den | I don't get it.

Current Mood: amused

I don't get it.

Janet Jackson left exposed on TV

Apparently her breast was a bit exposed during the Superbowl half time show.

"CBS quickly cut away from the scene but was still flooded with calls from angry viewers about the half-time entertainment, produced by MTV. "

Angry about what? A bit of boobies? If that happened over here most people would be laughing and cheering, and scorning those wowsers who think people don't have naughty bits.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

America - founded by Puritans, governed by Baptists.

That was as accidental as the game itself.

Here's The Boob (http://www.caspeed.com/lj04/jj-boob.jpg).

Note the spiffy hardware (http://www.caspeed.com/lj04/jj-boob2.jpg) she just "happened" to be wearing underneath. All dancers wear those things right?

Anywho, it's yet another Jackson a media circus all for the sake of the show and nothing more.

CYa!
Mako
Booby Zzyzxian

Looks lie a carefully orchestrated exposure to me, possibly because her bro. is in all the headlines.

Janet's career has been fading fast the last few years. She's no longer the mega star, that tourch got passed to other vacuum headed performers like Jeniffer Lopez.

Nothing like a tit shot on national TV watched by a gazillion people to work up some publicity. We actually switched off to another TV station since the half time show was pathetically bad and we missed the whole deal entirely.

I didn't learn about it until I hopped back on the 'net post-game.

CYa!
Mako

I missed it too.

Mostly because the music was so bad, and the crotch grabbing rap stars looked like a bunch of pimps in their fur coats and baggy pajama bottoms.

I missed it too (people really watch halftime? that's when you BBQ!), but I agree with the bit about it seeming a little too staged (I mean, really, who wants to dance with clamps on their nipples?!)

I think the fact that she had to break out the Rhythm Nation routine from, oh, what, 1990?, was a good sign of how she's kind of fallen out of the public memory. Yeah, we remember who she was, but that's about it. And if you have to dig up a decade-old act, maybe you shouldn't be headlining ... oh wait. it was just a sporting event, not a real concert. Noise to entertain the fans standing in line at the bathrooms ;)

Noise to entertain the fans standing in line at the bathrooms

HA! :-D

You're a brave soul to have watched that entire production, we didn't have the stomach for it. I'd say her star has set since she has to stoop to stunts like this.

She's obviously got a lousy manager to allow a farked idea like that to happen, pity she doesn't have the smarts to fire him/her.

CYa!
Mako

Most people. Don't forget that the people who called in are those who'd be angry. No one calls in to say, "Good job, Janet!"

Me, I don't especially care either way.

It wasn't the fact that the anatomy was exposed; it was the manner in which it was done. The US has strict rules about what can and cannot be shown in certain time slots. Without a parental discretion advisory, the network is not allowed to show naughty bits at all and I seem to remember from my journalism days that naughty bits are strictly off limits during what they call prime time --- the hours when families are most likely to be watching. Since that would have aired as early as 5 PM on our west coast, chances are there were a lot of young children watching (Super Bowl is largely a family event here).

Then there's also the manner in which it was done. The lyrics were themselves highly sexually charged and explicit. You could also tell from the look on Janet Jackson's face that the move had NOT been pre-rehearsed or approved by her. So, instead of an exposure of naughty bits America ends up watching one celebrity sexually assaulting another in public.

So, no it's not the boob exposure that has people riled. It's the fact that it happened without warning (if it was planned) and/or the fact that one of the people involved may have been an unwilling participant.

Could you enlighten me on one bit? It's my understanding that it is okay to show a breast that has been pixellated (digital blocking) or has a pasty on it during primte time hours -- but not a totally bare breast with nipple exposed?

I find it bizarre at times that...well, young children aren't supposed to see a naked woman's breast when odds are that, well, they were sucking their own mum's teat only a year or two ago; grabbing for them and staring at them all the time.

I also find it odd that there is...fuss over the female nipple when there is no such fuss over the male nipple. That the female nipple alone has become so sexually charged, when it's the source of mother's milk and only a man's nipple can be thought of solely as a potential erogenous zone (and believe me, I've met men whose nipples are very sensitive to stimulation). Amazing what a mound of body fat and tissue beneath a nipple can do...that's all that's required to be controversial in some circles...

