Yet Another Janet Post (but still a good read, I hope)

[scottcsmith]

What an odd culture we live in. For a few seconds last night, Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed during a dance number with Justin Timberlake.

People are having seizures over this.

Why? A breast on TV for two seconds is going to corrupt the children? I'm sure O'Reilly will be on this one. How pathetic.

Yet these same people who would call CBS to complain about the breast probably watch (with their kids) WWE Smack down. Smack down, which airs on UPN during the "family" hour, is basically an hour of men and women beating each other to bloody pulps. That's okay for the kids. But not a breast.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made many a movie where he brandished all kinds of weapons. These movies have been shown in prime-time. Did people complain about the guns? I bet not.

What a contrast: the breast, used to deliver nourishment to a baby and thus sustain life, is taboo on television; yet the gun, a weapon with the sole purpose of taking a life, is perfectably acceptable. The sex in a movie will get edited out, but a lot of the violence will be left in.

Will we ever be enlightened as a culture to accept the naked human body as something of beauty and not solely sexual?

I'd guess not.

[ronnykmarshall]

1. But, but .....

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???????

[latebloomer]

2. I think women should walk around with no shirts

as long as it's warm enough.

Then maybe, finally, it would become so commonplace to see tits that we'd get over this nonsense!

Plus, it would have the added benefit of driving John Ashcroft out of his diseased mind!

[jean]

5. you don't think that Industry, as we know it, would grind to a halt?

[acmavm]

3. My 11-year old saw it and laughed. He thought it was stupid. I have a

feeling that the kid's been over to his friend's houses and they've found the 'big brothers' stash of Penthouse and Playboys (just something I overheard). So I don't think that he was too overly impressed with what happened yesterday. I'm not advocating that kids look at porn, but hells bells, like it isn't something that kids haven't been looking at in National Geographic since I was a kid. Flip on cable t.v. I have to watch him like a hawk to see what he's watching on there.

[Toby109]

4. "The Boob that Ate the Super Bowl or

How George W. Bush "won" the 2000 election."

Coming soon to a theater near you.

[anti-NAFTA]

6. I for one happen to think it was lamentable.

I have no problem with the breast as a thing of beauty. I have lived in southern France where women sunbathe topless. There's nothing wrong with that. The thing is that Justin Timberlake's little act showed him rip off Janet Jackson's shirt or whatever you'd call it. That's overtly sexual and has no place on national television.

And who the hell wants to see Janet Jackson's breasts anyway? She looks like Michael Jackson (same plastic surgeon, I guess) so much that it's scary.

[WildClarySage]

7. I could care less about boobs on TV

after all, nobody said anything when * appeared for the SOTU. That was a much longer look at a boob than Janet's flash.

But seriously, I do worry about the message it sends to show a woman's shirt being torn off and her breast exposed to everyone. I work in a domestic violence and Sexual Assault agency, and it's pretty alarming to hear the justifications people use when being held accountable for unacceptable behavior.

[mzmolly]

8. I agree it's just a boob, but I think of the Super Bowl as a family affair

sooo? While it wouldn't freak me out, it's up to each family to decide what's appropriate for their kiddos. I don't think everyone across America wanted to explain to their 5 year olds why Janet Jackson flashed her fake tit across American teles.... I also agree that Justin Timberlake *ripping* off her leather boob holder was also over the top.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. The Superbowl as a Family affair

One word.

Just one:

Beer.

Now tell me how a flash of titty is any worse than the constant promotion of alcohol to The Children during "family TV time".

I'm glad it happened. Not out of any love for Janet's breast, but for the phony outrage it created.

--bkl

[WildClarySage]

10. I agree that it needed to be done if only to jolt people out of this

idiotic hypocrisy, but I wish they had chosen to approach it in a way that doesn't mimic sexual assault.

[mzmolly]

13. Because *beer* commercials are expected, Tits are not

I change the channel for commercials personally. Again, it's about expectations.

You don't have to add me to the list of *phony outraged* people to understand my point...

I resent the constant objectification of women in our society. I have a young daughter to think about. It's not about *sexuality* it's about how women are treated/viewed in our society.

If I view naked women in a respectful manner at say a museum, I haven't an issue with it. In fact my child is welcome to appreciate nudity in the right context.

However I agree that there were violent overtones to this scene.

You won't see Justin's pants ripped off anytime soon so we can gander at his grapes will you? Then again, perhaps we can put in a request for next years superbowl ;)

[anti-NAFTA]

11. Agreed.

It's testament to a morally bankrupt society.

[WildClarySage]

12. What I meant is

overt sexuality is ok, preferable to violence... I would prefer that one day my children grow to enjoy sexuality rather than violence. But the boobieshow was more about sexual violence than sex.

I really don't believe we're a morally bankrupt society, though. Must be that I'm optimist.

[mzmolly]

14. I agree. And, again it's about the right for families to decide what's

appropriate for their children. I often consume a beer or two, but I have yet to have my husband rip my shirt off in front of my kiddos.

Again, if it were expected and a choice, that'd be one thing... So I say, tune into spice if you want to view fake boobs...

Also, I find it ironic that the MOVEON commercial was too *riskay* while the JJ tit scene was apparently not? Someone explain that to me???

I choose not to watch T & A commercials during football, and not to subject my daugther to the objectification of women. And I am glad we missed the half time show so I didn't have to explain it...

Adding it was supposedly an accident?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/superbowl.jackson/index.html

"Jackson spokesman Stephen Huvane said the incident "was a malfunction of the wardrobe; it was not intentional. ... He was supposed to pull away the bustier and leave the red-lace bra."