Author |
Message |
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:31 pm
Heck..wasn't it MICHAEL who started all that crotch grabbing???
|
Crossfire
Member
08-07-2001
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:56 pm
I see it as performance art, an identifying trait of the genre, no more, no less.
|
Riviere
Member
09-09-2000
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:04 pm
Offensive or Not... Huge question apparently.. I'm going to say it was offensive and intrusive and uncalled for on live worldwide TV during a sports game.. Typically American pig low moral publicity stunt to the rest of the world who are comfy in their skins and don't have to resort to sophomoronic acts to stir crap.. Nudity is the natural way of humankind. So is the courteous modesty of wearing clothes when hired to be in said clothing for a public appearance. JT & JJ should be ashamed, but when 'fame' goes beserk stuff like this happens...
|
Shelb724
Member
10-20-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:13 pm
another interesting thing--moveon.org was denied permission to run the child's play commercial, which has been since seen all over the country. it was deemed as too controversial by CBS. wow, that's real controversial compared to what happened during halftime!
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:25 pm
What was the commercial,Shelb?
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:35 pm
Yes Shelb when you consider CBS stance on Moveon's commercial and their refusal to let Bono perform at half time because a song about Aids in Africa is just not appropriate for a half time show.................
|
Crossfire
Member
08-07-2001
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:39 pm
I'm not a big fan of how CBS handled the moveon ad, but I don't think it is accurate to say they refused it because it was too controversial.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:27 pm
I understand what you're saying Maris, but I still question why parents seem less concerned about violence. One other thought: if Justin had torn off her clothes and NO boob was shown, (she just had more clothes on) would people still be in an uproar? To me, the boob was nothing. I found the lyrics and the dance moves (it looked like he was hump-ing her from behind) were eyebrow raising. I also found the tearing off of clothes offensive -- not because of nudity but because of the violent nature of it. But I'm not surprised. These pop stars are trying to out do each other in the shock department. I thought it was ridiculous when Britney Spears tore off her own clothes to reveal the flesh colored glitter suit -- and she has tons of young girl fans. I'm so glad my daughter isn't old enough to be her fan! I still think parents could use this as an opportunity to discuss what is appropraite with their kids.
|
Sunrvrose
Member
08-13-2001
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 12:58 am
I stayed away from this last night because I feel rather strongly and wanted to see more opinions before posting mine. I found the entire performance disgusting as applied to this setting. Watching MTV or Adult Films on Cable are both optional, and I will defend any adult's right to do both. Attempting to compare the effect of the "violance of football" and the simulated (I'm pretty sure I can't say sex) is a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other. Football is football. One team tries to stop the other team from scoring. They are as well protected as possible, and causing intentional injury is not a goal of either team. The blatant sexual content of the half-time performance was deliberate and was intentionally in your face, and was totally inappropriate for this event and this audience. I think that HUGE fines for JJ and JT would be entirely appropriate, and for MTV as well if it could be proved that they knew in advance. I do not think that MTV did know in advance. I'd fine JJ and JT about 1 mil each and earmark the funds for child abuse charities. Something has to happen to snap some young performers out of their total lack of standards and morality and decency. So that, surprizingly even to me, is MHO. And I'm a liberal. But I am just sick, sick, sick, of having sexual innuendo, profanity, and lack of class being shoved in my face at every possible opportunity. OH, My Heck, It's getting to where Food Network and HGTV and most reality shows are all that I can stomach anymore.
