I don't know how many of you watched the Super Bowl tonight, but during the halftime show part of Janet Jackson's clothing happened to "fall off" at the end. Its currently unknown if it was an accident of if it was part of a planned stunt. Seeing as Ms. Jackson had a silver tassel on her nipple it points to the later.

Is this just more evidence of moral decline in American society that is led by the Hollywood crowd?

Do you believe it was an accident?

As we all know Hollywood is full of liberals and many were vocally upset with CBS's decision not to air the anti-Bush ad. Could this have been a planned stunt to "protest" that decision?

I personally believe it was a stunt and one done in very poor taste. Millions of children look up to these musicians and for something like this to be planned is despicable. Our culture is taking a serious hit from the "entertainment" community and something needs to be done. As a people we need to boycott MTV and the guilty parties so that they understand that we won't stand for this kind of trash.

CBS apologizes for breast-baring end to halftime show

More evidence that it may have been planned

Janet Jackson's Super Bowl Show Promises 'Shocking Moments'

Less racism, less homophobia, violent crime has basically been on a downward trend for a generation...what moral decline? A bit more nudity I guess. Maybe this is that Feb 1st protest I have been hearing about. I would think if you were going to protest you would let it be known it was an act of protest. One thing videos have sure led to a decline in music. I wonder how many of the middle aged men who make a good part of the Superbowl crowd found anything entertaining, with the possible exception of the "protest" about the show.

Perhaps it was a stunt. But I wouldn't object to it. The human body is not something to be shamed. Perhaps if children learned that there was nothing wrong with the human body we would have less issues with self esteem. Therefore I don't see it as evidence of moral decline.

I don't see the correlation between her displaying her body and the moveon.org ad. How can it be related?

What moral decline? You mean people with too much time on their hands complaining that everyone else doesn't follow their personal code of morals and ethics?


probably not. However if it was meant as an act of nonconformity it was dull and has been done to death




Reading a bit much into this there Venom. Exactly how could this protest the decision to not air a commercial. Although I did hear reports of unmarked pink helicopters hovering over Dallas. Maybe the Gay Mafia is also involved?? Does Mars need women AGAIN?!

Well I'm a college kid, so when that happened there was a lot of whooping and hollering around the room, and the first thing everyone was doing was trying to find the picture on the internet (only for analytical purposes, mind you).

When a CLEAR pic finally was found (around the 4th Q), we noticed there was a star covering her God-given asset. I think that is evidence enough that it was clearly a stunt. Especially the fact that she was not stunned at all, and Justin is just sitting there holding the mic in his hand.

One of my friends said, "Why would she do that on purpose?" immediately after when we were debating whether or not is was on purpose. My response:

"How else do you top two of the most popular gilrs in America kissing each other?"


Oh and Piper, you said it beautifully.

Moral decline???
Moral decline???!!!
It was a breast. And from what I'm hearing, the nipple was covered. And even if it wasn't... a breast. My god, I've seen fat men topless at beaches with bigger breasts! I think the nipple double-standard is ridiculous. A dark circle on a breast. Good grief.
This is not "more" evidence of a moral decline in America, because previous "evidence" of a "moral decline" has not been established.
If it was covered, it could either be because she planned it or because she wanted to take precautions in case whatever was covering it fell off. Even if it was planned, it's the Superbowl half-time show. With advertisements for the lingerie bowl, Venom, in all honesty you could not possibly expect for the Superbowl to be a source of good, wholesome family entertainment. As a matter of fact, the half-time show has been risque for the past few years at least. I don't know why you're acting surprised that there is some "moral decline" that you perceive. You knew what you were getting into when you decided to watch it. If you don't like what's on TV, then go rent some focus on the family videos.
And I second Piper's statement that the human body is nothing to be ashamed of. We're born naked, for gods'sake, is anyone offended by a naked baby? All of a sudden, though, when someone is sexually mature, it becomes a hideous, perverse thing to view. Completely backwards.

An accident? No, I believe it was definately planned, particularly as the last line Justin sang just before ripping off her clothing was "I bet I have you naked by the end of this song". In addition, I don't know of any women that would be wearing a "pastie" if they didn't expect to be exposed in some manner.


As opposed to the moral decline demonstrated in abundance (and being lead) by crooked businessmen and politicians, of all stripes, and not just "Hollywood? I don't think so.


A planned stunt? Yes. As a protest to the Moveon.org advertising decision? Methinks your anti-liberal, anti-hollywood paranoia is showing, Venom. The fact is, Janet has an album coming out in a couple of weeks, if I'm not mistaken. What better way to generate publicity and interest, than by planning an outrageous stunt just before it's released?

