Superbowl Halftime - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-04-2004, 10:59 AM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Re: Re: is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
All the parents need to do is to make sure that their kids know that just because someone did it on TV, that doesn't mean they have to do it as well. But I really don't think it's gonna have some negative effect on kids to begin with.
Just remember, you cannot erase images from a child's mind. If adults want to see bare breats on their televisions, they have plenty of options.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 11:53 AM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hewson
Of course thats just Spike Lee getting some publicity off the incident as well.
He snubbed me on the street once when I smiled at him and he gave me that 'whatchu looking at you stupid bitch" look and I am still holding it against him.

America is obsessed with the celebrity culture. The media covers every stupid, mundane or outrageous thing they do like it was a matter of life and death, people sit at home watching E! following celebrities' every move, and then they cry outrage! obscenity! indecency! when celebrities push the envelope and do the very kinds of things that they became popular for doing.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 12:33 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Re: Re: Re: is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Yep ^^^^.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Just remember, you cannot erase images from a child's mind. If adults want to see bare breats on their televisions, they have plenty of options.
Yes. But most kids I've talked to either found it just as disgusting as some other people did, or they really don't care one way or the other. What exactly is it people are worried kids will do upon seeing that? None of the kids I know are feeling an urge to go around flashing every person in sight or ripping the clothes off others after seeing that clip, so I fail to understand what the big bad influence here is.

Like I said, if parents, the media, and the FCC didn't feel this urge to make a huge deal out of it, the kids would forget about it not long after they saw it anyway. And those that missed it altogether would've been none the wiser. I didn't see the actual event myself, and wouldn't have even known what happened had nobody made a ruckus about it.

Besides, some images are hard to erase from adults' minds, too.

I just think we should give kids more credit. Most of them are smart enough to know that just because someone does something on TV, that doesn't mean that they have to do it, too. They're going to be influenced by what their own family and friends do long before they get influenced by someone on TV.

I don't understand why people keep expecting celebrities to become surrogate parents for all the children out there. They're not the ones raising these kids, you are ("you" meaning the non-famous general public). They shouldn't have to do it for anybody.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-04-2004, 12:40 PM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 08:45 AM
^ Exactly. When I was a kid in the 60's it was the images of the Vietnam War and the starving children in Africa on TV and Life magazine that were the most disturbing, NOT the naked people dancing in the rain at Woodstock.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 12:49 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
^ Exactly. When I was a kid in the 60's it was the images of the Vietnam War and the starving children in Africa on TV and Life magazine that were the most disturbing, NOT the naked people dancing in the rain at Woodstock.
Exactly.

My dad, when we were talking about this the other day, told me that the guy who publishes that Hustler magazine made an argument similar to yours when he went to court back in the 70s, 'cause he'd had a magazine come out where a girl was completely nude on the cover, and there was nothing strategically placed. And he was taken to court on "obscenity" charges.

He held up the latest issue of Time or Newsweek...can't remember which one it was, and on the cover was a picture of a little Vietnamese girl running from her burning village, and she was completely nude, nothing covered her, either. And he said something to the effect of, "Maybe if I'd shown something being blown up behind the girl on the cover of my magazine, maybe if I'd used a wartime picture for her to be in, it wouldn't be considered obscene then." And he won that case based on that argument.

The nightly news deals with things much worse than Janet exposing her boob on TV, but I don't hear anyone crying out for censorship of the nightly news. An exposed boob has never hurt or killed anybody. It happened, there's nothing anybody can do to go back and change the whole thing, in the grand scheme of things, it's really not all that horrible, so why people are so upset over it is beyond me.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-04-2004, 01:06 PM   #81
fah
Blue Crack Addict
 
fah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In my house with the rest of fahs
Posts: 20,147
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
^ Exactly. When I was a kid in the 60's it was the images of the Vietnam War and the starving children in Africa on TV and Life magazine that were the most disturbing, NOT the naked people dancing in the rain at Woodstock.


As a parent I find it more difficult to explain things like murder, war, drunk drivers, guns, aids and drugs than a woman's breast.
__________________
fah is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 01:55 PM   #82
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norwich
Posts: 136
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



Did Sam post this?
Strangely enough i didnt. I really need to get on the ball a bit more, its a poor showing when Meggie's more lewd than me!
__________________
The Absent One is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 01:56 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Absent One


Strangely enough i didnt. I really need to get on the ball a bit more, its a poor showing when Meggie's more lewd than me!
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 01:58 PM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Sam, Valentines day is just around the corner. Go shopping!
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 02:11 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Moonlight_Angela: sure, some kids may not care about it, but who's to say all of them react like that? How can you be certain someone - child or adult (like I said, perverts could have been watching) - won't get the wrong idea? TV can be an influence on impressionable people.

It's true the incident was talked about more because the FCC and the media raised all the ruckus, but then again, just how much can a celebrity do without being talked about anyway?

Exactly, parents should be the ones to explain certain things - be it nudity or other topics mentioned on this page - to their children on their own, without the media or celebrities bombarding them when it's too soon.

