Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:
Assuming the Super Bowl can be considered "Other Science Fiction," does anyone want to see the Janet Jackson's half time Boob Flash everyone is talking about?

I say, there's no way that was an accident. Seems obvious it was planned.

Download the Video Clip (2 MB)
http://www.new-homes-in-utah.com/janet.wmv

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shiny:
but would she have been wearing such an elaborate (and uncomfortable-looking) nipple 'ring' if it were not planned in advance?

RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

Her medal pastie makes her look guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Werespaz:
It seems like something that could have easily been planned, but with "plausible deniability". After all, controversy creates exposure (no pun intended.. well, yes it was) and it would be a great way for Janet to get some additional press (as if 10 million viewers wasn't enough).

-The SpAz

---

Quote:

---

It's a breast, fer chrissakes.
For people that are screaming "What about the children?!" Well...a lot of those "children" were probaby clamped onto a breast not too long ago.
They've seen it.
I guess now, by the time they're not on a breast anymore, they've been brainwashed to believe that breasts are dirty. Shame, that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:
A viewer has a reasonable expectaion that fear factor will be nasty...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:

As the father of a baby girl and young son, I should be able to have the peace of mind that I can watch the superbowl without fear of exposing my children to such overt sexual themes including grinding. Then, top it off with a man ripping the top off of a woman... Then to watch them trip over themselves pretending initially like it was all unstaged? Be real...
If unplanned, I believe the term that they should be considering is ASSAULT. If planned, then they deliberately ignored the rating of the show.

Anyone that cannot understand why people would be angry about this, I can only hope are not currently raising children... It is a LEGITIMATE grievance to have expectations that ratings systems are adherred to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Werespaz:
While I'll be the first to agree that America is way too uptight about nudity and, to a certain degree, agree with that CBS public relations woman who said, "What's the big deal, it's just a boob". I also have to agree with what gruesome said, parents who care about what thier kids watch, and are exposed to probably felt that the superbowl was a descent family oriented program.

I guess my point it this, I don't really care about the "content" of the "shocking event" at the superbowl, but the timing. The superbowl is supposed to be rated what? G? Had something like that occured during Wild on E! or some other show most parents would let their kids watch, I'd say, "Big Freaking Deal!!" Ultimately it was a huge publicity stunt (whether the "undergarment" part was supposed to come off or not) and the best way to handle someone desparate for publicity is to ignore them. So for my official recommendation - Haken, delete this thread, and lets never speak of it again! (besides I've already save the picture for my personal *ahem* reference). Or whatever..... Ignore her, and she might just go away...


-The SpAz

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Have you seen what kind of crap they have on MTV (all 3 channels of it?) nowadays?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Have you seen what kind of crap they have on MTV (all 3 channels of it?) nowadays?

---

No.

Based upon your response, should I now assume that you are someone that does not understand how I could be angry about them having behaved that way on a show during primetime that was not rated anything for sexually explicit content?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:
While I appreciate your thoughts on it, I will stick to my anger on the matter and try to take steps to FIX the problem rather than your approach of simple review and avoidance...

If you want to simply accept crap like that, its certainly your right to do so, but again, I'd ask that you simply accept the idea that *I* choose not to feel that way and want things changed. By voicing my view on this in as many places as possible, I try to ensure that I am heard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:
You keep saying that I should preview what is on before my kids are around as if I do NOT...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:


Let me say this quite simply. This is NOT the first superbowl and half-time craptacular that I have watched. If you must insist that I understand what is about to be aired, let me say that the 30 or so superbowls that I have watched consisted of no grinding followed by the physical tearing off of a woman's clothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:


I am not a prude. I watch and enjoy all sorts of shows that I also have no intention of exposing my kids to until they are much older.

That having been said, all I asked was whether you really had trouble understanding why I could be mad about what happened on Sunday. You CLAIM that you do not understand my anger, yet make other statements that imply to me that you do...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:
Anyone that cannot understand why people would be angry about this, I can only hope are not currently raising children... It is a LEGITIMATE grievance to have expectations that ratings systems are adherred to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:
I think this may be my last point here as I am apparently NOT getting my point accross clearly...

