects it has on children, but
guidelines prevent that sort of thing from happening in prime time.
It did, and the result of it, as open to conjecture as it may be,
does in fact send a message.
lab~rat
<cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> puked:
When my wife breast fed, she wasn't wearing a steel ornament pierced
through her nipple, and one of her co-workers didn't rip her top off
in front of millions of people to expose it.
See the difference?
lab~rat
puked:
And do you think she gives a crap?
KK
> Actually its been reported on tthe Drudge Report that top CBS
> officials knew about the stunt before hand.
Link? Nothing like that is reported there currently, by Drudge or any of
the stories he links to.
KK
> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to see
> a naked breast on the Superbowl.
What do you think is potentially more 'damaging' or more likely to make an
impression on a child who sees it: a brief shot of a tit, or the women in
leather bondage gear?
Do you think there was a 'reasonable expectation' to see a woman in a
studded teddy? Or one in a latex outfit with a riding crop?
Would you have complained about any of those?
KK
> When my wife breast fed, she wasn't wearing a steel ornament pierced
> through her nipple, and one of her co-workers didn't rip her top off
> in front of millions of people to expose it.
Hey, don't knock it 'till you try it.
lab~rat
puked:
That's a good point, but the outfit really wasn't more than the
outfit, it was more the actions that went along with it. And I don't
know that the 'bondage gear' is much different than what characters in
cartoons or video games wear.
For me, I think whipping out the boob was the catalyst that caused the
outrage. And like I said, it was a combination of things that made it
a bad thing.
Now, is this ground breaking television on the level of Elvis and the
Stones being censored on TV? I don't know, I don't put those two
numbnuts (J&J) in the same category as Elvis and the Stones.
Was *I* offended by it? Hell no, clearly it was adult oriented and I
am an adult. I think it wouldn't have been a big deal if it were in a
different show than the Superbowl. That's where my problem was with
it...
lab~rat
puked:
I think we ALL had a taste of Janet's, and I don't like it...
KK
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:25:54 -0500, KK <remov...@furburger.net>
> puked:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:13:26 +0000, lab~rat wrote:
>>
>>> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to see
>>> a naked breast on the Superbowl.
>>
>>What do you think is potentially more 'damaging' or more likely to make an
>>impression on a child who sees it: a brief shot of a tit, or the women in
>>leather bondage gear?
>>
>>Do you think there was a 'reasonable expectation' to see a woman in a
>>studded teddy? Or one in a latex outfit with a riding crop?
>>
>>Would you have complained about any of those?
>>
>
> That's a good point, but the outfit really wasn't more than the
> outfit, it was more the actions that went along with it. And I don't
> know that the 'bondage gear' is much different than what characters in
> cartoons or video games wear.
Exactly what I meant - in the context of the rest of the halftime show
(rappers grabbing their crotches, performers grinding into each other,
etc) or even in the context of the rest of TV and of everyday life, a tit
is nothing.
> For me, I think whipping out the boob was the catalyst that caused the
> outrage. And like I said, it was a combination of things that made it
> a bad thing.
A straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back thing? I can understand that, I
suppose.
> Was *I* offended by it? Hell no, clearly it was adult oriented and I
> am an adult. I think it wouldn't have been a big deal if it were in a
> different show than the Superbowl. That's where my problem was with
> it...
I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like 'bad
words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
lab~rat
puked:
>I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like 'bad
>words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
>
>
Ok, but to take that to a further extent, what about when Stern has
women on faking orgasms? Is that healthy? I mean, if you're
listening to the radio at a red light or in your office, does it make
you feel uneasy that it might be inappropriate?
A breast in and of itself is totally natural. If they were showing
breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
different, although I'm sure it would titillate (excuse the pun)
adolescent kids. That's where parenting comes in. And I would
imagine a TV show would have appropriate warnings before the segment
came on.
KK
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:50:15 -0500, KK <remov...@furburger.net>
> puked:
>
>>I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like 'bad
>>words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
>>
>>
> Ok, but to take that to a further extent, what about when Stern has
> women on faking orgasms? Is that healthy? I mean, if you're
> listening to the radio at a red light or in your office, does it make
> you feel uneasy that it might be inappropriate?
I think I've got a good enough handle on things that I can take listening
to a fake orgasm. Heck, "When Harry Met Sally" was PG, right?
An adult who feels uneasy when alone in the car and something like that
comes on IMO has issues about sex.
Now, at work, some things aren't professional or appropriate. Again, an
adjusted, mature person over the age of 13 or 14 knows when that is.
> A breast in and of itself is totally natural. If they were showing
> breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
> different, although I'm sure it would titillate (excuse the pun)
> adolescent kids. That's where parenting comes in. And I would
> imagine a TV show would have appropriate warnings before the segment
> came on.
In most places, they wouldn't. Breasts are in the newspapers in most
fist-world countries, and on magazine covers and on television shows.
Because of that, that 'titillation' (excuse the pun for me too) isn't
there.
The cultural forbiden-ness about breasts is manufactured by society, IMO.
Cold Coffee
> Anyhow, you americans really surprise me. Women have _boobies_?
With a name like schlongberg, one would think you understood.
--
cc
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Shorty
wrote:
It was yesterday. Go look for it.
Shorty
Cold Coffee
diana lyster
brother, michael. she looked like michael in drag and that creeped me
out.
they had all those little kids up front. if justin timberlake had
flashed his dick to all those little kids he would be in trouble.
diana
lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message news:<5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com>...
greg brown
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>
Couple of questions; if the two individuals in question had not been an
African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as wrong?
What did you think of Kid Rock cutting a hole in a American flag and
slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
Greg
Avatar
>
>"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
>news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
>> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>>
>
>
>Couple of questions; if the two individuals in question had not been an
>African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as wrong?
Yup.
>
>What did you think of Kid Rock cutting a hole in a American flag and
>slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
Honestly, this offended me more.
>
>Greg
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are not newsgroups silly
>harms a child
It has no effect on children, but teenagers are another story.
Are not newsgroups silly
It's about the messages that you don't intend to send. Like if you're a
straight guy and somehow you inadvertently send a message to a gay guy that you
want him to fuck you in the ass...? How did that message get sent, huh...?
