Superbowl Halftime - Page 7 - 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 02-05-2004, 06:01 AM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Angela: if it's all that harmless, then why do you think all the fuss about it happened? The show could just as easy been done without it, and it would still get covered by the media. There was no need for that stunt IMO, it was tasteless, done at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'd rather see a child hear dirty words than get thrown that kind of images.

I have yet to hear or read about a guy feeling insecure about muscular guys.
I agree women are smart and not all feel they need to measure up to the TV and media. But maybe some do feel offended and insecure at the media hype that a woman is portrayed as a supermodel body in this society - let's not forget peer pressure or a commercial that suggest you absolutely need something or your life is incomplete . That should be adressed and I don't think girls like that should just not watch TV or not read the media at all.

Because a little girl, unlike a grown woman, does not suggest sexual context. (assuming of course, perverts or pedofiles aren't considered) And if you mean the famous Vietnam pic, it wasn't even about the girl but the context of war and all that comes along with it - on the other hand, the woman in Playboy has, by definition of the magazine's history, no relevant context or message but a sexual one.
__________________

__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 10:54 AM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bono's American Wife
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.
I don't disagree with you here. But that's a slightly different issue than the cries of obscenity. Who knows what her motivation was. I have a feeling there's more to it than just getting attention to promote the record. Maybe she's pissed about how the media has crucified her brother (whether he's guilty or innocent) and maybe it was kind of a f**k you to them--like, "Here's something to talk about, have at it." I don't agree with it but Janet is not a bimbo, she's a highly intelligent person and I would be surprised if her motives were so simplistic.

__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 02:13 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 12:25 AM
If she was trying to make some kind of point about how puritanical and hypocritical Americans are about sexuality, it might be different. But it seems to me she was ONLY doing it to get publicity. She didn't even have the guts to come out and say, "Yeah, I did it, so what?" like Madonna would.

Then again, maybe it WAS a "wardrobe malfunction." I seriously doubt it, but who really knows?
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 02:27 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 11:25 PM
NFL changed the pro-bowl halftime show, getting rid of JC from N*stynk and relpacing him with Hula Dancers and conch-blowers!

__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 04:07 PM   #95
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: 19,256
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Angela: if it's all that harmless, then why do you think all the fuss about it happened? The show could just as easy been done without it, and it would still get covered by the media.
Yes, but the talk would've been more about the game, about the scores, about the plays, and perhaps there would've been some discussion about what performances were people's favorites and stuff.

I honestly don't know why people are making a huge fuss over this. It's nothing people haven't seen before. It was for two seconds and then it was done. We have more important, more serious issues to be upset over than Janet's breast being exposed for a couple of minutes.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
There was no need for that stunt IMO, it was tasteless, done at the wrong place at the wrong time.
And that's the point-that's your personal opinion. Others liked it, others didn't care and wanted to go to the next topic of discussion. If you're personally offended, hey, that's fine, not everyone likes certain things and you have every right to be. But this whole investigation thing from the FCC, parents demanding censorship, all that...it's just gone overboard.

My dad told me yesterday that the FCC claimed to have gotten 6,500 letters complaining about that incident. That seems like a lot...until you consider that there's about 285 million people in this country. So that's a very large portion of people who didn't write in because they didn't care and weren't as bothered about it. The majority of the country just wants everyone to move on and stop making such a huge production out of this. Not saying that nobody should listen to those 6,500 people's complaints, but what exactly can they do now? It happened Sunday night, they can't rewind time and censor it ahead of time.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I'd rather see a child hear dirty words than get thrown that kind of images.
Some people would rather kids hear and see neither, some would rather kids experience one and not the other, and some would rather kids hear and see both, because it's out there and they might as well realize it's out there now. That's something solely for the parents to decide. The government, celebrities, and the FCC shouldn't be taking over the role of parents and deciding that stuff for them.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I have yet to hear or read about a guy feeling insecure about muscular guys.
There have been stories of men who've had anorexia, or who've taken steroids to try and bulk up. And the guys who go to the gym and work out-what do you think a lot of them are doing that for? They've seen a girl they may be interested in fawning all over a muscular man, and as a result feel inferior because they aren't as muscular, and go to the gym to try and look like the muscular guys. They want to impress us as much as we want to impress them.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I agree women are smart and not all feel they need to measure up to the TV and media. But maybe some do feel offended and insecure at the media hype that a woman is portrayed as a supermodel body in this society -
Actually, a lot of women have made comments about that. I've even heard a lot of teenage girls complaining about how the girls in the magazines they read are stick thin, and they wish that bigger girls were put into magazines (and as a result, in a good deal of magazines, bigger girls are put in). Most girls are now realizing that you do not have to look like the skinny girls in a magazine. Most girls realize that if something offends them, they do not have to read it anymore, or they can help to change it so that girls their size are shown as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
let's not forget peer pressure or a commercial that suggest you absolutely need something or your life is incomplete .
And most people are smart enough to not do something just because someone told them to. Nobody at these magazines or on the TV shows have ever held guns to girls' heads and demanded they look a certain way.

