Superbowl Halftime

[Danospano]

Okay...I've change my opinion.

I can rationalize it being an accident because of three considerations----

1) If it were planned why didn't Janet apply darker make-up to her boob? Her face is covered with foundation and accessories, yet her boob is noticably paler than her face. Anyone in showbiz who would plan such a stunt would make sure her boobs looked to the ten, right? Hers look like her brother's face, circa 1987; not like Janet Jackson 2004.

2) The nipple device is on both breasts. If you look carefully you can see the imprint on the covered breast. This effect would make her boobs appear more firm and pointy, which would fit with her costume's image. So, it's a fashionable, expensive nipple device...so, it's odd that she would wear one if it was MEANT to be covered and never seen...It could be her good-luck charm...we don't know.

3) Immediately after he ripped her shirt, Jackson covered the boob. She didn't imbellish the moment, so it appears it wasn't intended to occur. Conventional wisdom states that a women covers her breast when she's startled and shy. Jackson may not be shy, but she's never posed nude without covering her nipples.

 

[ABEL]

I want a top with snap-on boob covers.

meggie! maybe you can buy janet's after she puts it up for sale on ebay to make $ to pay back when the FCC and whoever else ends up suing her for that little 'appearance'.


even if she never intended for the the big 'reveal', why would one wear an outfit like that if the possibility existed that it could 'accidentally' come off?

also i've heard some reports say the 'boob' cover part was supposed to come off, but leave the red lacy bra part underneath. if this was true, how come there aren't any signs that it was supposed to stay on? like tattered edges where it tore, or threads showing, etc.

 

[Hewson]

Maybe its just the lighting, but doesn't her boobie look lighter than the rest of her skin? Maybe Michael isn't the only Jackson with that ViggoMortensenialgo or whatever its called skin disorder.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

"next year they're just gonna fly over the stadium and drop piles of dung on the field.
-lewis black

 

[joyfulgirl]

It's a breast, for God's sake. Everyone has seen one, even (perish the thought) CHILDREN. Now we've seen Janet Jackson's which looks like, omg, EVERYONE ELSE'S...with jewelry. What's obscene is the football culture that denigrates women, not Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.



Out with breasts , down with breastphobia, puritanical America and wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.

 

[cass]

I suddenly remembered the Superbowl was on and turned on the telly. U Beauty! 5 minutes till half time. I'll get to see the halftime musical performance
Boy! was that a loooooooong 5 minutes of football...well some football, lots of guys in black and white striped shirts having discussions.I had no idea what was going on. I know I was hoping Carolina would win. Crikes those footy players are big, and such shiny pants
So on with the real entertainment, halftime
did I REALLY see that?...Yes, I did!
I must admit before it got to that "point" I was thinking a guy with as much money as Justin could buy himself a decent pair of trousers. I was also thinking someone should throw a bucket of water on him. He seemed intent on making full body contact...well not full, rear end , contact with Janet.
I heard him referred to as "Justin Trousersnake" on the radio yesterday.
I had been thinking earlier how effective Janet's costume was and how simple the change was. The long white ruffled train for the first song and then the flap thingies. They reminded me of the outfit Michael Jackson wore in "Remember The Time".

The "costume malfunction" looked very staged to me, it looks as though she bought her costume at the local bondage shop...I think it is meant to be exposed . I think the term "costume malfunction" shall join "collateral damage" and "weapons of mass destruction"
There was a report about it last night on the Aussie TV news and unfortunately Bono was pictured in the same article.
After the news, the Simpson's came on and in the opening scene Homer threw a burning log down his dad's neck, he rolled Bart and Lisa up in the floor rug and beat them with a baseball bat and Marge shot Homer with a machine gun so opening title was written on the wall in blood...what's more shocking? Bono saying fucking brilliant?
I'm glad you called it beautiful joyfulgirl. Someone earlier in this thread caled it big...and that's had me troubled...'tis not big...is it?

A storm in a D cup..........

 

[fah]

Thanks Cass couldn't have said it better.

There lots of worse things to be 'outraged' about and most of them we see on tv or read in the paper everyday.

 

[meegannie]

It's a breast, for God's sake. Everyone has seen one, even (perish the thought) CHILDREN. Now we've seen Janet Jackson's which looks like, omg, EVERYONE ELSE'S...with jewelry. What's obscene is the football culture that denigrates women, not Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.



Out with breasts , down with breastphobia, puritanical America and wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.

I think American football is more offensive than a half topless Janet Jackson.

Good thing I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here doesn't air in the US sine John Lydon just called the British public 'f**king c*nts' (I censored that for the children ) on live TV for not voting him off.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's a breast, for God's sake. Everyone has seen one, even (perish the thought) CHILDREN. Now we've seen Janet Jackson's which looks like, omg, EVERYONE ELSE'S...with jewelry. What's obscene is the football culture that denigrates women, not Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.



