Author |
Message |
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 4:01 pm
What I find so amusing about the people who were offended because their children were watching is that I doubt for one minute they are offended when a player gets a good hit on another one and they replay that violence over and over so we can all hear it and go "oohhh!". The Puritans really did a number on this country. A boob is something to get hysterical about but violence is okay for our kids to see. I'm more bothered by the act of him tearing off her clothes. If anything, this could provide parents an opportunity to discuss the inappropriateness of such behavior with their kids. I usually tune out the half time shows because as a rule, they stink.
|
Whoami
Member
08-03-2001
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 4:47 pm
You know, I wonder about the Live telecast anyway. With the security issues we have these days, and the Super Bowl being such a high profile thing, shouldn't they be doing at least several seconds of delayed broadcast? They should at least be giving themselves a window to cut away from something if a horrific event happened. Of course, look how much blow-by-blow coverage we got of 9/11.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:00 pm
I wasn't offended at all and I think this has been blown way out of proportion. I enjoyed the halftime show because it was the type of music I love. I'm a huge JJ fan since she played Penny on Good Times and will always be a huge fan of hers. I'm also a Justin fan. I love both of their music and think they're very talented, imo.
|
Mamie316
Member
07-08-2003
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:00 pm
I think most kids didn't even notice, it happened very quickly. They probably know now because of all the coverage that it is getting. And I should have caught the Azlen thing! He is good at that!
|
Crossfire
Member
08-07-2001
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:25 pm
Oh wow, I did not know she was on Good Times. I used to watch that all the time. Neat.
|
Jed245
Member
11-01-2002
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 6:24 pm
Not offensive at all to me, but, that question is up to the individual. However, the fact that they did it infront of thousands of children makes it very offensive. :o) Jed.
|
Puppylov3
Member
01-26-2004
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 7:25 pm
poor judgement, bad taste - but why is justin not getting the criticism for his part in the stunt that janet is - double standard???
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 8:29 pm
I'm not offended by JJ's breast at all. I thought it was silly from the beginning, sepecially since, as I said in the Superbowl commercials thread, Kid Rock thought it was a good idea to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a poncho. So far, only the American Legion and VFW have spoken out about it. Other offensive thing: that the FCC feels it has to get involved. Michael Powell apparently doesn't have enough to do. To top it off, it is HIS policies that have permitted the unrestricted growth of media conglomerates and created the incestuous relationships he is trying to criticize (I mean the MTV/Viacom/CBS relationship). If we hate the hypersexualization of women so much, let's compalin about cheerleaders, too. Janet's boob is a on-time, two-second thing. Those cheerleaders (who also don't bother me, BTW) are permanent fixtures. Off my soapbox.
|
Deesandy
Member
08-12-2003
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:21 pm
Who Cares Really? Been there, done that, bought the teeshirt, sold it on Ebay, made a profit.
|
Twiggyish
Member
08-14-2000
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:46 pm
I've already expressed disgust at the act of violence portrayed. I agree Justin is a wus for not 'fessing up. It's time for the media to move on with this issue. (IMO) Had to laugh at Jermaine Jackson who stated on the news his family was being picked on lately.
|
Ocean_islands
Member
09-07-2000
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:53 pm
I am convinced that the reason it shocked so many is the act of 'tearing' off someone's personal covering of garments. Jackson added to this when she 'covered her nakedness'. If she had just laughed it off, I don't think people would have been as upset. Well, Jermaine, what are you going to do to top your syblings?
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:55 pm
Jermaine? He is going to peel that mask off he wears and we will find out he is really Latoya.
|
Kaili
Member
08-31-2000
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:41 pm
Why is it so bad for Kid Rock to wear the flag as a poncho when everyday I see people wearing clothes with flag print, or jackets with flags sewn on? Not so much today, but 2 years ago anyway. They were selling American flag diapers at Wal-Mart for awhile there. I'd say having your baby poop on the flag is more offensive than a musician, one who from what I understand is very patriotic (based on interviews with him and Pam Anderson), wearing the flag as clothes. I see that a lot. Ahhh- maybe I can't say anything. I didn't even watch halftime. I didn't even watch the game. It was on now and then, but I was watching the Queer Eye marathon instead.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 11:24 pm
Kaili, it was a REAL flag with a hole cut into it, not clothing made to look like a flag, or a patch, or a print on a T shirt. That is a violation of Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 176 [US Flag Code]. Of course, those who have tattered flags on their SUVs--or who have their flags out in inclement weather--are also violating the law. But I suppose it's not really important.