Are not newsgroups silly
>promote her new record
Still not buying.
>and to deflect attention from her freakshow of a
>brother (Michael, not Jermaine).
Hmm, is that scenario supposed to be "Oh, Jacko the
child-molester...waitasecond, who cares about that, let's talk about Janet's
titty"?
Are not newsgroups silly
Again, since when do boobs in particular sell CDs...?
Are not newsgroups silly
And Michael doesn't look like he's in drag...?
Are not newsgroups silly
>African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as wrong?
Yes. Don't be silly. And what race are you addressing that question to...?
Are not newsgroups silly
>slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
What has this to do with boobies...and, I didn't hear about that, and after
hearing about that, I don't particularly care; after all, he didn't set it on
fire.
Nomen Nescio
lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
To tell you the truth, it wasn't even a very good looking tit. Maybe
Michael saw THIS at an early age, giving him the idea that little boys
had to be better.
lab~rat >:-)
puked
>On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:12:29 +0000, lab~rat wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:50:15 -0500, KK <remov...@furburger.net>
>> puked:
>>
>>>I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like 'bad
>>>words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, but to take that to a further extent, what about when Stern has
>> women on faking orgasms? Is that healthy? I mean, if you're
>> listening to the radio at a red light or in your office, does it make
>> you feel uneasy that it might be inappropriate?
>
>I think I've got a good enough handle on things that I can take listening
>to a fake orgasm. Heck, "When Harry Met Sally" was PG, right?
>
>An adult who feels uneasy when alone in the car and something like that
>comes on IMO has issues about sex.
I was talking about stopped at an intersection. I guess I should
mention I live in FL and travel 90% of the time with the windows down
or the top dropped.
>
>Now, at work, some things aren't professional or appropriate. Again, an
>adjusted, mature person over the age of 13 or 14 knows when that is.
>
>> A breast in and of itself is totally natural. If they were showing
>> breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
>> different, although I'm sure it would titillate (excuse the pun)
>> adolescent kids. That's where parenting comes in. And I would
>> imagine a TV show would have appropriate warnings before the segment
>> came on.
>
>In most places, they wouldn't. Breasts are in the newspapers in most
>fist-world countries,
Heh, fist world countries.
lab~rat >:-)
newsgroups silly) puked
You're asking BTR?
lab~rat >:-)
newsgroups silly) puked
>>Plus, record promotion
>
>Again, since when do boobs in particular sell CDs...?
Take a look at all the boobs on Billboard's top 20 and get back to me.
lab~rat >:-)
puked
>i gotta say when i watched her all i could think of was her pedophile
>brother, michael. she looked like michael in drag and that creeped me
>out.
>
>they had all those little kids up front. if justin timberlake had
>flashed his dick to all those little kids he would be in trouble.
>
When I saw Justin, I saw a dick...
lab~rat >:-)
>
>"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
>news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
>> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>>
>
>
>Couple of questions; if the two individuals in question had not been an
>African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as wrong?
You racist bastid! That has nothing to do with it.
Hmm, now that you mention it, we could get pissed from that whole
white supremacy angle. But if Janet would have whipped Justin's dick
out, I don't think it would have solved the problem.
>
>What did you think of Kid Rock cutting a hole in a American flag and
>slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
>
He was white, no problem, right?
lab~rat >:-)
<nob...@dizum.com> puked
Maybe that is why he hasn't added breasts to his laundry list of
plastic surgery yet...
Are not newsgroups silly
You mean boobs and no-talent losers are now synonymous...? That'll work when I
undress some girl, "nice set of no-talent losers"... :-\
Obatala
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> schreef in bericht
news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>
> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
> will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
> it wasn't a sanctioned act.
What`s the big deal, we saw a tit. Ow sorry we even saw a nipple,
AAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, a nipple, and we freak out.
I mean, are nipple fobic? Did he nipple thing we sucked at our
first months of our existance, give us a deep trauma?
We see people get blown away in series and the news, but hey,
that doesn`t compare to a,.... nipple....
I am very fortunate that I don`t life in a country which has such
a problem with a nipple.(or softdrugs, but that is another discussion ;o) )
> 2> I don't think children necessarily look at Janet Jackson as a role
> model, but acting out in a sexual display by a highlighted performer
> exemplifies an acceptance of lower and lower mores allowed by the
> public.
Get a life, we saw a nipple, get over it.It is no big deal.
> 3> The way that the presentation was applied was an implied sexual
> assault against the will of the female. This sends a message that
> this behavior is somehow acceptable.
Well I found it just plain stupid, but it was no big deal.
> If all of this happened on HBO on an R rated movie, I would have no
> problem. Fortunately, my kids didn't watch the Superbowl and I wasn't
> in the position to explain anything to them.
Explain a nipple to them?
By god, your nation really has some genetic defect.
> And besides, Janet Jackson creeps me out on too many other levels...
>
Obatala
> Hard core sex acts, sure. I don't argue that children shouldn't be
> exposed to that. But just plain old naked people? Explain to me how that
> harms a child. Hell, every child already knows what half the population
> looks like naked just from looking at themselves naked.
Hmm maybe some of the people replying here
don`t allow their kids to watch themselves. ;o)
Obatala
> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to
> see a naked breast on the Superbowl. If it were on HBO I would have
> no reason to complain about the effects it has on children, but
> guidelines prevent that sort of thing from happening in prime time.
>
> It did, and the result of it, as open to conjecture as it may be,
> does in fact send a message.
well then don`t go to swimming pools , beaches. Hell,
who knows, one of those things might pop out and scar
your childs psychi forever.
I am so lucky not to be born in such a family ;o)
themaltesebippy
> brother (Michael, not Jermaine).
I was wondering why someone didn't figure this out sooner! Yeah
people will still know MJ is on trial but this certainly takes
attention away from it for now at least.
EGK
wrote:
I find your argument to be bogus. At swimming pools or beaches you expect
to see things. It has nothing to do with nudity or that anyone is afraid
it's going to scar their children's psyches forever. It has to dot with the
fact it was a classless and tasteless display given the venue.