Indeed, I have to agree with the rest of the posts here, and especially with Hugo's. Society has made great strides in addressing equality, poverty, discrimination, &c. And a bit of nudity is immoral? Hardly. What I find unethical is exploiting sexuality to sell records, but it's entirely the fault of consumers for falling for it.



Blame it all on the liberals who really do go too far!

Well, thats a trend we can all live with.



That depends on what you would term a "moral decline." I guess, being that I believe in amoralism, that I do not see the Hollywood crowd encouraging a decline in "morals" anymore than the recent church scandals have caused priest to adopt a policy of pedophilia



No, the star would pretty much indicate that this was scripted.



Wait, shes drops her shirt and now its a "protest?" Does Moby know about this? I would be much more suspect if she was on the "moveon.org" website council. But, since she isn't I have no reason to believe that it was a protest.



I agree with you on that (well, just the MTV part). Not so much for their cause in the "moral" decline, but because of the corporations that prey on teenagers insecurities to push products.

Is this just more evidence of moral decline in American society that is led by the Hollywood crowd?

No, to me the Super Bowl entertainment segment reminded me of just how competitive the entertainment field has become in recent years. Some of our celebrities, judging by their actions, believe that pure and simple good or outstanding talent just isn't enough to create a lasting impression with the viewers. So, let's really give them something to remember and talk about...a little shock and awe! Per the quotes below in the CBS article, shock and awe may give the stars a much needed boost to their promotion agenda. For sure, the shock and awe tactic is one way to never get invited back to do it a second time.



And while I agree with some of the posts arguing "respect and admiration of our bodies"...the fault IMO lies not in the exposure of her breast, but that the very young viewers were left with the impression that it is "okay" or permissable for guys and gals to rip or pull at one another's clothing with the intent of "exposing" to embarrass, humiliate, or for just a good laugh at someone else's expense.

From the viewpoint of CBS...the entertainment industry has taken a beating by parents, various groups, and Congress about too much violence, nudity, foul language, etc., and that they better clean up their act and fast! They were forced to revamp their rating system for viewers and thus the comment from CBS:


Do you believe it was an accident?

From the expression on Janet's face in the picture with the article, I would say she looked surprised. However, after all the publicity Madonna and Britney received from their infamous "KISS", I wouldn't be surprised if it was just another feeble attempt at sensationalism and a poor one at that.

As we all know Hollywood is full of liberals and many were vocally upset with CBS's decision not to air the anti-Bush ad. Could this have been a planned stunt to "protest" that decision?

IMO, to arrive at that conclusion would be giving Justin and Janet more credit than they deserve.

It was definitely not an accident that Ms. Jackson teased the Super Bowl audience, and I really don't think it is further evidence of moral decline. Titillating behavior (and yes, the pun is intentional) is status quo for Hollywood. Just look at the Academy Awards program of any given year, and you will see a star or starlet pushing the envelope with her get-up. Cher was one of the worst in that regard and she's in her 50's now, so it's been around.

I do not recall hearing Janet Jackson ever come out in support of MoveOn.org. If anything, she would have toned down her performance to show approval of the protesters of CBS's decision not to include the MoveOn ad and tune in to CNN where it was shown a couple of times last night.

But it is interesting that the Super Bowl seems to be less and less about a football game and more and more about entertainment and corporate promotions in all of their manifestations. Isn't the game itself worth watching anymore?

1. Moral decline? Oh, please! Dial the outrage meter back down to a "5." Was a pre-planned, premeditated stunt by two talentless little toads like Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake mean that white boys will suddenly start baring the silicone-grown breasts of black females? I think not.



2. No.

3. Justin and Janet are members of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy? Huh. Whaddya know about that?

I'm just guessing here but I'm sure there were some of us offended by the numerous ads for erectile dysfunction drugs, dogs chomping on the private areas of men, horses passing gas and old people brutalizing each other over a bag of potato chips.

Or maybe not....

This is not a one-liner, but a serious question...What evidence do we have that observing an uncovered human body is immoral, or would lead to immorality?

My wife and i have been associated with naturists for years, and we have yet to witness the children of our friends suffer incest, rape or any type of molestation. I am not aware of any teen aged girl in a naturist family becoming pregnant, or the teen aged boys impregnating another young woman. As far as I can tell, these children do well in school, and have a low rate of illicit drug use. Those that have moved away from their naturist parent's home haven't always followed the same lifestyle, but do appear to be as successful as anyone else of their age. But, all of this is simply a result of my personal observation. I have yet to find a study, or serious debate on this issue. This is why I ask. Can anyone help?