Yeah, as bizarre as it sounds, that's pretty much the case. I'm not a nudity prude myself (far from it) but I can understand; we're going to be foster parents and I can see how this could have led to some real problems. Parents try hard to supervise what their kids will see ---or at least we do, and that's the crux of the matter --- and no one had any indication that there'd be nudity or simulated violence (both of which have to be marked with our decency rating system....they even do it for National Geographic things). I guess that's my beef with it; if we'd had chidren in our home who had already been traumatized, since I had no expectation of seeing such at the Super Bowl, I'd have had no way to bar them from seeing the material or getting them to leave the room.

Tit, schmit!

Superbowl Wisconsin was much more grandiose (and better) than that. The Blues Brothers, Harleys, and "Legs" performed by ZZTOP.

The non-Turner portion of the FOX channel here had mail for *days*:D.

Then again, it could have been Michael in a Janet suit, you never know;).

Now THAT sounds like a halftime show I'd actually watch :)

It couldn't have been Michael - her nose didn't fall off half way through the number ;-)

CYa!
Mako

THAT sounds like a half-time show I'd like! We get music for bogans by old 80s bands at our half time shows.

Well, it does prove that Justin Timberlake isn't gay. He's probably gonna get in a lot of trouble for ripping her top off though.

*grins* maybe that was the point... he was TRYING to prove something :)

Does it prove he's not gay? I think it might prove he doesn't want the public to think he's gay, or keep them guessing. It's publicity for him as much as it is for Janet, either way.

hmmm... and here we were, switching away to set up Phantasy Star Online characters during halftime because the lineup looked that uninteresting....

Maybe she should have been wearing one of these shirts beneath her costume
http://www.nice-tits.org/

Now THAT is a silly website. :D

HA! excellent.

I personally don't get it either. I could care less about naked breasts on TV...well, unless of course they are quite fetching breasts.

But really...it would be an issue for me if I found out the act was an act of sexual harassment from Justin to Janet, and not that her breast got exposed. I think breast exposure is okay, but displaying sexual harassment to people of all ages on such scale in the context given is promoting the wrong ideas.

I suspect that a good number of the people making the most noise about this are a block of wowsers with serious voting power. They may be in the minority, but they're vocal and they act as if optional voting is compulsory so they tend to have a major impact on American politics. They are also organised, with actual nonprofit organisations/churches.,,and even boycott those companies sponsoring shows...and send letters to the editor in many papers across the country and such.

According to a caller to JJJ this morning it looks like she's wearing a pasty, which are uncomfortable to wear and you would wear one under your clothes if you didn't have to.

I wouldn't know, being a bloke and all.

Actually, it wasn't a pasty...it was a nipple piercing with a nipple shield. So a little nipple was exposed as well as arieola...oooo. Big deal there. *shrugs*

I don't understand America. I've tried. And I've lived there.

San Francisco doesn't count...it is just barely American (running joke).

there wasn't even nipple exposure. O.o

Exposed nipples make baby Jesus cry.

When the DECENCY REVOLUTION finally PURGES THE STREETS OF INIQUITY and these SALACIOUS SLAVERING SPAWNS OF SATAN WRITHE AND WAIL IN POOLS OF THEIR OWN BOILING BLOOD AS IT FLOWS THROUGH THE STREETS....

Er, ahem. Sorry.

I think some people are just born to be angry. Spot an exposed breast on television and their blood pressure goes through the roof. The bummer of it is that it makes them easy to manipulate. Play on their fears of an exposed ankle and it keeps them distracted from the issues that really matter.

Exposed nipples make baby Jesus cry.

Bwhaha! :-D

Yeah, pretty much you have a point on idiot people sniveling no matter what...

CYa!
Mako

When the DECENCY REVOLUTION finally PURGES THE STREETS OF INIQUITY and these SALACIOUS SLAVERING SPAWNS OF SATAN WRITHE AND WAIL IN POOLS OF THEIR OWN BOILING BLOOD AS IT FLOWS THROUGH THE STREETS....
********
Motes and beams, man, motes and beams!

Talk about ultraviolence! For people who are into being pious they sure are passionate about violence and sex. If they performed as well in bed as they do in spouting this sort of rhetoric they might have a beeline......

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't get it.

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re: