I don't get it.
2 February 2004 21:37![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
denJanet 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 10:56 (UTC)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
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 11:13 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 11:22 (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 13:29 (UTC)Me, I don't especially care either way.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 13:50 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 14:34 (UTC)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;).
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 14:35 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 14:36 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 14:55 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 14:59 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 15:00 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 15:23 (UTC)http://www.nice-tits.org/
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 15:28 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 16:58 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 17:05 (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 17:19 (UTC)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.
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 17:36 (UTC)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 ;)
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 17:47 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 18:34 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2004 19:15 (UTC)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.
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 19:17 (UTC)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
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 19:20 (UTC)CYa!
Mako
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 19:29 (UTC)Bwhaha! :-D
Yeah, pretty much you have a point on idiot people sniveling no matter what...
CYa!
Mako
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 22:40 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 22:46 (UTC)I wouldn't know, being a bloke and all.
Re:
Date: 2 Feb 2004 22:50 (UTC)Re:
Date: 3 Feb 2004 14:57 (UTC)********
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......
Re:
Date: 3 Feb 2004 22:59 (UTC)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).