They admitted it was pre-planned for the shock value though Jackson insists
it went farther then she intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
Obatala
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> schreef in bericht
news:6090205rgqtd4ps8v...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:27:25 +0100, "Obatala" <freeinxs*remove*@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to
> >> see a naked breast on the Superbowl. If it were on HBO I would have
> >> no reason to complain about the effects it has on children, but
> >> guidelines prevent that sort of thing from happening in prime time.
> >>
> >> It did, and the result of it, as open to conjecture as it may be,
> >> does in fact send a message.
> >
> >well then don`t go to swimming pools , beaches. Hell,
> >who knows, one of those things might pop out and scar
> >your childs psychi forever.
> >I am so lucky not to be born in such a family ;o)
>
> I find your argument to be bogus.
I find you an asshole, which would be written as &*^^%&^( in
tv programs in your country.
And you don`t know what a smiley is, I guess, so up yours friend.
<snip dribble>
EGK
wrote:
ROFL what an idiot. Can't carry on your own debate so resort to name
calling. you're about as mature and classless as someone who drops his
pants at a children's birthday party.
Lloyd Touchada
No your a homo!
greg brown
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:in3020hlvg4udhbgg...@4ax.com...
> >African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as
wrong?
>
> You racist bastid! That has nothing to do with it.
>
Okay, if you say so.
> Hmm, now that you mention it, we could get pissed from that whole
> white supremacy angle. But if Janet would have whipped Justin's dick
> out, I don't think it would have solved the problem.
>
> >What did you think of Kid Rock cutting a hole in a American flag and
> >slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
> >
>
> He was white, no problem, right?
>
Are you being sarcastic here?
Oh, and I do prefer sincere.
Greg
The Greyhound and Sofia Vergara
red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
it wasn't a sanctioned act.
2> I don't think children necessarily look at Janet Jackson as a role
model, but acting out in a sexual display by a highlighted performer
exemplifies an acceptance of lower and lower mores allowed by the
public.
3> The way that the presentation was applied was an implied sexual
assault against the will of the female. This sends a message that
this behavior is somehow acceptable.
If all of this happened on HBO on an R rated movie, I would have no
problem. Fortunately, my kids didn't watch the Superbowl and I wasn't
in the position to explain anything to them.
And besides, Janet Jackson creeps me out on too many other levels...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>
With the moral fiber of this country in freefall, parents are constantly told
that they need to watch their kids & filter the shows they watch. Movies for
years have PG & R ratings & TV shows have the "parental discression" warning to
try to pacify everyone involved. A sporting event, especially one of Super
Bowl calibre, is a nice safety valve to the garbage that's on TV today.
Unfortunately, some diva in her mid thirties, hanging on to her 14th minute of
fame, chose to use the opportunity to boost her sagging career by showing a
titty on national TV.
If she wanted to show a titty she could have easily used MTV as a forum, where
bare titties are as common there as white chicks acting black. Or she should
have contacted Playboy. Either way her point would have gotten across. "I'm
shocking people...buy my album."
I'm not nieve enough to think kids have never seen a breast, pussy or cock
before. However, that doesn't mean they should be subjected to seeing them on
prime time TV. Some kids are fucked up now as it is. A Super Bowl game
should not require a parental discression claimer.
G-Hound -Who's not buying the album but would buy 10 Playboys if she opted for
it.
ChrisCrosskey
chrisc
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
Are not newsgroups silly
BBC was immoral back in the 80s. Same with bloody ITN.
Aethelrede
KK wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:12:29 +0000, lab~rat wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:50:15 -0500, KK <remov...@furburger.net>
>> puked:
>>
>>>I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like
'bad
>>>words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, but to take that to a further extent, what about when Stern has
>> women on faking orgasms? Is that healthy? I mean, if you're
>> listening to the radio at a red light or in your office, does it make
>> you feel uneasy that it might be inappropriate?
>
>I think I've got a good enough handle on things that I can take listening
>to a fake orgasm. Heck, "When Harry Met Sally" was PG, right?
>
>An adult who feels uneasy when alone in the car and something like that
>comes on IMO has issues about sex.
>
>adjusted, mature person over the age of 13 or 14 knows when that is.
>
>> A breast in and of itself is totally natural. If they were showing
>> breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
>> different, although I'm sure it would titillate (excuse the pun)
>> adolescent kids. That's where parenting comes in. And I would
>> imagine a TV show would have appropriate warnings before the segment
>> came on.
Which only serve to tell teenagers "Keep this show on: you might see
something forbidden and worth watching. Maybe boobs".
>
>In most places, they wouldn't. Breasts are in the newspapers in most
>fist-world countries, and on magazine covers and on television shows.
>Because of that, that 'titillation' (excuse the pun for me too) isn't
>there.
>
>The cultural forbiden-ness about breasts is manufactured by society, IMO.
I'm always amazed by the uptightness of Americans when it comes to
nudity. Sex is fine when it's in "R" and "X" rated films and videos making
money, or selling something in a TV commercial, but public nudity in most
states will get a severe fine or even jail, exceptions being New Orleans at
Mardi Gras or Florida during spring break (too many people to arrest, and
too many tourist dollars to endanger).
I just don't see why a woman sitting topless on a beach in Britain or
France or almost anywhere is a normal part of summer life, but the same
woman doing the same thing in the USA should be committing the crime of
public indecency or lewdness or obscene display or whatever the local name
is. I suppose it says something about the nature of American society: sex
is fine on TV if it's selling something, but in public we have to pretend
boobs don't exist.
BTR1701
Schjonberg) wrote:
> Please note: the thread is crossposted. Do set follow-up.
Why?
Aethelrede
greg brown wrote in message ...
>
>"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
>news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
>> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>>
>
>
>African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as
wrong?
That might have influenced some people, but I doubt it was a large
percentage.
>
>What did you think of Kid Rock cutting a hole in a American flag and
>slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
What people do to the American flag doesn't bother me, but out of 3
letters on the subject in my local paper today one person said JJ didn't
bother him, but the thing with the flag pissed him off.
Given the American worship of the flag, I find that understandable:
what's the big deal about JJ flashing her sagging boob? She showed
everything in Playboy or Penthouse years ago when it was all more
interesting to look at. And it wasn't all that interesting at that.
Aethelrede
Nomen Nescio wrote in message
<942aa4de9d6d9b02...@dizum.com>...
I don't think seeing your sister's boobs will do that. Besides, they
looked a lot better years back when she posed in Penthouse or Playboy, and
growing up with a sister who's growing boobs is an easy introduction to
them, or so I'm told.
Face it: MJ is just a rich black boy who wants to be a rich white girl,
but is too scared to go "All The Way"...
BTR1701
SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:13:04 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> puked:
> >I wasn't talking about contracts and fines. I was talking about the
> >"shocking outrage" over Jackson compared to the streaker.
> >
> >Stay on topic.
>
> The Jackson thing was sanctioned by CBS. They were responsible for
> bringing it into the living rooms of America.
Oh, cry me a river. Here we are, 48 hours after a woman's breast
appeared on television and the republic is still standing.
Who would have thought?
> >> >And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've
> >> >never
> >> >understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected
> >> >from
> >> >nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
> >> >psychologically.
> >> >
> >> >Hard core sex acts, sure. I don't argue that children shouldn't be
> >> >exposed to that. But just plain old naked people? Explain to me how
> >> >that
> >> >harms a child. Hell, every child already knows what half the
> >> >population
> >> >looks like naked just from looking at themselves naked.
> >>
> >> Mocking a sexual assault during the half time of a Superbowl isn't
> >> Kosher in my book.
> >
> >No sexual assault occurred. Jackson issued a statement saying she
> >planned the whole thing ahead of time. Therefore, she gave consent,
> >making assault a legal impossibility.
> >
> >But you knew that, didn't ya?
> What part of 'mocking' don't you understand? She 'mocked' not giving
> consent.
So what?
And mocking or not, it was hardly a sexual assault. A guy pulled a
covering off her breast. Even in the real world, sucha thing would not
be a sexual assault. Simple assault, maybe.
> >> Exactly what kind of message do you think it sends?
> >
> >I frankly don't care. I'm sick to death of hearing that trite phrase
> >trotted out any time someone doesn't like what someone else has done.
> >
> >Why does everything in life have to be about "sending a message?"
>
> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to
> see a naked breast on the Superbowl.
I don't care. The fact that you chose to breed is more of an offense to
society than Jackson's breast. I personally had no reasonable
expectation to see Kid Rock wearing a cut up American flag as a poncho.
In my opinion, that's far more obscene than a half-second shot of
someone's body. Should I be screaming in outrage, demanding an FCC
investigation?
And how in the name of holy hell is your child going to be hurt by
seeing part of a human body?
> If it were on HBO I would have
> no reason to complain about the effects it has on children, but
> guidelines prevent that sort of thing from happening in prime time.
That's what everyone keeps saying but I've seen more nudity on prime
time during NYPD Blue than I saw during that halftime show.
> It did, and the result of it, as open to conjecture as it may be,
> does in fact send a message.
And I don't care if it "sends a message". If that's your criteria, just
about everything in life "sends a message". I sure don't live my life,
basing decisions on my behavior about what some parents thinks about the
"message" I'm sending. The great thing about America is that you can't
be silenced just because someone decides you're "sending a bad message"
to their suckling brood. There has to be a lot more to it than that-- a
finding of obscenity, for example.
It'll be interesting to see the twisted leaps of logic the FCC goes
through if they want to find Jackson and CBS guilty of obscenity.
They'll basically have to declare the bodies of 50% of the citizens of
this country to be per se obscene.
BTR1701
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:27:25 +0100, "Obatala" <freeinxs*remove*@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to
> >> see a naked breast on the Superbowl. If it were on HBO I would have
> >> no reason to complain about the effects it has on children, but
> >> guidelines prevent that sort of thing from happening in prime time.
> >>
> >> It did, and the result of it, as open to conjecture as it may be,
> >> does in fact send a message.
> >
> >well then don`t go to swimming pools , beaches. Hell,
> >who knows, one of those things might pop out and scar
> >your childs psychi forever. I am so lucky not to be born in such a family ;o)
>
> I find your argument to be bogus. At swimming pools or beaches you
> expect to see things. It has nothing to do with nudity or that anyone is afraid
> it's going to scar their children's psyches forever. It has to dot with
> the fact it was a classless and tasteless display given the venue.
The argument that rat is making, however, is that the FCC should enforce
its rules against CBS and there is no rule against being classless or
tasteless.
There can't be. The 1st Amendment would make such a rule unenforceable.
BTR1701
SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:50:15 -0500, KK <remov...@furburger.net>
> puked:
>
> >I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like
> >'bad words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
> >
> >
>
> Ok, but to take that to a further extent, what about when Stern has
> women on faking orgasms? Is that healthy? I mean, if you're
> listening to the radio at a red light or in your office, does it make
> you feel uneasy that it might be inappropriate?
If I do, then I just hit that little button on the radio and change the
station.
No one's forcing you to listen to Stern in the first place.
> A breast in and of itself is totally natural. If they were showing
> breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
> different, although I'm sure it would titillate (excuse the pun)
> adolescent kids. That's where parenting comes in. And I would
> imagine a TV show would have appropriate warnings before the segment
> came on.
Why does there need to be warnings at all? Why is it inappropriate for a
woman to appear in public or on television topless but perfectly fine
for men to do so?
Men have nipples, women have nipples. The only difference is that a
woman's are more pronounced. Is that really something worthy of a danger
warning, for god's sake?
Hell, the Supreme Court ruled about 5 years ago that the government
can't legally prevent women from walking around topless in public if
they permit men to go topless in public. Either everyone has to wear a
shirt or no one does.
Even the crotchety old justices on the Court had to admit there was no
rational reason to require women to cover up when men are permitted to
remain uncovered.
BTR1701
<royb...@nexus6.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
> >understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
> >nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
> >psychologically.
>
> It's not about that you simpleton. Put it into context. It's the act.
What about it? If you're going to focus on the act, sparky, then how was
it so different from all the other leather-studded bondage sluts
prancing about the stage with whips?