|
Ocean_islands
Member
09-07-2000
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 9:45 am
L'Affaire Bodice: Why We Are Shocked, Shocked By ALESSANDRA STANLEY IF there was anything more bizarre than the sudden baring of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl halftime show, it was the hyperbolic reaction that followed. The whole fuss began to seem like a sequel to some Philip Roth novella - "The Breast That Ate the Super Bowl." A lawyer in Knoxville, Tenn., filed a class action suit claiming that victims who watched the show experienced "outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." CBS was flooded with protest calls. The Federal Communications Commission received 200,000 calls and e-mail messages and opened an investigation. Michael K. Powell, chairman of the panel, complained that Ms. Jackson's stunt violated a "sacred period of time," as if a football championship were the Sabbath. Senate and Congressional hearings into indecency on television were scheduled for this week in Washington. Jittery NBC executives also demanded that "E.R." producers omit a glimpse of the breasts of an 80-year-old hospital patient, evidently fearful that viewers would deem even that image lewd. For its Pro Bowl halftime tonight, the National Football League replaced JC Chasez - an 'N Sync band mate of Justin Timberlake, who ripped Ms. Jackson's bodice - with traditional Hawaiian hula dancers. CBS promised that the Grammy Awards would be shown tonight with a time delay and without Janet Jackson. (Mr. Timberlake, for some reason, was granted immunity.) But the breast is not just an American fetish. It is the last wall between networks and cable - the Maginot Line of broadcast decency. Limits on the depiction of violence were crossed years ago, and anyone who has seen network reality shows like ABC's "Are You Hot?" or "Temptation Island" on the Fox network understands that network standards about sex are almost as skimpy as cable's. The F.C.C. has jurisdiction over networks, not cable, and its enforcement of indecency statutes is scattered. Last year, the commission received about 240,000 complaints about some 375 different radio and television programs, and issued a total of three fines. The networks are careful not to violate the mammary taboo. Breasts are shown at varying angles of nudity depending on the hour of the day, but nipples are not normally shown on network television. (The first broadcast of "Schindler's List" was a notable exception. The director, Steven Spielberg, refused to edit his Holocaust film, and NBC went along, assuming viewers would not consider nudity the most disturbing element in the film. The network got complaints anyway.) For millions of Americans who believe that the violence, sex and nudity on network shows keep growing bolder and sleazier, Janet Jackson's extreme exposure (her metal sunburst enhanced rather than concealed her nipple) was almost welcome. Like federal prosecutors sending Al Capone to jail for tax evasion, critics of all stripes used the Jackson infraction as a chance to vent about far worse, unpunished, offenses. "The outcry is really about the glaring lack of accountability or responsibility at some of the most important media and entertainment institutions in the country," James P. Steyer, the founder of Common Sense Media, a parents' lobbying group, said. "How could they think this was O.K.?" Mr. Timberlake did more than just expose Ms. Jackson's breast. The move, a pantomime of sexual assault, is not widely accepted, however commonplace it may be on MTV and at hip-hop concerts. And it was particularly jarring during the testosterone-fueled Super Bowl, an event that to some minds is linked, however speciously, to male violence against women. (A women's advocacy group in 1993 got a lot of attention by stating that rates of spousal abuse were higher on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day, even though research did not support the claim.) Plenty of viewers argue that Ms. Jackson's flash of flesh hardly qualifies as indecency, particularly when compared with some of the other sights and sounds shown during the Super Bowl. Ads for impotence medication like Cialis are not exactly fit for children. Like the ever competing ads for fast food chains and weight loss plans, the dizzying juxtaposition of sex-driven ads and virility enhancement drugs bears a confusing message for youth: Is the absence of sex a disease? Viewers can debate how much damage the MTV halftime show really did, but Ms. Jackson's prank is likely to qualify as a nuisance as it was defined by a Supreme Court justice, George Sutherland, in 1926: "A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." That "pig in the parlor" trick was cited by the Supreme Court when it ruled in 1978 that the F.C.C. had the power to regulate George Carlin's "dirty words" routine. "We simply hold that when the commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor," the court decided, the exercise "of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene." And many are hoping that the Super Bowl nuisance will lead to tougher scrutiny of television excess. As Michael J. Copps, an F.C.C. commissioner who has long argued for stricter regulation, put it, "I think Ms. Jackson's escapade illuminates the need to tackle this issue and enforce the law." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/08stan.html?hp
|
Konamouse
Member
07-16-2001
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 3:02 pm
I found the almost naked guy dancing around on the field before the second half kickoff (and thus delay of game and a major security breach) to be more offensive than that "flash" of mammary tissue at the end of a boring half-time show. 'squeek'
|
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 6:42 pm
I take exception to the fact that men don't have to cover theirs and women do. So I guess you know where I stand.