Out with breasts , down with breastphobia, puritanical America and wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.

Aaaaaaaannnnnnd thank you! I could not agree more.

My family and I were discussing this yesterday, and a good point was made, if Janet had ripped Justin's shirt open, exposing his moobs, nobody would've said a word. But heaven forbid a girl's breast is exposed.

Angela

 

[zoney!]

Good thing I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here doesn't air in the US sine John Lydon just called the British public 'f**king c*nts' (I censored that for the children ) on live TV for not voting him off.

"Anger is an energy!"

I want to see this show so bad!

 

[U2girl]

is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Yes but isn't Superbowl supposed to be a kind of thing the whole family should be able to watch?
What message will the little kids get from that - Justin is a cool guy for getting away with it? It's ok to expose a woman like that? (let's not even think about any possible perverts watching)

Domestic abuse and women social status is a different topic.


The equivalent of that would not be Janet exposing Justin's chest but his crotch IMO. (and while we're at it, there's already a lot more female exposure - bras/tight top pictures - in the media than male anyway)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I agree U2girl, and I agree w/ what Spike Lee said..

NEW YORK (AP) - Film director Spike Lee criticized Janet Jackson's surprise breast-baring during the Super Bowl halftime show last weekend as a ``new low'' of attention-getting antics by entertainers.

Lee, speaking at Kent State University's regional campus in Stark County, Ohio, on Tuesday night, said there has been a decline in artistry.

He said it's not enough to be a good singer, and that entertainers ``have to do something extra'' - such as the openmouthed kiss Madonna gave Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera during the MTV Video Music Awards in August.

``What's gonna be next? It's getting crazy, and it's all down to money. Money and fame,'' said Lee, the director of ``Malcolm X'' and ``Do the Right Thing.'' ``Somehow the whole value system has been upended.''

Last time I checked, the Super Bowl halftime isn't a strip show-there are plenty of places to see that. There should still be certain standards of decency upheld. That's all I want to say, because I'm not in the mood to be attacked

 

[Hewson]

Of course thats just Spike Lee getting some publicity off the incident as well.

 

[meegannie]

"Anger is an energy!"

I want to see this show so bad!

http://celebrity.granadainteractive.com/news.shtml

I'm addicted.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Yes but isn't Superbowl supposed to be a kind of thing the whole family should be able to watch?
What message will the little kids get from that - Justin is a cool guy for getting away with it? It's ok to expose a woman like that? (let's not even think about any possible perverts watching)

I know a few parents have said that their children thought it was disgusting, too. I don't think kids are automatically going to assume that because Justin and Janet did this that it's okay for them to do it, too. Most kids are smarter than that. Besides, assuming it did have some affect on those watching, why do people always worry about the effects this will have on children? Adults could just as easily get the wrong message.

Besides, most kids wouldn't even be giving this a second thought if parents, the media, and the FCC weren't making a huge deal out of it. Now kids who saw it are never going to forget about it, and those that didn't, some of them will start looking around for the uncensored pics on the internet and stuff, just to "see what they missed". If people didn't continue to make a huge deal about this stuff, kids would never give it a second thought.

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.

Originally posted by U2girl
Domestic abuse and women social status is a different topic.

How does that come about from this? So he exposed her boob...that automatically means that women are being degraded (if a woman chooses to reveal herself, how does that automatically degrade every other woman out there? I don't feel degraded when I see women in revealing clothing) or that it's promoting domestic abuse or something?

Originally posted by U2girl
The equivalent of that would not be Janet exposing Justin's chest but his crotch IMO. (and while we're at it, there's already a lot more female exposure - bras/tight top pictures - in the media than male anyway)

True, but the point is, they're still covered by something. Guys don't have to cover themselves up at all when they're on TV. Nobody ever worries about how degrading a guy walking around shirtless may be to other men-the guys sit at home and watch their girlfriends fawning over these muscular men-you don't think that bothers a few of them, makes them wonder how in shape they are? Nobody goes and investigates it, or worries about the message it'll send to young kids. Why must it be so different for women?

And guys wear tight tank tops all the time, just as girls wear tight tank tops. But if a guy wears them, again, nobody says a word. If a girl does, some worry that it might be bringing some unnecessary attention to things or something.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

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.

 

[joyfulgirl]

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.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: Re: Re: is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Yep ^^^^.

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

 

[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.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

^ 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

 

[fah]

^ 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.

 

[The Absent One]

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!

 

[meegannie]

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!

 

[nbcrusader]

Sam, Valentines day is just around the corner. Go shopping!

 

[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.

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)

 

[joyfulgirl]

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.

 

[U2girl]

never mind

 

[BAW]

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.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

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.