As for this particular case, I agree with Desert Resident's observation. The image of Timberlake tearing away Jackson's peice of clothing could lead to further problems between children.

But, the pastie makes the question of an accident seem pretty silly.

Hpiltdown, There is a lot of effort made to make nudity "dirty." If anything, that is the moral decline factor. Our society has associated nudity with sexual arousal for a long time rather than encouraging the human form to be appreciated for its beauty alone.

SuzySteamboat mentioned that seeing naked babies is not shameful (and I agree), but rest assured, if it were legally permissible to portray babies in a sexual manner on television, somebody would be doing it to make money. I am so thankful that this is not the case.

You're right, it's not the nudity; it's the connotation of sexual naughtiness--the titillation factor. And the pastie on the breast is proof enough that it was staged.

Nighttimer is right: the commericals of erectile dysfunction, dog biting crotch, horse flatus and geriatric violence were worse than Jackson's tease.

I saw advertised, on network television, a 'pay per view' ad for supermodels in lingerie that were to play a tackle game during halftime. Now I obviously did not pay for that view, does anyone know about this? What I do know is that the ad for it showed plenty, as well the frontal bottom parts of females, scantily clothed. Horrors! Was this a Victorias Secret plot, a left wing a-moral backlash? No, it was blantant sex for money.

A society that accepts unbridled violence without objection in televised media but boo-hoos any kind of nudity or reference to sexuality as immoral should really begin to question where their values lie. Especially in relation to children. Yet Im glad the lingerie stuff was pay per view.

No, I dont think it was a vast left wing conspiracy, nor moral decline.

Aol sponsored it and I am not sure, considering Janets backround (she is not known for nudity), if it wasnt a mistake, she may have just backed herself up in case of costume failure, but I wont go there. It doesnt really matter does it?

After all, the whole time we were bombarded with erectile disfunction ads. That must be some right wing conspiracy.

Thats the problem. Children are not taught that, in fact they are taught the exact opposite. I don't even have children and I am outraged that this happened on national television. If anyone actually believes that this didn't leave a nasty impression on thousands if not millions of children you are NAIVE! Little boys now believe its ok to rip little girls shirts off, and you aren't outraged??

For the record I don't believe this was a protest of the moveon.org decision. Again people are jumping to conclusions which I have come to expect from individuals here. This was an opinion I read on another website and figured it was a worthwhile question to be asked. I don't just ask questions that I agree with. I ask questions for different angles on the situation.

Is this just more evidence of moral decline in American society that is led by the Hollywood crowd?

Um... if you are talking about kid rock desecrating the flag. I would have to agree. But it was a breast. Get over it.

Do you believe it was an accident?

I believe that it was as much of an accident as Kid Rock wearing the American Flag.

As we all know Hollywood is full of liberals and many were vocally upset with CBS's decision not to air the anti-Bush ad. Could this have been a planned stunt to "protest" that decision?

Personal Attack Removed oops... This seems kind of ridiculous as a statement, and very conspiracy theory type aimed question. Perhaps not the best.

Monty

Maybe they learned it from watching the Super Bowl; maybe they had already learned it from watching something else Daddy watches, or from just watching Daddy! The fact is, you look at MTV any day of the week, and you'll see more of this behavior. Freedom of speech! Freedom of expression! Social responsibility is not recognized by Super Bowl promoters or their entertainers. They are not their brothers' (or sisters') keepers, they would protest.

(My outrage about things is a matter of degree. I find it far more outrageous that our best men and women are out fighting a war, some getting wounded or dying, and not knowing when they will be able to come home while their Commander-In-Chief is raising millions of dollars at $2000 per plate re-election campaign fundraisers and cutting pension benefits for the people putting their lives on the line and basing his case for re-election on his wondrous success at being a wartime President.)

No, I do not like seeing "entertainment" of that sort. But it's pretty typical, isn't it?
It just looks to me like people are willing to spend their money and time stimulating themselves by watching the prelude to a rape fantasy, rather than watching something that will have lasting benefit to our society. Guess what? CBS
knows that.

But the Super Bowl has never been about things of lasting benefit to our society, has it? It is a visual and auditory stimulus only.

She had to do something to compete with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other...but an aside to the comments about the 'beautiful human body'. There's a time and place for everything. Could a woman in the crowd stand bare-breasted and not be harassed or arrested? Nope. It simply isn't appropriate....not quite as bad, but up there with Rosean Barr singing the national anthem. It would have been fine at Woodstock, or a concert tour for purely Jackson fans who might expect it. Not the World Series...er, I mean Super Bowl .

I thought the horse flatulence was hilarious. But that's my own juvenile sense of humor.

I have to agree that I was more annoyed with Kid Rock's flag outfit.

Janet most definitely has talent (someone claimed earlier that she was no-talent like Justin).

She has a sweet and innocent image that she was able to preserve by pretending like the incident was an accident or unintentional, but it probably was intentional. I'm a huge Janet fan.

I made the comment to my boyfriend last night that it's interesting how people don't really associate her with her brother - despite the freakishness of him, she can have such a dissociated image.

Is this just more evidence of moral decline in American society that is led by the Hollywood crowd?

No.

Do you believe it was an accident?

No.

As we all know Hollywood is full of liberals and many were vocally upset with CBS's decision not to air the anti-Bush ad. Could this have been a planned stunt to "protest" that decision?

Absolutely not.



Listen, during the heyday of conservative, Right wing Christian, 1950's America, you would never have seen a beer commercial or cheerleaders dressed the way they are at foot ball games today.

People now get a way with dime store cusswords and moderate swearing on network stations all the time. There are commercials for erectial disfunction for goodness sake!!!


Yeah, Janet and Justin should have checked this stunt out with the executives and made some "modifications" to let the audience clearly know that she wasn't bear chested. But in all honesty if this was such a big issue and morality was threatened by it, then how come you can turn on ANY news broadcast, open any news paper and you'll see the blurred out picture of Ms. Jacksons right breast? It's
right there for you're imagination...
If network executives aren't "hip" to the fact that pop stars today are going to make an opportunity out of their public appearances and world televised performances to get the headlines then they're the ones that are naive!!!

If ANYTHING, Janet was trying to show up Madonna and Brittany and take a little of the heat off of her brother.

Yes I can agree, to some extent, that ripping off someones clothes, even when in the context of "entertainment" can be perceived as its "ok". But this is where, in my opinion, open dialogue between the parent and child is important. If the child is too young to understand that this was for entertainment then the parents should explain. If the child is older and doesn't understand that this was for entertainment then the parents would again need to have the same conversation.

I think part of the shock and awe of Janet's act is more shock because in this country we shield ourselves. We are taught that displaying your breasts, if you are a woman, is dirty and naughty. Look at the country's that don't have such issues, where topless beaches are the norm, where bare breasted women on television is not something to be censored. Do you see social problems in regards to sex and the body? No, quite the opposite. As long as an act like this receives attention it will be stigmatized as wrong, dirty and naughty.


Coney Island runs an annual Mermaid Parade. I went last summer to shoot it as part of an assignment. I remember being quite shocked that there were so many women walking around with either pasties or body paint covering their breasts. I was comforted that so many women did this regardless of their shape or size. I was also comforted that they were not harassed or even gawked at. Since the people attending this parade (and yes there were children there with their parents) are used to this, it isn't an issue. Anyway, these women were not arrested because it was determined the year before that this was for entertainment.
Topless mermaid wins rights case

Well, I don't think it was an accident, or a protest or any specific "sign" of a decay of morality in America. It was typical MTV type stuff near as I can tell, I don't really watch MTV very often. I know the NFL wasn't thrilled with it, but I don't know what they were thinking by having MTV do the halftime show in the first place. Personally, I found the entire halftime rather boring, but that's just my taste I guess.

I do however find it interesting that all of this "outrage" has been expressed over Janet Jackson's "stunt" and there was no mention of a CBS promo that ran during the Superbowl for their sitcom, "Two and a half Men". It ran sometime in the second half and it showed the young boy in the show sitting at the kitchen table. Also in the kitchen was a female wearing only a T-Shirt and when she reached up to close the kitchen blinds, the shirt lifted up, exposing her thong-clad rear end to the boy. Frankly, I found that far more disturbing since that program runs on a network in Prime Time. I wonder where the outrage is about that....

The fact is people disagree on what amount of nudity they wish to have their children exposed to. Most people probably assumed they could let their children watch the Superbowl without exposing them to a woman having her blouse ripped off. Jackson's antics are more representative of people trying to push their values on others than any moral decline. Their definitely is a clash of morals and those who have traditional, somewhat Puritarian, morals should be able to watch a Superbowl without being exposed to this "entertainment".

Fortunately the FCC chief is outraged and is looking at sending Justin and Janet to Guantanamo Bay.

Little boys now believe it is justs as ok to rip a girl's shirt as it is ok to go to school dressed in a flag. In all honesty, children have DAILY activities impressed upon them, not one late school night split-second showing of a breast.

