TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . ABOUT US . CONTACT . CHAT  
Bomis   Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Janet/Justin........Offensive or Not?

The TVClubHouse: Archives: 2004 January - Arpil: Janet/Justin........Offensive or Not? users admin

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through February 05, 2004Adven25 02-05-04  4:00 pm
Archive through February 06, 2004Cassie25 02-06-04  12:19 pm
Archive through February 08, 2004Tishala25 02-08-04  3:03 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Kappy
Member

06-29-2002

Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 3:23 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Mamie ~ My first reaction on hearing the hullabaloo about all this was 'imagine what SNL can do with this', lol! Sorry I missed it last night.

Zachsmom
Member

07-13-2000

Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 3:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Did anyone watch HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" last night?

He had a spoof -- himself as "Kobe Teeth" and sang an parady on Janets "Wardrobe malfunction" It was a hoot!


Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 4:20 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I saw it Zachs, it was a great show all around. I loved it. I hope his singig skit is a regular item. Last weeks song was a riot as well.

Azriel
Member

08-01-2000

Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 7:00 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Fruitbat, immediately after the incident, they released a statement that it was a wardrobe malfunction, but that didn't seem to float because people said that you could see snaps on her costume and she was wearing the nipple ring so the reveal had to be deliberate. (I personally don't think wearing the nipple ring meant anything. I wear pretty panties everyday, but it's not because I expect someone to rip off my pants in front of 90 million strangers. )

CBS and the NFL kept saying that is not how it went down in rehearsal.(The lyrics 'I'm going to get you naked by the end of this song' seemed to go right over their heads)

Janet issued a statement saying that only a few minutes before the game MTV and her people decided to do the reveal and Justin, CBS and the NFL didn't know anything about it. She hadn't realized it would cause such an uproar and she was sorry for it, but she took full credit for it.

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 6:47 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Apparently Janet was not on the Grammys because CBS required her to apologize for the stunt live in front of the audience. She refused. Timberlake agreed, and so he appeared, and he did.

Kappy
Member

06-29-2002

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 10:25 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I just heard that, Ocean. So to me the ball was in her court and she made a decision to keep Breastgate going as long as possible.

Zules
Member

08-21-2000

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 10:54 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I'm confused. Justin said last night at the Grammy's it was not intentional. I got the impression (from previous posts here and from the talking heads) that Janet said it was intentional. Did she actually say that?

Sc00pgrl
Member

09-17-2003

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 11:39 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
It didn't bother me any...lol Seem one seen em' all. JMHO

Faerygdds
Member

08-29-2000

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 11:41 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Zules... she said she had planned the stunt but that is was never meant to go that far. Meaning , IMO, they planned the ripping, but there was supposed to be some sort of pink/red bra underneath that was NOT supposed to come off, but it did.
-------------------------

quote:

It was a publicity stunt which was based on the premise that it is ok to treat women like crap and rip their clothes off and after the fact.......lets punish the woman not the man who committed the act.





Now Maris... I know your opinion will never change on this and that is fine, but personally, I am finding your position more and more offensive each time I hear it. And that is coming from a 32 year old woman who was raped with a knife held against her neck at the age of 16! And was physically and sexually abused during my first marriage!

From that SAME position -- I find what happened inappropriate, but cannot cross the line into the abuse issue. JJ has already said that she intended for it to happen. She was not a victim here. She was the instigator! And to put her in the role of the victim is truly insulting to those of us who have really been assaulted!

Sorry for the rant... mods do what you must, but I kept my mouth shut for a whole week on this and I'm tired of reading how this is akin to assault.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 11:55 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I am sorry you are offended by my position and I am not going to get into a discussion about what constitutes the promotion of violence against women. I respect our difference of opinion.

I dont blame Janet for not apologizing because she is currently being sued by countless people. I am sure her lawyers told her under no circumstances should she admit guilt and apologize for her actions only to have them be replayed at a trial.