> Liberal, nonthinking idiot.
LOL! This is the first time I have *ever* been accused of being a
liberal. You should google me on various newsgroups and see how often
real liberals start hysterically crying about me being a "neo-con
fascist" whenever I show up.
This just cracks me up. Thanks, I'm saving this one for posterity.
Of course, it also really underlines exactly who is the non-thinking
idiot here.
EGK
That's his argument, not mine. I find it silly to make such a big deal
about it. On the other hand, it was tasteless and classless and CBS is now
well within their rights to try and get them booted off the Grammys. No one
says they have to provide a forum for people to show their lack of class.
What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
Her tits aren't even that good.
Phil Latio
cause such an uproar. Way to go, prudish Sepps! You're the laughing stalk of
the world once again!
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>
Peachy Ashie Passion
>
> What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
> tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
> Her tits aren't even that good.
>
Okay, I just don't get that.
That's the kind of line that makes us women
into insecure appearance conscious freaks.
If that tit isn't a good one, then I don't
know what the hell kind of perfection you
guys are looking for.
--
Usenet is like Tetris for people who still
remember how to read. -Joshua Heller
lab~rat >:-)
<aethe...@worldnet.att.net> puked
>Florida during spring break (too many people to arrest, and
>too many tourist dollars to endanger).
This negates any other opinions in this post. You're stuck in 1986,
and if you want more facts let me know.
lab~rat >:-)
puked
>In article <3eov10d60458g2ok6...@4ax.com>,
>SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:50:15 -0500, KK <remov...@furburger.net>
>> puked:
>>
>> >I think that this kind of outrage over a *breast* is unhealthy. Like
>> >'bad words', forbidding them makes them more desirable.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Ok, but to take that to a further extent, what about when Stern has
>> women on faking orgasms? Is that healthy? I mean, if you're
>> listening to the radio at a red light or in your office, does it make
>> you feel uneasy that it might be inappropriate?
>
>If I do, then I just hit that little button on the radio and change the
>station.
>
>No one's forcing you to listen to Stern in the first place.
Isn't it clear that my assertion begs this response? Of course Stern
is the way he is, presumably different from a Superbowl halftime show,
right?
>
>> A breast in and of itself is totally natural. If they were showing
>> breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
>> different, although I'm sure it would titillate (excuse the pun)
>> adolescent kids. That's where parenting comes in. And I would
>> imagine a TV show would have appropriate warnings before the segment
>> came on.
>
>Why does there need to be warnings at all? Why is it inappropriate for a
>woman to appear in public or on television topless but perfectly fine
>for men to do so?
>
>Men have nipples, women have nipples. The only difference is that a
>woman's are more pronounced. Is that really something worthy of a danger
>warning, for god's sake?
>
>Hell, the Supreme Court ruled about 5 years ago that the government
>can't legally prevent women from walking around topless in public if
>they permit men to go topless in public. Either everyone has to wear a
>shirt or no one does.
>
>Even the crotchety old justices on the Court had to admit there was no
>rational reason to require women to cover up when men are permitted to
>remain uncovered.
Uh, ok. If that's your idea of a reasonable response to the issue,
I'll pretend you win.
EGK
<res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>EGK wrote:
>
>>
>> What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
>> tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
>> Her tits aren't even that good.
>>
>
> Okay, I just don't get that.
> That's the kind of line that makes us women
>into insecure appearance conscious freaks.
>If that tit isn't a good one, then I don't
>know what the hell kind of perfection you
>guys are looking for.
Not looking for perfection at all. That has nothing to do with it. It's
just not that good to make the big deal about it that it's been made in to.
I mean geezus, they say it's the most replayed TIVO moment ever. Are people
that hard up for a glimpse of a boob?
lab~rat >:-)
If men are ripping women's tops off at swimming pools and beaches, I
can report the incident to the cops and there'll at least be a
citation written.
You feel lucky to be raised by a family that doesn't mind if the law
is broken?
--
lab~rat >:-)
And you think America is uptight? High colonic. Look into it.
--
lab~rat >:-)
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:07:46 +0100, "Obatala" <freeinxs*remove*@xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> schreef in bericht
>>news:6090205rgqtd4ps8v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:27:25 +0100, "Obatala" <freeinxs*remove*@xs4all.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> Because I have children, and there was no reasonable expectation to
>>> >> see a naked breast on the Superbowl. If it were on HBO I would have
>>> >> no reason to complain about the effects it has on children, but
>>> >> guidelines prevent that sort of thing from happening in prime time.
>>> >>
>>> >> It did, and the result of it, as open to conjecture as it may be,
>>> >> does in fact send a message.
>>> >
>>> >well then don`t go to swimming pools , beaches. Hell,
>>> >who knows, one of those things might pop out and scar
>>> >your childs psychi forever.
>>> >I am so lucky not to be born in such a family ;o)
>>>
>>> I find your argument to be bogus.
>>
>>I find you an asshole, which would be written as &*^^%&^( in
>>tv programs in your country.
>>And you don`t know what a smiley is, I guess, so up yours friend.
>
>ROFL what an idiot. Can't carry on your own debate so resort to name
>calling. you're about as mature and classless as someone who drops his
>pants at a children's birthday party.
Or rips off a chick's top in a nationally broadcasted event...
lab~rat >:-)
Then Justin should have ejaculated all over her face since there are
presumably no laws against it. Give me a break.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:10:59 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <6090205rgqtd4ps8v...@4ax.com>, EGK
>><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>The argument that rat is making, however, is that the FCC should enforce
>>its rules against CBS and there is no rule against being classless or
>>tasteless.
>>
>>There can't be. The 1st Amendment would make such a rule unenforceable.
>
>That's his argument, not mine. I find it silly to make such a big deal
>about it. On the other hand, it was tasteless and classless and CBS is now
>well within their rights to try and get them booted off the Grammys. No one
>says they have to provide a forum for people to show their lack of class.
>
>What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
>tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
Plus I'm a firm believer that religion is crap. So there.
>Her tits aren't even that good.
If they weren't, would there still be a problem?
lab~rat >:-)
>EGK wrote:
>
>>
>> What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
>> tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
>> Her tits aren't even that good.