Also, this WAS the superbowl. Let's get real here. There were 4 fights in the 1st Q. 2 were in the first MINUTE! In fact, within 4 minutes of the game, one player left with bloood running all down his nose, yet we get mad about a breast. And I must agree with the commercial about 2 and a half men.

Now maybe it would have been different if someone else was up there, I don't know. But this was JANET JACKSON! On the "shock and awe" meter, I was more in awe than shock.

Here's a thought however...maybe it part of a RIGHT WING Conspiracy that the Bush administration concocted to impress heterosexuality to little kids...
Just a thought...

I'm more concerned with my children seeing beer commercials. I'm more concerned with my children watching a bunch of violent men smashing the heck out of each other on a field and calling it a sport.

Truthfully, this breasting incident just completes the triumverate for this game. Violence, drugs, and... sex!

Moral decline? Hollywood liberal conspiracies? Someone's been reading their social conservative buzzword manual.

If people are really concerned about Hollywood and moral decline, then cancel your cable subscription. Don't go see movies.

In that sort of case, the pasties and body paint were appropriate. They wouldn't be at the Super Bowl. Topless beach, nursing area in a public hospital, ect.= appropriate. Ball game=not appropriate.

Clearly then you and your children were not watching the Superbowl.

I agree that is a reason for the shock. Of course if people still believe that a woman's breast is naughty then of course they will view this as having others values being shoved down their throats. But I also believe that once you take the shock out of the picture it reduces the awe. In my opinion, it is a similar notion to the war on drugs, take the excitement out of doing drugs it looses its value. Take the shock out of seeing a womans breast and it too will loose its value.


This sort of relates to my response above but I would like to add that a ball game is entertainment and the half time game is most certainly entertainment.

That would be correct. We canceled our cable subscription in 1998. I haven't missed it even once. Except during the World Cup.

The real bread and circuses in this nation are being discussed in this thread - it's not social programs.

The point is that those who felt they way you do would not be watching the Superbowl. Millions who did not want to see, or have their children see, a woman have her blouse half ripped off did not have the foreknowledge to at least shut off the half-time show. Neither nudity, football or beer commercials bother me, they all bother some people. Those people don't have to expose themselves to it. Those who do not want to be subjected to a naked breast were not given that choice.

It is similar to the moveon ad debate. The fact is the antics did offend part of the viewing audience.

Hugo, I understand your point and I am not discrediting it. My point is merely that I feel that their is nothing nasty about the body. I feel that as long as it is censored people will feel that their is something nasty about it. This is my opinion, I can't force others to agree as they can't force me to agree. I believe these stunts, while it offends some, also remind me how disgraced we are of our bodies. If we can get passed that then perhaps the self esteem issues young people, especially girls have about their bodies, could be alleviated. I can't proclaim that it will but it is interesting to me that in countries that do allow woman's breast to be shown on television are also less inhibited when taking their top off on a nude beach.

[quote]Moral decline???
Moral decline???!!!
It was a breast. And from what I'm hearing, the nipple was covered. And even if it wasn't... a breast. My god, I've seen fat men topless at beaches with bigger breasts! I think the nipple double-standard is ridiculous. A dark circle on a breast. Good grief.
This is not "more" evidence of a moral decline in America, because previous "evidence" of a "moral decline" has not been established. [/quote]

MTV is the previous "evidence". Year in and year out they push the limits and get away with it. Whether you like it or not the female breast and the male breast are seen as "different" in our culture. THAT is the issue, not whether or not it should not be.

[quote]Venom, in all honesty you could not possibly expect for the Superbowl to be a source of good, wholesome family entertainment. As a matter of fact, the half-time show has been risque for the past few years at least.[/quote]

It USED to be wholesome family entertainment. This is what I'm trying to say. The Janet Jackson stunt is not the begining of this by any stretch of the imagination, its just for me the final straw!

[quote]You knew what you were getting into when you decided to watch it. If you don't like what's on TV, then go rent some focus on the family videos. [/quote]

Oh yeah I forgot CBS, MTV, and the NFL all told us in advance that this kind of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** was gonna happen during the halftime show. You're right I knew "what I was getting into".

[quote]And I second Piper's statement that the human body is nothing to be ashamed of. We're born naked, for gods'sake, is anyone offended by a naked baby? All of a sudden, though, when someone is sexually mature, it becomes a hideous, perverse thing to view. Completely backwards.[/quote]

If we had all been brought up to accept simulated sex acts, nudity, etc as totally normal then you're right no one should be offended, but thats NOT the case in the USA! We don't accept that kind of garbage as normal in the USA. Never have. Why is it right for MTV, Janet, Justin, CBS, etc to throw it in our faces now???