And anyone who does give in to peer pressure has had insecurities for a very long time, long before they saw some girl in a magazine in a skimpy outfit or whatever. Nobody around them-friends, family, whatever-has helped them feel like they are important, that they're fine just the way they are. That's where the root of the problem lies.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
That should be adressed and I don't think girls like that should just not watch TV or not read the media at all.
It has been addressed, as I mentioned, and I don't know what else people can do. If something offends me, I don't watch it or read it or listen to it or do it. I don't understand why that's such a hard thing for some people to do. A woman can stand there naked on a cover, but she cannot make me look like her. That's something that I decide whether or not I want to do. It's my fault if the results turn out bad, not hers.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Because a little girl, unlike a grown woman, does not suggest sexual context. (assuming of course, perverts or pedofiles aren't considered) And if you mean the famous Vietnam pic, it wasn't even about the girl but the context of war and all that comes along with it - on the other hand, the woman in Playboy has, by definition of the magazine's history, no relevant context or message but a sexual one.
The point is that the Hustler guy got in trouble because he had a naked girl on his cover. If the people who got upset with him say it's obscene to have a naked girl on the cover of a magazine, period, then the owners of every other magazine that's ever had a naked girl on the cover, no matter what the context, should have been in trouble, too. But if they're allowed to have a naked girl on their cover in a certain context, he should be allowed to have a naked girl on his cover in his own context. That's all he was getting at.

Besides, it was Hustler magazine-what did those who were so offended expect was going to be on the cover? If it's a porn magazine, I would think people would expect porn-related things to be on the cover. If it's a news magazine, news-related things will be on the cover. And so on and so forth.

Also, yeah, the little girl was running from a war scene, but nobody ever demanded that magazine be censored. I hardly ever hear people demanding that the news be censored, no matter how horrible the images. People merely turn off the news if it bothers them. Why should it be different with entertainment-oriented things?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 05:33 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,470
Local Time: 12:25 AM
I think the main point that people are missing is, regardless of how you feel about Janet's exposed breast, there was no warning of its appearance. Thats the difference between this and say, NYPD Blue or something. People were watching a halftime musical(I use that term loosely) perfomance, and there was no TV-MA rating beforehand, or a disclaimer..."viewer discretion adivsed", or anything of the sort. When people tune into Cinemax at midnight on a Friday, they know what to expect. When they tune into a sporting event or musical(again, loose interpretation here) performance, they should expect a certain level of decorum. If a warning were flashed, people who were watching with children or sensitive Chihuahuas or whatever could have switched away and not been caught off guard by something they might find offensive, and those who wanted to see Mr. Milky could have stayed tuned in.
__________________
Hewson is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 06:09 PM   #97
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 05:25 AM
I found Nelly's crotch-grabbing much more offensive than any breast exposure. Why do ostensibly grown men do this? What does it say about them?
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 06:15 PM   #98
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 04:25 PM
I am just amazed at how much attention this Janet Jackson boob thing has got, I mean it even made the morning news here on the Today show, and ya know what, they showed the whole thing and myself and probably most other Aussies were like 'is that it', either a lot of Americans are extrememly conservative or Miss Jackson has got all of the publicity that she was hoping for
__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 06:33 PM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:25 PM
Quote:
Miss Jackson has got all of the publicity that she was hoping for
Nothing more, nothing less - just a cheeseball stunt for attention
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-05-2004, 11:47 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:25 AM
I see this whole issue as not as the wrong body part being flashed on TV, but as the arrogance a lot of celebrities have. So many of them are spoiled rotten, everything they want is given to them, and they get away with the things ordinary people wouldn't. I mean, that guy dancing around in the G-string gets arrested, but nothing happens to Janet for indecent exposure, and to Justin for participating. If an ordinary guy and girl did the same thing, something would've happened to them on the spot. But as for Janet and Justin, no. They're celebrities, they're worth millions of dollars, they're world-famous, they can get away with it.

That's why I really hope something happens to Justin and Janet, like anyone else. This whole thing of celebrities getting a slap on the wrist for things other people can't get away with as easily is completely ridiculous and even sickening.

Just my two cents.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 02-06-2004, 01:10 AM   #101
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: 19,256
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hewson
I think the main point that people are missing is, regardless of how you feel about Janet's exposed breast, there was no warning of its appearance. Thats the difference between this and say, NYPD Blue or something. People were watching a halftime musical(I use that term loosely) perfomance, and there was no TV-MA rating beforehand, or a disclaimer..."viewer discretion adivsed", or anything of the sort. When people tune into Cinemax at midnight on a Friday, they know what to expect. When they tune into a sporting event or musical(again, loose interpretation here) performance, they should expect a certain level of decorum. If a warning were flashed, people who were watching with children or sensitive Chihuahuas or whatever could have switched away and not been caught off guard by something they might find offensive, and those who wanted to see Mr. Milky could have stayed tuned in.
That's the thing about live TV, though-there've been enough shocking things that have happened on live TV to not expect that something shocking could happen here, too. If it hadn't been Janet's breast showing, it could've been something else, like a couple of players getting into a fistfight, or a brawl between fans, or whatever. Anything could've happened. This time, it just happened to be a girl's body part showing, and even then, it was only for a couple of seconds, and then it was over.

Also, najeena, that's a good point...you hardly ever hear any outcry about guys grabbing themselves. Why is this any worse?

And when exactly did the Super Bowl become "family entertainment", anyway? I mean, I know some families do watch it together, but it's never really been promoted as something "the whole family can watch", it's never claimed to be an innocent, harmless event.

Bottom line, nobody got hurt or killed as a result of Janet's breast being shown on TV, so why do people care so much?

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel 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 12:25 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