>>
>
> Okay, I just don't get that.
> That's the kind of line that makes us women
>into insecure appearance conscious freaks.
>If that tit isn't a good one, then I don't
>know what the hell kind of perfection you
>guys are looking for.
I think he was referring to color...
lab~rat >:-)
puked
Well, instead of responding line for line to your misguided thought
process or lame attempt to argue against something obviously correct
that I asserted, let me just say that you have your right to enjoy
watching your pornography all you want. And while there are plenty of
venues for you to do that, it's reasonable to expect that SOME venues
refrain from it. One being the GODDAMMM SUPERBOWL.
If the Superbowl folks decide that halftime will show nudity, fine.
Let's make sure that we all know about it, so responsible parents can
make informed decisions whether or not to allow our children to watch
it. Maybe I really have no problem letting my kids see nudity, but I
should be prepared to explain to them why someone is ripping clothes
off of a woman. Maybe I don't want to confront them with that kind of
thing, should I NEVER allow them to watch tv, even if I'm in the room?
That stupid tit would not signal the end of the world if my kids saw
it, it's just that it was inappropriate, especially in the context
that it happened.
Argue that all you want, I love watching retards trying to push
toothpaste back into the tube.
Are not newsgroups silly
>can't legally prevent women from walking around topless in public if
>they permit men to go topless in public.
You have a copy of that ruling?
The only place that women can walk around topless legally that I know of, and
isn't a beach, is NY City. And you sure ain't going to find one woman without
at least a bikini top in public during the summer months there...
This discussion is getting too asexual. Something wrong if you're a straight
guy and nothing happens to you when you look at boobs...
lab~rat >:-)
puked
>In article <sq7020liao494057r...@4ax.com>, Roy Batty
><royb...@nexus6.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've never
>> >understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected from
>> >nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
>> >psychologically.
>>
>> It's not about that you simpleton. Put it into context. It's the act.
>
>What about it? If you're going to focus on the act, sparky, then how was
>it so different from all the other leather-studded bondage sluts
>prancing about the stage with whips?
So maybe the whole thing was a bad idea.
>
>> Liberal, nonthinking idiot.
>
>LOL! This is the first time I have *ever* been accused of being a
>liberal. You should google me on various newsgroups and see how often
>real liberals start hysterically crying about me being a "neo-con
>fascist" whenever I show up.
>
>This just cracks me up. Thanks, I'm saving this one for posterity.
>
>Of course, it also really underlines exactly who is the non-thinking
>idiot here.
I think he means liberal in the context of this discussion.
You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of nudity in the
concept of this discussion, so I imagine that this barb went over your
head as well.
Peachy Ashie Passion
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:15:19 GMT, Peachy Ashie Passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>>EGK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
>>>tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
>>>Her tits aren't even that good.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, I just don't get that.
>> That's the kind of line that makes us women
>>into insecure appearance conscious freaks.
>>If that tit isn't a good one, then I don't
>>know what the hell kind of perfection you
>>guys are looking for.
>
>
> Not looking for perfection at all. That has nothing to do with it. It's
> just not that good to make the big deal about it that it's been made in to.
> I mean geezus, they say it's the most replayed TIVO moment ever. Are people
> that hard up for a glimpse of a boob?
but you said:
Her tits aren't even that good.
I mean, GOSH
lab~rat >:-)
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
>news:in3020hlvg4udhbgg...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:19:52 GMT, "greg brown" <no...@way.com> puked
>>>
>> >Couple of questions; if the two individuals in question had not been an
>> >African-American and a Caucasian, would you still feel it was just as
>wrong?
>>
>> You racist bastid! That has nothing to do with it.
>>
>
>Okay, if you say so.
>
>> Hmm, now that you mention it, we could get pissed from that whole
>> white supremacy angle. But if Janet would have whipped Justin's dick
>> out, I don't think it would have solved the problem.
>>
>> >What did you think of Kid Rock cutting a hole in a American flag and
>> >slipping it over his head and wearing it like a poncho?
>> >
>>
>> He was white, no problem, right?
>>
>
>Are you being sarcastic here?
>
>Oh, and I do prefer sincere.
>
How could anyone take that presupposition about race seriously?
lab~rat >:-)
<freeinxs*remove*@xs4all.nl> puked
>
>"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> schreef in bericht
>news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
>> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>>
>> 1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
>> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
>> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
>> will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
>> it wasn't a sanctioned act.
>
>What`s the big deal, we saw a tit. Ow sorry we even saw a nipple,
>AAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, a nipple, and we freak out.
>I mean, are nipple fobic? Did he nipple thing we sucked at our
>first months of our existance, give us a deep trauma?
>We see people get blown away in series and the news, but hey,
>that doesn`t compare to a,.... nipple....
>I am very fortunate that I don`t life in a country which has such
>a problem with a nipple.(or softdrugs, but that is another discussion ;o) )
>
>
>> 2> I don't think children necessarily look at Janet Jackson as a role
>> model, but acting out in a sexual display by a highlighted performer
>> exemplifies an acceptance of lower and lower mores allowed by the
>> public.
>
>Get a life, we saw a nipple, get over it.It is no big deal.
>
>> 3> The way that the presentation was applied was an implied sexual
>> assault against the will of the female. This sends a message that
>> this behavior is somehow acceptable.
>
>Well I found it just plain stupid, but it was no big deal.
>
>> If all of this happened on HBO on an R rated movie, I would have no
>> problem. Fortunately, my kids didn't watch the Superbowl and I wasn't
>> in the position to explain anything to them.
>
>Explain a nipple to them?
>By god, your nation really has some genetic defect.
>
Look, I'm not gonna get all jingoistic on you, you try to do the same.
Let's just find common ground and say either you don't have children,
you didn't see it, or you just plain have your head up your ass.
lab~rat >:-)
puked
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo
>
>No your a homo!
-10 points, no comma after "No"
-10 points, "your"
-80 points, AOL
Nice try, please play again.
lab~rat >:-)
<phil....@no.spam.butt.crack> puked
>Sepps are so uptight. Only in America would a 3 second glimpse of a tit
>cause such an uproar. Way to go, prudish Sepps! You're the laughing stalk of
>the world once again!
Your mother laughed her way all the way down my stalk.
EGK
<res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>EGK wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:15:19 GMT, Peachy Ashie Passion
>> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>EGK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What gets me is when people automatically label anyone who does find it
>>>>tasteless as right-wing religious fanatics who have a problem with nudity.
>>>>Her tits aren't even that good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, I just don't get that.
>>> That's the kind of line that makes us women
>>>into insecure appearance conscious freaks.
>>>If that tit isn't a good one, then I don't
>>>know what the hell kind of perfection you
>>>guys are looking for.
>>
>>
>> Not looking for perfection at all. That has nothing to do with it. It's
>> just not that good to make the big deal about it that it's been made in to.
>> I mean geezus, they say it's the most replayed TIVO moment ever. Are people
>> that hard up for a glimpse of a boob?
>
> but you said:
> Her tits aren't even that good.
>
> I mean, GOSH
So what's so special about them then? Looked like a pretty run of the mill
boob to me. Seen better. Seen worse. Certainly wasn't worth all the
uproar over it.
lab~rat >:-)
newsgroups silly) puked
It's getting dumbass, too. Wasn't the statue in front of the Supreme
Court's boobs shrouded a few years back? Real ones are ok, but stone
ones aren't.
David E. Milligan
Well, what can you expect from a slimey, low-rent, piece-of-garbage
creep like JT?
BTR1701
snaptrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:22:41 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> puked
>
> >In article <sq7020liao494057r...@4ax.com>, Roy Batty
> ><royb...@nexus6.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And it's just a body part, for god's sake. We all have them. I've
> >> >never understood this bizarre notion that children have to be protected
> >> >from nudity, that if they see nudity, it will somehow harm them
> >> >psychologically.
> >>
> >> It's not about that you simpleton. Put it into context. It's the act.
> >
> >What about it? If you're going to focus on the act, sparky, then how was
> >it so different from all the other leather-studded bondage sluts
> >prancing about the stage with whips?
>
> So maybe the whole thing was a bad idea.
I don't claim it was either a good idea or a bad idea. Only that this
hysterical handwringing about it is ridiculous. And now we find out the
FCC is going to spend millions of our tax dollars "investigating"
Boob-gate.
Wonderful.
I wish the IRS would just let me flush my money down the toilet myself
instead of paying it to the government. It would be a lot more efficient
and the results would be the same.
> >> Liberal, nonthinking idiot.
> >
> >LOL! This is the first time I have *ever* been accused of being a
> >liberal. You should google me on various newsgroups and see how often
> >real liberals start hysterically crying about me being a "neo-con
> >fascist" whenever I show up.
> >
> >This just cracks me up. Thanks, I'm saving this one for posterity.
> >
> >Of course, it also really underlines exactly who is the non-thinking
> >idiot here.
>
> I think he means liberal in the context of this discussion.
How would you know what he means? He's obviously not the brightest bulb
in the drawer.
> You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of nudity in the
> concept of this discussion, so I imagine that this barb went over your
> head as well.
No, you keep bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball. First, you
focus on the nudity as the object of your concern. Then when it's
pointed out that the sight of a naked human being never hurt anyone, you
say it was the show as a whole, the context that is the real issue.
But if that's the case, then how do you counter the argument that if it
wasn't for the boob, this entire issue wouldn't even be on the radar,
let alone burning up the airwaves.
Do you really think that if Jackson's mammary hadn't made an appearance,
that every major network would be running stories on how "inappropriate"
the "general context" of the Super Bowl halftime show was?
Of course they wouldn't. So no matter what you may claim to the
contrary, the issue most definitely *is* her breast; the furor is over a
body part and nothing more.
BTR1701
snaptrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
LOL! Well, I've got the law and the highest Court in the land backing me
up. So conceding the point, whether you're pretending or not, is
probably a smart move on your part.
BTR1701
snaptrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a more idiotic analogy.
Hint: the fact that the 1st Amendment allows people to be tasteless in
no way impedes the enforcement of obscenity law.
Read up on it, then come back and discuss this intelligently, if that's
even possible.
BTR1701
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:10:59 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <6090205rgqtd4ps8v...@4ax.com>, EGK
> ><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >The argument that rat is making, however, is that the FCC should enforce
> >its rules against CBS and there is no rule against being classless or
> >tasteless.
> >
> >There can't be. The 1st Amendment would make such a rule unenforceable.
>
> That's his argument, not mine. I find it silly to make such a big deal
> about it. On the other hand, it was tasteless and classless and CBS is
> now well within their rights to try and get them booted off the Grammys. No
> one says they have to provide a forum for people to show their lack of class.
Of course. CBS can have whoever it wants on its shows.
BTR1701
snaptrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
Translation: I can't really refute most of your points because your
arguments are based on logic and reason and mine are nothing but
emotion, so I won't even try.
> or lame attempt to argue against something obviously correct
> that I asserted, let me just say that you have your right to enjoy
> watching your pornography all you want.
Yes, I was waiting for this one.
Because I'm not "outraged" over a 1/2 second shot of someone's breast;
because I'm not hysterically wringing my hands and screaming "won't
someone PLEASE think of the cheeeldrun!!"; then I must necessarily spend
all my time watching hard core porn.
You're not the first to try this end-run around all logic and common
sense and you won't be the last.
However, it *does* highlight the puerile depths of your "intellect".
> And while there are plenty of
> venues for you to do that, it's reasonable to expect that SOME venues
> refrain from it. One being the GODDAMMM SUPERBOWL.
Frothing at the mouth now, I see.
And who says sterotypes aren't true?
> If the Superbowl folks decide that halftime will show nudity, fine.
> Let's make sure that we all know about it, so responsible parents can
> make informed decisions whether or not to allow our children to watch
> it. Maybe I really have no problem letting my kids see nudity, but I
> should be prepared to explain to them why someone is ripping clothes
> off of a woman. Maybe I don't want to confront them with that kind of
> thing, should I NEVER allow them to watch tv, even if I'm in the room?
>
> That stupid tit would not signal the end of the world if my kids saw
> it, it's just that it was inappropriate, especially in the context
> that it happened.
>
> Argue that all you want, I love watching retards trying to push
> toothpaste back into the tube.
Behold the irony....
Mark Nobles
<LuXTb.170464$6y6.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Aethelrede <aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Given the American worship of the flag, I find that understandable:
> what's the big deal about JJ flashing her sagging boob? She showed
> everything in Playboy or Penthouse years ago when it was all more
> interesting to look at. And it wasn't all that interesting at that.
That wasn't Janet, it was her big sister LaToya. Pretty much the last
anyone has heard of her. So much for the big career move.
BTR1701
snaptrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> Look, I'm not gonna get all jingoistic on you, you try to do the same.
> Let's just find common ground and say either you don't have children,
And here comes that attitude that people who have chosen to reproduce
always seem to display-- this condescending "you wouldn't understand
because you don't have children" attitude. As if whelping a pup somehow
imbues you with some kind of wisdom that everyone else lacks.
BTR1701
snaptrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:14:07 GMT, "Phil Latio"
> <phil....@no.spam.butt.crack> puked
>
> >Sepps are so uptight. Only in America would a 3 second glimpse of a tit
> >cause such an uproar. Way to go, prudish Sepps! You're the laughing
> >stalk of the world once again!
>
> Your mother laughed her way all the way down my stalk.
Yeah, you're the real standard-bearer for good taste and appropriate
behavior.
Good lord....
Are not newsgroups silly
>toothpaste back into the tube
Wow, that looks like it'd be funny. Where do you go to get video of that...?
:-P
Peachy Ashie Passion
If it's of any assistance whatsoever, I
have myself whelped children. And in fact,
being female, unlike lab~rat, I even put
slightly more effort into it than the mere
having of a moment of pleasure.
And I am raising said children. And they
are acquainted with the fact that women have
breasts.
Thus far this knowledge of human anatomy
has not done them major damage. I promise.
Are not newsgroups silly
> breast feeding or a cancer exam, it would be something totally
> different
Nope...if the breast looks good, I get hard.
>Men have nipples, women have nipples. The only difference is that a
>woman's are more pronounced.
Did a eunuch write this?
Are not newsgroups silly
>have myself whelped children. And in fact,
>being female, unlike lab~rat, I even put
>slightly more effort into it than the mere
>having of a moment of pleasure.
>
> And I am raising said children. And they
>are acquainted with the fact that women have
>breasts.
>
> Thus far this knowledge of human anatomy
>has not done them major damage. I promise.
>
the existence of the female breast before then...and you'll be sick of hearing
it. (Talking about the straight male kids, but you'll hear the same from a
proud lesbian teen, too...)
XIT WOUND
news:5f6v10duq1g9389s5...@4ax.com...
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no homo. I enjoy boobidge as much as any
> red-blooded American, but the half time display (!) was wrong.
>
> 1> It happened on a 'family oriented' program early in the evening.
> While I criticize parents that use TV as a baby sitter, one should be
> able to watch the Superbowl with a reasonable expectation that there
> will be no nudity. And while there was a streaker later in the game,
> it wasn't a sanctioned act.
Family oriented my fucking ass. There is nothing even remotely "family
oriented" about the Superbowl. Let's see, first of all, lets discuss the
game. Grown men beating the shit out of each other, taunting each other,
and swearing at each other. How about the commercials? Well let's see, a
grown man getting bite in the nuts by a dog. A horse farting in someones
face. Two women making out for a beer commercial. Movie trailers depicting
death (Troy and The Alamo), etc. That being said, I don't really care about
any of those things. But there is no fucking way that you can make the
claim that the Superbowl is a "family oriented" program.
> 2> I don't think children necessarily look at Janet Jackson as a role
> model, but acting out in a sexual display by a highlighted performer
> exemplifies an acceptance of lower and lower mores allowed by the
> public.
Get out of the 1800's. Janet has been dancing around "in a sexual display"
for many years. So has Britney, Christina, Madonna, Beyonce, etc. This is
the norm.
> 3> The way that the presentation was applied was an implied sexual
> assault against the will of the female.
I didn't think of it that way, but now that you mention it, it was a little
bit like that. But leave it up to someone to make that connection.
> This sends a message that
> this behavior is somehow acceptable.
No it doesn't. Not at all.
> If all of this happened on HBO on an R rated movie, I would have no
> problem. Fortunately, my kids didn't watch the Superbowl and I wasn't
> in the position to explain anything to them.
You wouldn't have to in the first place. A child would think absolutely
nothing about it. A child would not be like "Daddy why is that man sexually
assaulting that woman?" All they would see is a boob and giggle. And they
would not give it a second thought, period. It's people like you that are
blowing this way out of proportion. This happened on Sunday and you are
still harping on about it. Let it die. If you wouldn't bring it up so
fucking often, it would go away. Three days down the road people (including
children) would forget all about it and you can get your panties in a bunch
over something else stupid.
> And besides, Janet Jackson creeps me out on too many other levels...
Agree. Michael Jackson with boobs.
--
"Gee, I'm awful sorry about this, but you're all sentenced to death..."
- Dolph Lundgren as Sergeant Andrew Scott in Universal Soldier
Aethelrede
XIT WOUND wrote in message
The easiest way to get your way is to whine about "The Children". But
children don't care. They've seen that children have two possible sets of
plumbing, and don't give a damn. When they see a boob it's funny, unless
they have older sisters, or a mother, who don't believe in covering up at
home, when it's just "So what?".
I just wonder how many children who saw that 5 second shot closely
enough were wondering why there was all that metal on the boob and how many
were shocked and traumatised by seeing the tit at all.
It's the damn uptight types who keep this sort of triviality going as a
big deal in the media for weeks. I really don't know why they do, or why
it's so important for them to believe their children are ignorant about
anatomy, or want them to be.
>
>> And besides, Janet Jackson creeps me out on too many other levels...
>
>Agree. Michael Jackson with boobs.
But one day he'll buy a pair of those to make up for the other pair he
has that never worked. Has there ever been a DNA match that proved that
"his" children weren't bought the way most of his appearance was?