|
Jhezzie
Member
07-05-2001
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 8:00 pm
I think the utter hypocrisy of CBS is pretty "offensive," if you ask me. They won't run certain ads because the content was inappropriate, yet stiffy pills, sexual harassment by a chimp and horses farting on a woman is a-ok. Eldely people, beating each other over potato chips is fine, Bono wanting to address AIDS isn't. They are outraged over this. Shocked. Shocked, I tell you! Just don't forget to tune in to the Victoria's Secret "fashion" show, and ignore the fact that they hired MTV, their sister network, to produce their crotch-grabbing, flag-wearing half-time show with the sex assault finale! 
|
Kappy
Member
06-29-2002
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 8:14 pm
I'm puzzled. I have a decent sized tv screen (35") and I wasn't sure if there even was a breast shown let alone what was on it. So I have to ask ~ just how BIG are your tv screens? To me, it's kind of like Paris's video ~ if you can describe it and declare it offensive, you must have seen it on the internet ~ which is a choice. As for young children viewing this, I agree that the entire halftime was unsuitable for them. So why weren't parents turning it off long before Janet even got on stage? But hey, what a great way to avert attention away from your brother's alledged fondling of young boys.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 8:21 pm
No, I did not find it offensive. I also agree with Kappy.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 7:36 am
This article says exactly what I thought of the whole thing: The problem isn't the breast, it's violence against women February 8, 2004 BY CINDY RICHARDS Advertisement Newsies have spent the week flapping their jaws about the impropriety of breasts on television. Yes, it was shocking to sit in the family room and see the big finale of the Justin Timberlake-Janet Jackson performance during the not-so-super halftime show last week. But a nearly bare breast was the least shocking part of it. The real shock was that a man would rip off a woman's clothes -- planned or not -- and we would talk only about what was exposed in the process. It doesn't matter whether her wardrobe malfunctioned. What matters is that he was messing with her wardrobe in the first place. ''It's a very sad day for society when a bare breast is more offensive than the glorification of sexual violence,'' said Barbara Shaw, director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority, a state agency charged with attempting to stem the tide of violence in this country. "[Sexual violence] is so pervasive that we don't even know it when we see it.'' As regular readers know, I had not planned to watch the game despite the fact that I am a rabid football fan. I have given up watching most sporting events because don't want my kids to see the television commercials that are increasingly inappropriate for most adults. Fortunately, I had been forewarned that erectile dysfunction -- including a new drug that carried the ominous warning that erections lasting more than four hours might require medical attention -- would be among the features of the Super Ads. Hearing that news, I had vowed not to watch for fear of having to explain erectile dysfunction to a 10-year-old and 7-year-old. But, silly me, I tuned in to watch the halftime extravaganza. Imagine my surprise as performer after performer presented some highly questionable performance. I thought we had hit the nadir when Nelly arrived on stage, hanging onto himself for dear life. ''Mommy, why is that man holding his penis?'' my daughter asked. ''I'm not sure, honey. Maybe he's afraid it's going to fall off,'' I replied before turning my attention back to the screen. I should have turned off the television then, but I was mesmerized. It was as though I was watching a train wreck about to happen. Then it did. Timberlake reached across Jackson's bodice, grabbed hold and yanked. ''My thought when I saw it and he pulled that piece off and she reacted so submissively, was 'That's outrageous,' " said Kathleen Doherty, executive director of Friends of Battered Women and Their Children, a domestic violence agency that also works with teens in abusive relationships. ''We're trying to teach kids here how to avoid teen dating violence in their relationships, how to show respect, girls respecting boys and boys respecting girls," Doherty said, adding that when sexual violence is depicted as a normal interaction between a man and a woman, the message is "all twisted." And this is more than just a society-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket or a what's-wrong-with-the-younger- generation argument. This raises fundamental questions about the world we are giving to our children. Mia Wallace, education and prevention specialist for Doherty's organization, is trying to counteract the influence of the media by asking teens to question the images they see presented. A group of students at Sullivan High School in Rogers Park met the week before the Super Bowl to look at the violence inherent in Timberlake's ''Cry