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 7:33 am
On the news last night, they were showing a bra that she first tried on but it didn't fit Quoting from the Houston Chroncile: "Jackson's people also shopped at Montrose's Leather in Exile Friday and bought $800 in accessories, such as a riding crop, leather arm bands, a leather jockstrap for a dancer and a leather bra for Jackson, a manager said. They returned the jock strap and the bra, which couldn't contain Jackson's breasts, he said. "Out of the stuff they bought, they brought back the crazier stuff," he said. Wardrobe malfunctions, perhaps? " Some guy found out about it and it selling it on Ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3384460127&category=29881
|
Ladytex
Member
09-27-2001
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 8:52 am
What I'm offended about is that people seem to think it is okay to malign that entire family. Of course, the brother is going to support his family. That's what my family would do, anyway. There are a lot of those kids and you only hear bad things about a couple of them, but there are people on this board and other places that tar them all with the same brush. They seem to think that because a couple have problems, it makes them all fair game. Good thing we are not all judged by what members of our families may or may not have done.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 9:05 am
I think everyone has at least one black sheep in their family but the blood relationship is not enough to go out there and defend someone. I feel pretty confident in saying that if Jeffrey Dahlmer was my brother, I wouldnt be out there defending him. Jermaine Jackson in my view is a mouthpiece who was sent out there the minute Michael was charged and arrested. He was making unsubstantiated charges about police brutality and slandering the alleged victim in the criminal case. He is entitled to run out to the press to defend Janet, but he invites ridicule. Just saying.... if you look at Michael, Latoya and Janet, it seems to me that life in the jackson household was mighty strange place to grow up.
|
Azriel
Member
08-01-2000
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 9:11 am
The time and the place for Janet Jackson to display her boob was not on national TV during the Super Bowl half-time show. To me it doesn't even matter how much or how long you could see it. The pure symbolism of it was distasteful to me. I would hope that expecting women to respect themselves and men to respect women it not just considered a 'Puritan' ethic in our society. Brenda, I don't understand how you draw the conclusion that the people who complained about this, don't complain about excessive violence on TV. Like that does any good anyway. You are just told not to try and censor what other people want to see.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:39 am
Azriel, my comment is referring to hearing coworkers yammer on and on about how offensive it was to see JJ's boob because their kids were watching. But I have never once heard them complain the next day about a football game showing a helmet to helmet hit over and over and over or showing a clip of a guys leg bending backwards over and over. The parents seem to get in a tizzy about a naked body but don't seem to mind about violence because it's in a sporting event. It is odd to me.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:51 am
The difference Brenda is control. When you put on a football game you have already made the decision that you have no objection to the violence in the game. Parents have the right to choose whether their children should be exposed to the halftime show that was put on during the superbowl. Parents and other viewers were not given any warning about this. This wasnt about a naked breast, it was about a man violently ripping a womans shirt off. This wasnt the national geographic halftime. It wasnt about nudity, it was about the exploitation of women and all to sell a few cds.
|
March
Member
10-02-2003
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 11:19 am
I agree that the whole naked brest show was in poor taste, but I am a bit confused as to why these same people were not upset about the whole routine. i.e.: singing a song about getting her naked before the end of the song, the dancing(kind of sexual), and other dancers on stage. Look at their outfits, should your kids see that? Fine to get upset over the brest showing but keep it real and get upset over the whole routine.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 11:40 am
Absolutely March, it was the entire halftime starting with that guy who appeared to have an acute case of jock itch.
|
Cassie
Member
07-15-2000
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 11:51 am
LOL, Maris. I just don't get all that self fondling and crotch grabbing that rappers and hip-hoppers do. What's the purpose of it? Is it supposed to remind us that underneath those big baggy, infantile looking drawers there lives a man? I think it makes them all look retarded.
|
Ocean_islands
Member
09-07-2000
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:11 pm
They do it because they like fondling themselves, just like Janet Jackson did it because she likes exposing herself. I don't think it's anything more than that There is no question in my mind that Jackson got off on being exposed to 90 million people.
|
Cassie
Member
07-15-2000
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:19 pm
Do they (rappers) do it off stage as well? I've never noticed it happen during interviews. I suppose they think it has shock value or something. If only they knew...<eyeroll>
|