Forget the ads ... what about the halftime show? 8-!
We are people trying to raise children in a toxic society.Dan said:I'm going to paraphrase a rant here, because it seems so fitting, and expresses exactly how I feel.
CBS is backing away and apologizing as fast as it can, the NFL claims to be "outraged," the network was deluged with phone calls, all over two seconds of boobage during a halftime show.
What the is the huge deal? Are we still so backwards in this country that we fear the sight of a breast? Who are these prudes who call a TV network to complain? This is what these people need to do to feel fulfilled in life? This is somehow important? This is really their idea of an "outrage?"
Janet Jackson's breast is a beautiful thing. I'd love to see much more of it and the other one as well. This was a great moment in Superbowl history. Why can't people appreciate it for what it is?
Yes ... there's kids watching. So what? It does not harm a child to see Janet Jackson's boob. Your kids are not going to die if they see a little nudity. It's only "nudity" by culture anyway. Kids in Europe, where they show hard core porn on over-the-air television, turn out just fine, if not less effed up than their North American peers.
CBS, you're a bunch of nutless cowards. The NFL, too. You should have stood up. You're not going to get hurt. There is an extremely high correlation of football fans to boob fans. I can't believe a single football fan is going to stop watching games because he saw Janet Jackson's boob and any that do deserve to have their asses kicked.
We watch huge guys beat the crap out of each other for two hours, yet we get upset at two seconds of aerola?
Boobs are good. Janet Jackson's boob is good.
Uptight, puritanical scolds are not.
No, according you that means I deserve an ass whipping. Responsible speech Dan? :-\Quote by Dan "I'm gonna kick your prudish asses" Tasman
I can't believe a single football fan is going to stop watching games because he saw Janet Jackson's boob and any that do deserve to have their asses kicked.
Who said anything about "mild".el Guapo said:Budgie
Budgie’s mild penetration will be a gold mine too.
el Guapo said:Call me an old stick in the mud, or worse, but I’m right on this one.
You have to tease it out slowly Budgie. You can't jump straight to a gangbang during the pre-game report with Amad Rashad. You have to incrementalize it. It has to be one micro step at a time. That way the prudes don't have anything they can pin down as the watershed moment. As John Cleese said, "don't just jump straight to the clitoris, give her a kiss boy"Budgie said:Who said anything about "mild".
Have you noticed that Ron Jeremy is all over the television? Who wants to be a porn star? Hell, porn stars are almost mainstream entertainers. Soon you'll find them on Hollywood Squares and during celebrity week on Wheel of Fortune. It's only a matter of time till there's a celebrity porn star Survivor. The odd thing about this is that I'm not complaining.
Skel, come on. Do you really think the Superbowl stunt and the Venus deMilo are the same thing? Using your logic, Hustler Magazine and a Renoir painting are the same thing. Yet, I have never heard of teenage boys passing up a chance to sneak Uncle Bob's Hustler when they can just hie off to the Public Library and check out a picture book of French art without anyone batting an eye (I know I never would have). Sorry, the Superbowl bit was intended to shock and tittilate (pun intended again). The whole show was designed to pander to our basest sensibilities and to see what can be gotten away with (which is part and parcel of most our popular culture today). Not so with Michelangelo.SkeLeton said:EG, I don't want to fight... but I suggest you never enter a Museum where there are sculptures and paintings of naked people. Oh and please if you do, don't dress the statues up.
They did know and the only step that will be taken the next year is a parental advisory. If CBS (it could've been any network) and the NFL had a shred of honesty, they would have issued a parental advisory warning. It's that simple, tell people what you're going to put on the screen so we can be discriminating. I guess that's not a very marketable approach.5. The NFL knew that parents with children who would object to such a display were watching. They had a duty to allow us the option of going else where with our viewership. We were duped.
The opening show sucked as well, imho.Hear, hear, EG. It wasn't just the breast baring incident, the entire show was ridiculous. Kid Rock, P. Diddy, Justin Timberlake? Sheesh. This is what passes for talent these days?
Up With People would be a welcome change, IMO.tsc said:god help us... next year the entertainment is going to be "Up With People" again.....
Isn't Paris Hilton under contract for next year?Super Amputee Cat said:This has been going on for some time now and every year they push the envelope a little bit more. I predict live nudity on the show by 2010 if not sooner.