[quote]Um... if you are talking about kid rock desecrating the flag. I would have to agree. But it was a breast. Get over it.
[/quote]

Thats it pass.... one bad behavior off as "ok" by pointing to another bad behavior, and again jump to conclusions that I view Kid Rock's flag attire as "ok". Fact is I think the ads, AND the entertainment were ALL evidence of moral decline in this country, however the Jackson incident was by far the worst.

[quote]No, I do not like seeing "entertainment" of that sort. But it's pretty typical, isn't it?
It just looks to me like people are willing to spend their money and time stimulating themselves by watching the prelude to a rape fantasy, rather than watching something that will have lasting benefit to our society. Guess what? CBS
knows that.[/quote]

And just because CBS thinks that thats ok to throw in front of millions of children that makes it OK? Come on people can we think for ourselves or are we a bunch of lemmings. If you feel that just because MTV, CBS, etc think its ok for our children that we should just accept that?

[quote]If ANYTHING, Janet was trying to show up Madonna and Brittany and take a little of the heat off of her brother.  [/quote]

Oh well geez in that case good for Janet. I can't WAIT to see what the next person does to "out do" her!!

[quote]I think part of the shock and awe of Janet's act is more shock because in this country we shield ourselves. We are taught that displaying your breasts, if you are a woman, is dirty and naughty. Look at the country's that don't have such issues, where topless beaches are the norm, where bare breasted women on television is not something to be censored. Do you see social problems in regards to sex and the body? No, quite the opposite. As long as an act like this receives attention it will be stigmatized as wrong, dirty and naughty.[/quote]

So we should just conform our culture so that it immitates that of Sweden, the Netherlands, etc?? Hello......can't we have our own identity. I mean people argue that we shouldn't introduce our values to the Middle East because they have the right to abuse, kill, maim, etc their own people, but now we should alter our culture to mirror that of other countries???

[quote]Little boys now believe it is justs as ok to rip a girl's shirt as it is ok to go to school dressed in a flag. In all honesty, children have DAILY activities impressed upon them, not one late school night split-second showing of a breast.[/quote]

Whoo hoo more supporting of bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Hey if we keep this up rape will be socially acceptable in a few years!

[quote]Also, this WAS the superbowl. Let's get real here. There were 4 fights in the 1st Q. 2 were in the first MINUTE! In fact, within 4 minutes of the game, one player left with bloood running all down his nose, yet we get mad about a breast. And I must agree with the commercial about 2 and a half men.[/quote]

Well his nose was bleeding because his facemask was too wide and someones knee hit him in the nose on a routine tackle, but hey if you wanna use that to support your argument........why not, everyone else is pointing to this and that and the other thing.

[quote]If people are really concerned about Hollywood and moral decline, then cancel your cable subscription. Don't go see movies. [/quote]

Well most "responsible" parents know not to let their kids watch some of whats on cable, but when it comes to NETWORK television and the Super Bowl parents shouldn't have to be on the edge of their seats in fear of whats gonna be thrown in their childrens face next.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you wanna change our culture to embrace simulated sex acts, nudity, drug use, smoking, drinking, etc what can I do, but I feel sorry for your children when you brush off bad behavior just because someone else does something equally as bad. The "Well if he did this then she can do that" is not a valid arguement but obviously some people think it is.

I don't think the beer ads are good for our children either and I stated so in the moveon.org thread. We as a society need to stand up for the moral values and stop this downward spiral.

I don't know, hugo. People also don't watch football games expecting to see someone getting their spine snapped in a hard tackle, but it's a possibility. Life is full of the unexpected. If you watch football, it should not be surprising to see someone injured so badly that they lose consciousness or are bleeding. If you watch someone dancing around a stage in skimpy clothing, it should not be a great surprise that the shirt may come off.

From what I've seen of Janet Jackson, she sells sex more than she sells music. Even people who watched the game were not forced to watch the half-time show. If the brazen selling of sex stereotypes bothers someone, they can switch channels during that part of it. Did she grind her hips? Did she dance provocatively? Why would such actions bother people less than an exposed breast? And don't even try to tell me that people were expecting music alone from Janet Jackson!

For the record - nudity, beer commercials, and football don't bother me either. My reasons for getting rid of television programming were based on my opinion that such things are merely stupid - and engender apathy and mental laziness.

edited to respond to Venom:


I should have been more clear. I don't have an antenna, either. I made no distinction between 'network' and 'cable.' They both suck.


I just find it interesting, and a lesson in the subjectivity of values, that you can rail on about the boob, and yet think somehow that watching sweaty men violently smash into each other is 'wholesome family entertainment.'