Me a River'' video, in which he breaks into the home of a Britney Spears look-alike and then stalks her through the house. They recognized the violence inherent in that video. When they met again after the halftime debacle, they said they believed the entire display was staged, Wallace said, but they blamed Timberlake, not Jackson. Among adults, Jackson seems to be taking the brunt of the blame. I won't let her off completely, either. As a role model for future women, how could she allow herself to be abused on international television in the hope of selling more records? As a powerful and talented woman, she should have said no. I still think the bulk of the outrage should be aimed at Timberlake. He ripped off a woman's clothes, and the question we ask is whether she planned it because she was wearing a nipple ornament. How is that different from the jury that refuses to convict a rapist because a girl was wearing a too-short skirt? As a mother, it's my job to teach as well as demonstrate the importance of treating ourselves as well as others with respect. Now, if only someone would explain it to Timberlake and Jackson. link
|
Eliz87
Member
07-30-2001
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 8:47 am
Maris, we've already discussed this and I know that I'll never change your mind, but.... ABUSE...MY FOOT! To compare this publicity stunt to women who have been accused of being "too sexy" and therefore raped or who have been abused by their husbands/boyfriends is nothing short of a complete insult to women who have been victimized! This was NOTHING like that at all. Janet was a totally willing participant and it was a STAGE PERFORMANCE! Again, not that I'm saying that it was in good taste, but there was NO victimization about it. I just have no idea how it could be perceived as such.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 9:22 am
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.
|
Eliz87
Member
07-30-2001
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 9:58 am
I don't think either of them should be punished -- IMO they should just be written off as two performers who together displayed a lack of class and taste, which isn't too unusual in show business.
|
Fruitbat
Member
08-07-2000
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 10:08 am
I cannot find the answer to this here and never heard it in the news either. What was supposed to have happened? The claim is costume failure so was Timberlake to have ripped only the top layer off but the entire thing released instead? Any explaination given for the ornament on her nipple if it was not supposed to have been exposed? Thanks
|
Nathalia
Member
07-20-2002
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 11:19 am
There is a difference between crotch grabbing and actually grabbing the pole! Which Nelly was doing which I found completely offensive. As for Janet...grrrr...my jaw dropped when I saw her breast come out of the costume. I believe it was staged and not a "wardrobe malfunction". I have seen some shots of Justin holding the garment he tore off and it is not red on the inside where the bra should have been. The piece consisted of a black piece with red fabric sewn on the top of it which blows the theory of her only exposing a bra! As for Kid Rock and the flag...that did not bother me. He is really one of the most patriotic performers out there. He supports our troops..supports American made. He may not be what everyone likes..but he is not anti-American by any means. Plus I admire him because he's the only one who has the guts to sing live! My other complaint is that the music was old. Outdated. I also hate that because of what happened on this show the Grammy's is going to have a 5 minute delay. I like to watch the unpredictability of a live show but not when the actions are lewd.
|
Kappy
Member
06-29-2002
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 1:08 pm
Maris ~ I hear what you're saying. (And loved your reply to your daughter about Nelly and his hold!) We didn't have mtv in our house until my son hit 17 and I'm still questioning if that is even old enough. I still believe it was all a publicity stunt and I'll be glad when the media stops giving either of them any coverage, period.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 1:16 pm
Kappty that wasnt me, that was an article. I wish I was so articulate.
|
Mamie316
Member
07-08-2003
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 2:51 pm
Did anyone see SNL news last night? It was hilarious. Jimmy Fallon said that on groundhog day, Janet Jackson's boob popped out of it's hole, saw it's shadow and now there would be 6 more weeks of overreacting.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 3:03 pm
Yeah I saw that Mamie. I also liked the Joke about Joe Lieberman's campaign--it was long, quiet, and depressing enough to qualify as a Jewish holiday. SNL make me laugh a lot last night. Re: Kid Rock. I'm still kinda confused about how someone who desecrates the flag and violates the US Flag Code can be called "patriotic", but I suppose it's part of our topsy turvy world. Heehee.
|
|
|
|