Kaili
Member

08-31-2000

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:10 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I'm thinking that she herself isn't a victim since it was her plan, however I think the point is that her wanting to have that done is promoting that whole women as a victim mentality that's already way too common. Sort of like how a stripper is choosing to be a stripper, but by doing so she's promoting the objectification of women. It's her choice so she's not a victim (although some would say that strippers are victims of society) Is that what you're getting at, Maris?

Anyway, having seen the clip yet again, I don't believe Janet meant for that much exposure. Why she was wearing that star thing, I don't know...but she did look a bit surprised before regaining her composure. I can't say taht I know if that was a part of the "act" or if she was surprised, but she did look down pretty fast.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Of course that is what I am getting at Kaili. Janet Jackson planned the act but it doesnt change what it represented. I think that is also what Cindy Richards was getting at in her article as well. Either way, the fifteen minutes are up on this one I think.

Mocha
Member

08-12-2001

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:17 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
From what I've read Janet said she apologized once and didn't feel the need to continue to do so.

Faerygdds
Member

08-29-2000

Monday, February 09, 2004 - 4:07 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Sort of like how a stripper is choosing to be a stripper, but by doing so she's promoting the objectification of women. It's her choice so she's not a victim (although some would say that strippers are victims of society) Is that what you're getting at, Maris?

Of course that is what I am getting at Kaili.

UGH! OK... I have known (have never been one, but had an ex-roomie who was) a few strippers in my time. Most of them really hate that association. They would tell you that they are not victims of society at all. They would tell you that they strip because it is very good money.

Of the strippers that I knew, 3 of them were in college and "Mommy and Daddy" paid their way. They stripped for extra cash (and they had plenty to spare). When they graduated they had to decide whether or not to take a drastic paycut and do something "respectable" or get paid a lot of money to do what they have fun doing anyway!

So forgive me if I fail to see the victim in that. Frankly strippers don't objectify women anymore than a half a dozen other professions including cheerleaders, models, Hooter's Girls, etc. If you want women to stop being objectified, then you have to --

A) turn this world from male dominated to female dominated

B) Poke all the eyes out of the heads of all the men so that sex can no longer be used on them to sell things or change their minds.

and/or

C) Take away anything print. Books, magazines, the internet, TV, movies... everything.

Ever since the dawn of advertising women have been used in marketing campaigns and it has always been known that a pretty face or body sells more. That's not just this generation, but every generation since for at least the last 70 years or so.

I think what is bothering me is that you seem to think that women are these frail little innocent waifs who are totally clueless as to how the world works!

Bottom line. Last friday I had a large box that needed to be moved. I walked into a room with 6 men standing around eating donuts. I said in the coyest voice I could muster, "I need a big strong guy to move a box for me" All 6 of them jumped to help.

Was I being a victim??? Or an opportunist??? To be honest... it was more the latter.

Did it help or worsen the objectification of women??? WHO CARES!!!!! What I do isn't gonna make a difference! Men are going to objectify women as long as there are locker rooms in schools for them to learn how in the first place!!! Bottom line -- the big heavy box got moved! :-)

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:46 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
From Eonline, Ted Casablanca's column

Michael. Jackson. Who, in my opinion, is the behind-the-scenes reason for Ms. J.'s booby brouhaha.

Sure, J2, who has an album coming out next month, wanted some supercalifragilistic PR to help boost sales, à la Brit 'n' Madonna's slurpfest--that one's a surefire no-brainer. But, what about bro Michael? Could all this fretting have something to do with the dude's sorry sitch?


It's not my avocation, but I do want it to be fair.
--Famously political actor Tim Robbins, when I asked what he wanted for the 2004 election



"You bet it does," said a member of the increasingly humongous Jackson entourage (thanks, partially, to the bros of Islam). "The Jacksons are a unified front for Michael right now," pooped the employed Jackson camper. "Janet was willing to do anything. And that's precisely what she did. And why."

Oh, my. I don't know which is more outlandish: the provincial, reactionary response from CBS--not to mention conservative legions around the U.S. of A.--or Janet's far-reaching attempt to take attention away from a kid who may or may not have been molested.

Something tells me the jury (that is, my readers) will weigh in after deliberating.

http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Awful/cauth/Archive2004/040205.html