Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

***** popping out... What's the big deal?

Feb 2, 2004 9:43AM PST

I don't understand the big thing with Janet Jackson's boob "popping" out. They keep talking about it here as a big scandal because it was a family event. What is the big deal with a human body? Are people denying God's creation? I mean, I think it was stupid to do what she did, but not for the fact that a bunch of kids were able to see a boob, but because it was clearly to provoke Justin's ex-girlfriend, Britney Spears and to outdo her tongue kiss with Madonna which I find extremely childish and immature.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It's all immature
Feb 2, 2004 11:01AM PST

Like naughty children trying to impress others into thinking they are so grownup.

- Collapse -
Agree
Feb 2, 2004 11:25AM PST

I agree with you James! I find the behavior immature too and think that it's pure commercialization of themselves. They seem to need that kind of publicity when the music isn't good enough...

But the debate has rather been focused on whether it was a good idea to show a female breast in front of millions of viewers. And in that matter I don't see any problems. Movies rated R here for the sexual content are usually rated PG 13 in Europe. Violence OTOH is often rated R in Europe. I am amazed that American TV is allowed to show the amount of violence that they are doing and nobody says a word about it, and when a female breast is shown the moralists are out on almost every channel complaining that their kids have to be exposed to what God has created!

- Collapse -
Viewers? It's about children, however if it's one they're sucking on...
Feb 2, 2004 12:01PM PST

...I couldn't care less. The situation in America and most "modern" countries is that ***** are less for nourishing children anymore and devoted almost exclusively toward "sex appeal". Even with suckling babes women used a cover for modesty sake. This isn't even about accidental, like Xena, but deliberate exposure to grab some headlines. It's also about impropriety of "stars" who think it's all about them and how they take improper advantage of a situation offered them. It's about trust, trust on the part of those families that wanted to sit around their set together and enjoy a game and some family based entertainment, and trusting CBS to adhere to some moral standards. Maybe when they announced MTV would be providing the entertainment, that should have been a tipoff of the trash to follow.

- Collapse -
Re:Agree
Feb 2, 2004 10:39PM PST
They seem to need that kind of publicity when the music isn't good enough...

And that, Charlie, sums it all up perfectly. Justin Timberlake used to be in a boy-band with a cutie-poo image. Now he's trying to change that image and since he doesn't have the talent to "mature" through better music, he has to resort to this kind of thing. And it's no coincidence that Janet Jackson has an album coming out and that she's not selling like she used to.

Madonna has built a career on this kind of thing, and unfortunately she's been a big influence on the talent-challenged.
- Collapse -
Long before the boob popped out...
Feb 2, 2004 11:14AM PST

Timberlake and Jackson were writhing back and forth across the stage openly fondling each other, singing explicit lyrics, and then as the song ends, he reaches over with an obvious flourish and rips her bodice off. Maybe something different was supposed to happen with the costume, we'll never know. But there is was, in all its glory... with sparkling jewelry pinned on the nipple, all the better to catch a glint in the camera lights. This is not merely about a stray boob flopping out, this is about in appropriate salacious and sexually provocative behaviour in front of millions of viewers who deserve better. My opinion.

- Collapse -
And longer before that...
Feb 2, 2004 11:37AM PST

Janet placed that piece of jewelry she was wearing. Does anyone really think she put it on thinking no one would see it or was the whole thing planned long in advance?

- Collapse -
Come on Charlie
Feb 2, 2004 11:17AM PST

Superbowl likely to have entire extended family sittig around watching game and halftime shows.

The dance was more than suggestive enough for smaller children, the apparent clothes ripping would upset parents don't you think?

No, you probably don't. You probably figure everyone should run around nude all the time then there wouldn't be any fuss about body parts showing. After all, it's all Gods creation. People should make love in the cafeteria during their lunch break to express themselves.

roger

- Collapse -
Do you care to tell me...
Feb 2, 2004 11:32AM PST

what can happen to a small child that sees a female breast? What will happen to the kid when he/she grows up that can be harmful to our society?

- Collapse -
Re:Do you care to tell me...
Feb 2, 2004 11:47AM PST

hmmm... seems that not so long ago a young fellow found himself in a heap of trouble for "showing off" on a little tyke the pro-wrestling stunts he saw on TV... so how long until some wise-acre kid emulates these celebrity "moves" on some innocent girl in the school cafeteria? Or maybe that's not harmful? It's just a boob, after all...

dw

- Collapse -
(NT)With schools zero tolerance policies, he could end up in juvie till 18.
Feb 2, 2004 1:02PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: ***** vs. wrestlers
Feb 2, 2004 9:41PM PST

Hi, ****.

Your message points out one of the fallacies of our society -- the combination of our Puritan ancestors and Wild West heritage have made violence more acceptable than sex. Everything has its place, but if I had to choose, I'd think sexuality (not the nonsense at the SuperBowl, btw -- I'm speaking in the context of a loving relationship) a lot less destructive than violence. But our society is the opposite. I believe it was Jack Nicholson who once put it crudely, but effectively:
"If they show a man kissing a woman's breast, it's an R. If he cuts it off, it's a PG" (This was before the PG/PG-13 split). There's something really wrong with those priorities!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
LOL!
Feb 2, 2004 10:02PM PST

I didn't know about that comment, but it is certainly true! LOL! That is a perfect example of the double standard of the FCC! Great Dave!

- Collapse -
So grown men that flash school girls shouldn't be arrested? they should be encouraged?
Feb 2, 2004 12:07PM PST

Whats the difference? if it was intentional?

What happens if a young teenage boy sees things like that and thinks it's ok to reach out and rip anyone's dress he pleases off?

And maybe it wasn't, but the dance was very sensual from what I saw on evening news, didn't watch superbowl personally, game or halftime.

Sometimes things happen where exposure of normally covered body is accidental and everyone is just left redfaced.

The dance was already deliberately provocative before that happened. If it was accident, then just bad luck, but seems doubtful. But surely even you appreciate that some parents would disapprove of national tv during the superbowl would apparently endorse wanton behavior and public nudity? Wouldn't you call the guy ripping the dress off the girl wanton behavior?


roger

- Collapse -
Re:it all depends on circumstance charley
Feb 2, 2004 6:50PM PST

a kid sees his mom breast feeding, nothing....

if he sees it as part of a "show" he 'may' just walk away thinking "hey, i want to do that" or "if it's just there as a prop for the show, what's the big deal?"...

you want your kids to grow up thinking of women as "objects"?.... carry on the way you are.....

- Collapse -
"carry on the way you are" - jonah jones
Feb 2, 2004 10:04PM PST

How am I?

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 12:01AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 12:07AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 12:28AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 12:34AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 1:10AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 2:46AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 3:50AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 4:08AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 4:18AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 5:04AM PST
- Collapse -
To all of you in this part of the thread
Feb 3, 2004 2:45AM PST

There has been "bad blood: between Charlie and Jack (and a few others) that has carried over to the new forum. Who started it and why does not matter.

It ends here and now!

What Jack posted had been posted in the old forum. (A good reason to think before posting as words can come back to haunt.)

Charlie's was a reference to what has been touted as fact, most recently by one of the most virulent posts I have seen in this community.

Jack should not have posted the old message as he knew Charlie would consider it an "attack"/

Charlie should not have referred to what a few people here consider "fact", as is as inadvisable as Jack's, and Jack could also consider it an "attack". Whether or not it is fact makes no difference- it has no place here.

Speakeasy is not a forum to fight your old battles. I think Roger said it well - and I believe the majority of members find these sorts of exchanges distasteful.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 2:51AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 3:58AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 4:50AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 3, 2004 4:59AM PST