I *DO NOT* care if there is nudity on television. Skinemax has it all the time. Some of it is even pretty good. But Skinemax also quite clearly LABELS their content and I can quickly and easily KNOW what is appropriate for my family. THATS WHY THERE ARE RATINGS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:




The point is NOT whether there was a breast exposed per se. Its the manner in which it was exposed and the context in which it was exposed. Nudity in and of itself is fine and I agree that our culture is somewhat puritannical in that regard. My wife is card carrying la leche league and is QUITE familiar with the ostricization associated with breast feeding. But NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the SEXUALLY EXPLICIT and even BORDERLINE VIOLENT nature of TEARING A WOMANS CLOTHING OFF.

The rating systems exist NOT to sensor anything, but to give people reasonable guidelines in their decision making about what will contain content that may be inappropriate either for themselves if they choose to feel that way, or more to MY point, that I *DO NOT* want my kids being indoctrinated to the current trends that imply that sex at a VERY young age is not only acceptable but practically ENCOURAGED if you want to be cool.

So, I fall back to my ORIGINAL statement that I find it INSANE that ANYONE couldn't understand WHY I could be MAD about what happened on sunday. The traditions of the superbowl and the very spirit and intent of the rating system was ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knibblet:
We understand what you're saying. You are mad because instead of the 'G' rated 'Up With People' extravaganza you expected would be aired during a game broadcast around the world, you got a bump and grind number with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake.

What we're saying is ... dah! What did you expect.

Sure, it's irritating. Annoying and, in your opinion, obscene. You didn't enjoy having the big suprise jump out of the cake and shake his/her groove thing in the faces of your young un's.

Well, what we're saying is: Our moral standards are fluid. Our definitions hazy. Our expectations low.

I didn't expect Janet's boobie to be broadcast into every house in America. I did however, fully expect anything with Justin Timberlake in it to be wholly lacking in taste or entertainment value.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gruesome:
I think this may be my last point here as I am apparently NOT getting my point accross clearly...

I *DO NOT* care if there is nudity on television. Skinemax has it all the time. Some of it is even pretty good. But Skinemax also quite clearly LABELS their content and I can quickly and easily KNOW what is appropriate for my family. THATS WHY THERE ARE RATINGS.

The point is NOT whether there was a breast exposed per se. Its the manner in which it was exposed and the context in which it was exposed. Nudity in and of itself is fine and I agree that our culture is somewhat puritannical in that regard. My wife is card carrying la leche league and is QUITE familiar with the ostricization associated with breast feeding. But NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the SEXUALLY EXPLICIT and even BORDERLINE VIOLENT nature of TEARING A WOMANS CLOTHING OFF.

The rating systems exist NOT to sensor anything, but to give people reasonable guidelines in their decision making about what will contain content that may be inappropriate either for themselves if they choose to feel that way, or more to MY point, that I *DO NOT* want my kids being indoctrinated to the current trends that imply that sex at a VERY young age is not only acceptable but practically ENCOURAGED if you want to be cool.

So, I fall back to my ORIGINAL statement that I find it INSANE that ANYONE couldn't understand WHY I could be MAD about what happened on sunday. The traditions of the superbowl and the very spirit and intent of the rating system was ignored.

---

Quote:

---

"Drama or change the channel? What America wants, better yet needs, is drama. This is a society built on drama. From celebrity gossip to the Department of Homeland Security playing Red Light, Green Light with the Terror Alert Level."

"this was the only year where I didn't want to change the channel during halftime. The dismal halftime shows of previous years sent me searching for something, anything to watch for 15 minutes. ... The big names who performed this year ensured that viewers kept it locked on CBS. Especially after such a (yawn) sleep inducing first half that didn't see the first points until 3:05 left in the second quarter, a Super Bowl record. CBS needed something to breathe life into the spectators who were in attendance and at home."

---

Quote:

---

"Many of the other Super Bowl commercials seemed conspicuously inappropriate for an event that is a national rite and the kind of rare TV attraction that brings families together in front of the set."

---