I'm sorry, I don't see anything wrong with it. More revealing outfits have been worn to award shows. I thought it was cheesy, but not at all offensive. But I guess I look at this with a sense of humor and just see it for what it is... ENTERTAINMENT. If you know the likes of Justin Timberlake, Jackson and Kid Rock who are HEAVY MTV PERSONALITIES are going to be performing, it kinda goes hand in hand that it's going to be a little over the top.

I think America's a little too uptight if we're discussing a BOOB.

No I am not suggesting that you or any else has to change their values. I am not suggesting that we have to look at how other nations that don't view the woman's breast as nasty. If you or anyone else want to censor your children than fine. Parents can and will raise their children as they see fit. I have no right to tell them otherwise. I can't, and don't want to, stop that but I can and have every right to point out that there is nothing wrong with a woman's breast. I have every right to point out that self esteem issues could be alleviated. I have every right to point out that countries that do not stigmatize a woman's breasts as being dirty don't seem to have problems with displaying their bodies on nude beaches. That men are not gawking at these women and viewing their breasts as something that is deviously sexual. Ultimately you and others that do feel it is wrong have a right to censor. Our culture is changing, whether people like it or not. If the point of censorship now needs to be extended to the Super Bowl than fine. If you are morally outraged than you have every right to boycott future Super Bowl games and CBS for that matter. Just as I have every right to not see it as an issue and continue to watch the Super Bowl and not boycott CBS.

I don’t think it has to do with people thinking a breast is nasty because I don’t think our culture teaches that breasts are nasty. Where is this coming from? Most people have a real appreciation for a woman’s breasts.

But a preference for nudity shouldn’t surpass another’s desire for modesty. Families watching halftime activities shouldn’t have to fear their children viewing something they deem inappropriate.

If I were a parent, I probably wouldn’t have let my child watch any of the halftime show. The lyrics to some of the songs contained inappropriate language for children, in my opinion.

There is no doubt Janet’s breast was a shock to the television audience, whether the shock was accepted or rejected by the viewer.

I personally was shocked (as in surprised) but not offended.

I am walking in a park, with my ten year old daughter. Suddenly a football game breaks out, half a dozen kids engaged in, what to the uneducated eye, appears to be random violence centered around an odd shaped ball. Then some guy decides to display his "beautiful" penis as we walk by.

I am at a "gentleman's" club suddenly a bunch of idiots start playing football, obscuring my view of the entertainment.

I rent a video of Roadrunner cartoons for my young son that are filled with random acts of violence. Suddenly three minutes of a a Victoria's Secret photo shoot appear.

In two of these three cases the nudity is offensive, in the other case the football playing is. It is the fact that you got something you did not expect, that may offend you, that is what the problem is. Yes, if it was not a stunt, ,but an accident, you could say unexpected things can happen, get used to it. When the unexpected is orchestrated that excuse does not fly. I might accidentally leave my zipper undone, I don't do it intentionally.

I don't recall ever seeing a Hollywood protest with signs calling for a moral decline. It may be that many of them have a different standard of morality than you do, but I would imagine that many of them would argue that they are more moral than many others, perhaps including you. Not being uptight about nudity does not make one's morals looser. I understand that many people would not choose to have that image beamed into their house without their consent, but I think that concerns over boys running around ripping girls clothing off are a little far-fetched. Let's face it, if you can't have a greater influence on your child than 3 seconds of TV airtime does then you have WAY more family problems than seeing a breast on TV.



No. It was definitely a publicity stunt. However, it was a bare breast. There was no pasty. Janet Jackson has her right nipple pierced, what she was wearing is what I guess (having no personal experience with nipple piercing) is called a nipple-shield. It was a star/sun design that surrounds the nipple, with a hole in the center allowing the nipple to poke through. It attaches like any other nipple piercing. There is a hi-res close-up floating around the web that you can find if you really want to see for yourself. The clothing was not "ripped" either. She is wearing a leather bodice and the right cup is attached by snaps. It was break-away.

It was a stunt. She's releasing a new album and probably doesn't want the release headline to read "Accused pedophile Michael Jackson's sister, Janet, releases new album today." So she was trying to steal back some of the headlines. Justin Timberlake is a hack from a boy-band that was manufactured by a record label, he's just looking for any headline.

I thought the whole half-time show was pretty bo-ring, nipple or no.

[quote]As we all know Hollywood is full of liberals and many were vocally upset with CBS's decision not to air the anti-Bush ad. Could this have been a planned stunt to "protest" that decision?[/b]

No, way to vague to be a statement to be a protest.

Yes. There is too much of this sort of thing in Hollywood and the Music world nowadays. It's disgusting.