(I mentioned domestic abuse and female social status because others linked it to this story)

Yes, I do think women exposing themselves is degrading. Because it promotes the idea that every woman should look like that - in this looks-obsessed society, it makes everyday women feel bad because not all of them have matching looks, suggests a woman should act like that,
and not all of them appreciate being called names and being portrayed "easy" in, say, rap videos. What's the point of being reduced to a piece of meat?

It is unfair that guys' chest get no comments and it is a double standard - yet off the top of my head I can recall seeing a lot more magazine covers or TV commercials with barely dressed women than men. Why isn't there a 50-50 ratio?

(showing a picture of a little girl is not the same as showing a picture of a grown woman)
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 02:53 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
How can you be certain someone - child or adult (like I said, perverts could have been watching) - won't get the wrong idea? TV can be an influence on impressionable people
What exactly is the 'wrong idea'? What difference does it make if a 'pervert' is watching? Perverts watch all kinds of things on TV. What if a serial killer is watching a film on TV about serial killers and gets some good ideas? What if a pedophile is watching a peanut butter commercial that has children in it? I don't get your point.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 03:17 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 04:45 PM
never mind
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:19 PM   #88
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 07:45 AM
I don't have a problem with Janet's breast...the human body is beautiful and I'm not offended by the sight of a bare breast. If Janet posed nude in a magazine, I would probably look and not be the least bit bothered by it. What does bother me is the fact someone with a career as long as Janet Jackson's felt the need to cheapen herself by pulling such a stupid stunt to get attention for her new CD.

She's not an 18 year old brand new to the music business...she shouldn't have to do this to get attention.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 08:03 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 09:45 AM
See, that I agree with ^^^^. No established artist should ever have to pull any goofy stunts to get attention. Janet's fans would love her and support her and buy her albums no matter what she did.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Moonlight_Angela: sure, some kids may not care about it, but who's to say all of them react like that? How can you be certain someone - child or adult (like I said, perverts could have been watching) - won't get the wrong idea? TV can be an influence on impressionable people.
Like stated already, who determines what the "wrong idea" is? And if the parents, instead of immediately saying that they shouldn't watch certain shows 'cause of questionable content, or demanding things be banned or censored, talk to their kids and explain to them that they shouldn't act that way just because someone on TV did, then kids will not do it. The more restrictive parents become, the more likely their kids are going to rebel and wind up doing this sort of thing. If you confront it head on and not make a huge fuss about it, kids won't do it.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
It's true the incident was talked about more because the FCC and the media raised all the ruckus, but then again, just how much can a celebrity do without being talked about anyway?
People can talk about it without making them out to be horrible, horrible people for what they've done.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Exactly, parents should be the ones to explain certain things - be it nudity or other topics mentioned on this page - to their children on their own, without the media or celebrities bombarding them when it's too soon.
Yep.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
(I mentioned domestic abuse and female social status because others linked it to this story)

Yes, I do think women exposing themselves is degrading. Because it promotes the idea that every woman should look like that - in this looks-obsessed society, it makes everyday women feel bad because not all of them have matching looks, suggests a woman should act like that,
and not all of them appreciate being called names and being portrayed "easy" in, say, rap videos. What's the point of being reduced to a piece of meat?
All of that could be said about guys, too, first off. I guess guys with muscles should never parade around on the beaches anymore, 'cause everyday guys sitting at home with their girlfriends or wives will see the girls fawning all over those men and feel like they have to measure up, feel inferior. It's not just women who feel self-conscious about their looks.

Second, again, let's give women some credit here. Most of them are smart enough to know that just because a woman looks a certain way in a magazine or a TV show, that doesn't automatically mean they have to look exactly like them. And if the images in a magazine or on a TV show bother you so much, then don't look at them.

We all have the ability to think for ourselves. The publishers of a magazine have never forced a woman to dress like someone on their cover. It's up to us whether or not we want to look that way.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
It is unfair that guys' chest get no comments and it is a double standard - yet off the top of my head I can recall seeing a lot more magazine covers or TV commercials with barely dressed women than men. Why isn't there a 50-50 ratio?
I agree here, it should all be distributed equally.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
(showing a picture of a little girl is not the same as showing a picture of a grown woman)
Why not? If the context was different, heck, it could, in some people's eyes, be seen as child porn or something along those lines. And the whole scene she was involved in-murder, destruction, her being homeless and probably parentless, no food, clothing, shelter...

At least the girl on the cover of the Hustler magazine didn't have to worry about a bomb being dropped on her head, and she could go to a nice, warm home and food and have ample amounts of clothes for herself at home.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-04-2004, 09:23 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 08:45 AM
when i was in elementary school in the 80s... I just moved to CA (in the OC) and enrolled in 4th grade... it was kinda of a culture shock since I was from TX... but man, 8 yr. old kids going on about pornographic details about sex, and watching movies like Porky's, Revenge of the Nerds, National Vaction series... and I didn't even have access to such adult rated-R movies until high school.

i guess what i'm trying to get at is... however much the American public tries to shield its children... IMHO, children are probably already easily corrupted with or without TV scenes like that Superbowl Halftime... a lot of things are still taboo in America.
__________________

__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com