That reminds me of my school days when the boys would pull on the backs of the girls' shirts to see if they were wearing a bra, then snap the straps back. It was incredibly childish, immature, disrespectful and pseudo-violent, but I wouldn't be surprised if actions like that still happen.nerudite said:Isn't Paris Hilton under contract for next year?
I think kms did a good sum-up. I'm less worried about the nudity on t.v. than I am about Justin 'ripping her shirt' in a pseudo-violent act. He's a big role model to a lot of kids, and he showed those kids that it's okay to do that kind of crap to other people. I hope this isn't mimicked in school yards today.
hmm, I don't want to do an internet search if its so bad, so I'll be the old-man here . . . Who are the Carr Brothers?The Irish One said:I'm a "cultural conservative" , the first place I found out about the Carr brothers was from Pat Buchanan. Sex, cussing, pissed off, reckless attitudes and a glamorization of being ghetto or urban are just a few of the reasons I have layed off the television and why my kids will not be watching a lot of it.
They are the gentlemen that came to my mind when I tried to envision a society raised by MTV. They killed some people I briefly met once in a place I once lived. And they did it in a way that was...well...MTV/Tarranteno-esk. See the link I placed in a prior post.Seabishop said:...Who are the Carr Brothers?
Point 1: I agree, and it was the extreme of thinking that a nude breast on TV will make it end in hardcore pr0n at 7 pm I was fighting with the nude art, though of course it got a bit confused... (sorry about that)Mastiff said:Just some points:
1) Dan is right. The U.S. society is much more prudish than most other modern cultures. I'd love to see the country get away from that... Hardcore pron on network TV at 7:00? Of course not... But showing breasts on television is hardly the same as anal penetration.
2) El Guapo is right. MTV (And everyone else who knew... and they did.) has no right to subject EG's kids to what he considers offensive with no prior warning! While I couldn't care less if my kids see it, it's obvious he feels differently. We simply disagree on how we raise our kids, and we have that right.
3) I think as a society, we tend to equate nudity with sexual activity. Some nudity is meant to be titilating, some is not. Personally, had I seen it (other than in the pictures), I'd have laughed. They might have thought it was meant ot be sexy, but it wasn't... it was just for shock value. It worked.
4) By the way... For those proponents of nudity by anyone... anywhere... look around. Walk down the street and count how many of the people you pass you'd want to see without clothes. Or, better yet, come out here where we have nude beaches and hot springs and such. Most "nude places" aren't for people to see others sans clothes... it's so people can be nude and relax.
I feel that most kids are smart enough to separate an act in a show from what is approprate to do in life. Many parents allow their kids to watch many worse things than an obvious act in a number. Sexual harassment was rampant when I was in Jr High and High School too, and less was done about it then, in fact that was so long ago the term wasn't even coined then.kms said:I agree with El Guapo here. The thing is, if Janet Jackson and Timberlake can get away with this on national television, the same thing will happen on the streets, in the mall and at school. OK, so maybe it already is. Yes, sexual harassment happens in middle school, so today, some girl's skirt or blouse will be tugged by a boy who thinks it's a cool thing to do.
It's not about a half second, long distance shot. We (most) parents try to raise our kids to respect themselves and others, yet kids see adults (I use that loosely) acting without respect and modesty. Like it or not, our kids admire some of these performers, and will emulate their misbehavior. We have to stop glamorizing performers. To these kids, today's scandal = glamor, and it's misguided.
Paris, Britney, Christina, Jessica, Hillary Duff...it's all the same crap really: Human excrement that is prepackaged, (over)produced and marketed to army of shallow, impressionable teens and their equally brain-dead parents. Pop stars metamophasized into soda pop stars catering to a segment of the population that worships image and materialism over wisdom and restraint.nerudite said:Isn't Paris Hilton under contract for next year?
Super Bowl 2002 in New Orleans - the first Super Bowl post 9-11 and I guess the producers felt that the show should be some type of memorial of sorts.prudence said:The only halftime show worth watching in the last 10 years was U2 a few years back. U2 is one of the most politically charged bands in the world, and they didn't use their status to promote a cause (which is typical of Bono) or overshadow the Super Bowl. They provided pure entertainment.