No. From looking at the multiple playbacks by the news networks, it looked too easy to make that happen. I think it was staged.


I think it was staged and MTV offered them 2 money to do it. MTV is well known for that. MTV should be heavly fined if found to be involved. As for CBS, i think they should NOT be fined. They had no idea. If they wanted to avoid controversy by not letting PETA run their ad or letting MoveOn.org run their ad, then they would not have allowed this disgusting display.

Budweiser's ads were not as bad as Janet Jackson and Justin Timburlake

There are boycotts of networks that are organized from time to time. I can comment that CBS was terrible to be unconcerned about their Super Bowl program content, but it will not change CBS's policies unless it becomes no longer lucrative to wink at the shenanigans of entertainers on stage.

I suspect that your protest to the network will receive the same careful attention that the protests about not running the MoveOn political commercial did.

I guess what I am saying is, choose your battles, and then do something about it.
My focus is on the "War on Terror" and the need for a peaceful American regime change. There are just too many channels on the television to deal with all of the sexploitation and violence. I suspect that Quarkhead's solution is the only realistic one.

NEWSFLASH: In fact, Venom, I just heard an NPR report that the outrage over the Jackson/Timberlake performance IS receiving a lot of attention. Keep those e-mails coming in, gang!

Where? The news or from Organizations such as the FCC?

the news networks are playing it over and over again like the Britany Spears kissing incident

I think publicity is what Janet Jackson wanted. She coincidentally has an album coming out soon.

The FCC Chairman was watching the halftime show and he is launching a full investigation and there will definetly be some flying fists

The evidence of possible moral decline may be more obvious in
the "noise" that was trying to pass itself off as "music".
I found that much more offensive than Janet Jackson's body exposed.

I watched her perfomance, with Justin T., and I didn't even notice
it happen. I guess I was too busy wondering how people can
understand and enjoy the kind of music the performers were
haphazardly dishing out.

As GoAmerica stated, I do not believe that it was an accident.
In Hollywood bad publicity is GOOD publicity. It's all about selling
albums. Everything can be traced back to the almighty dollar.

(It was an exciting football game, and everything else is "filler"
as far as I'm concerned. I don't put much importance on any of it)

Gosh is this the 1950's again!?
This "noise" you refer to, is the bi-product of Elvis, Little Richard and Jerry Lee lewis, and that generations parents said the something about the "noise" they were making and the "hips and pelvis" of Elvis and the sexual innuendos of Jerry Lee. I think some people here on this board just have forgotten what it was like to be a teenager...

Touche', B.J.

But, honest to gosh, I just don't get the whole "rap" genre!!
Forgive me.

I find the quality of music, that was performed last night,
to be the most offensive part of the whole show.

Biance' did an awesome job - that's talent. The other stuff
was fluffy, ill-rehearsed C. R. A. P. (IMHO)

Please, don't compare those bunch of no-talented "singers" with Elvis and Little Richard. Before videos people actually had to be able to sing. The stuff on that half-time show was not music. It was simply noise. This is why they have to resort to controversial stunts, no one will buy their albums for their musical content.

I have to agree with those who say the "outrage" just exemplifies how far out of whack we have our priorities as a nation. Violent riots take place in "celebration" of the game, and all anyone is talking about is the outrage that a female breast was shown on TV.

It's just a breast! It's no big deal.

I agree, I've seen Janet put on better shows and I also think it was a cheap attempt for attention. I think she's got more on her mind than the halftime show... honestly, not trying to go off on Michael Jackson, but if my big brother was facing the kind of charges he was and I was in the court room the day of his arrainment two weeks ago, I doubt my mind would be on an upcoming show. That's a poor excuse for lip synching and poor chorography, but it's understandable.

I also think, that because Janet is recently divorced and now single, we'll be seeing her be more racy. Madonna, Spears and Christina Aguleria (SP?! ) have been playing the whole sex kitten thing and Janet has always been the quite, shy good girl. I'm sure she's wanting to update her image to compete with them. It's all about how they sell themselves and the audience buys into it, and so does the media. HECK, RUSH LIMBAUGH was talking about it for an HOUR today!!!



I hate to burst your bubble, but according to the recording industry and the musicians respected fans around the world who go to their concerts, buy their cd's and request their songs on the radio, their not "no talents". In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure you're aware of the hours of practice, dance rehearsals and studio time that goes into making albums and making videos and putting on concerts. If everyone could do it then we wouldn't be talking about Janet and Justine, now would we?

Just because YOU don't like them, doesn't mean that the masses don't.

Our media in action.

Controversy is better than riots