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 -
Re:Re: Hope you feel better now ...
Feb 6, 2004 3:44AM PST

In the matter you mention it would seem full knowledge which they obtained is what created their problem.

Let's try this in any other area of life. "Only if we teach children how to make atomic weapons, furnish them with more complete knowledge will they be safer, but ignorance of forming atomic weapons leave children defenseless."

- Collapse -
Interesting, but a poor analogy.
Feb 6, 2004 4:18AM PST

Children past a certain age are going to be exposed to sexuality, their own, if no one elses. They can all figure out the basics. They can all figure out enough to get them into trouble.

The same cannot be said about atomic weapons.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Hope you feel better now ...
Feb 6, 2004 10:08PM PST

How wonderful for them. Where did they get the idea that sex was acceptable at ages younger than that? Not from the right wing prude parents you disparage at every turn. Truth be known, though it's a tough topic, most parents love their kids and educate them as they see fit in matters sexual. It's not the pervue of government or schools. What I learned in school was that sex is not a good idea, but you can come on down to Planned Parenthood and get birth control and your old-fashioned know-nothing parents don't need to be the wiser. IOW, wink wink. STD's? Back then herpes was the big scare, the other ones? Oh, if you catch them you'll just get a shot or a few pills so there's nothing to worry about. Are they still teaching safe sex with condoms these days? Those same condoms that are marginally effective in stopping the transmission of HIV but wholly ineffective against such things as HPV which has been shown to increase a woman's risk of cervical and other reproductive cancers.

You act like humans are powerless to control themselves in the face of their first postpubescent urge. How odd that in a society that doesn't allow a person to drink alcohol until the age of 21, drive a car until the age of 16 and increasing, seems to increasingly condone and even promote early sexual behavior. You want to know why so many young women are depressed these days? It's because becoming sexually active before one is mentally mature enough to deal with all the aspects of same is inextricably linked to depression. How sad for those girls who feel all used up and no longer feel special for that which is God's creation in their unique form. I have mentored many girls for whom this has been reality. And it's not me who has broached the topic first.

Evie

- Collapse -
Re:slight exaggeration?
Feb 6, 2004 4:40AM PST

#I and my wife and children have been investigated by the Queensland Police and determined to be a good environment for the care and protection of children#

the guy who fixes the taps and cleans the schoolyard,the ex-teacher who gives private tutoring after hours or the woman who teaches the piano to school age children also need a blue card, it merely indicates you don't have a criminal past, you 'could' be the greatest slime ball who ever lived, but if you didn't get caught, you can get a blue card....

- Collapse -
Re: 'What's wrong with that'
Feb 6, 2004 2:43AM PST

Evie, the message to which you replied exactly delineated the line between permissible discussion of one's views and impermissible attacks on his (in this case) character. Repeating the substance of deleted messages under the guise of "what's wrong with saying..." is NOT acceptable -- and it's precisely the sort of behavior that you often criticize in others. I'm posting this openly because you asked the question openly.

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

- Collapse -
So ban me Dave ...
Feb 6, 2004 3:30AM PST

... the post where he encouraged people to watch young girls stands?

- Collapse -
NT - Are you going to grant her request Dave?
Feb 6, 2004 11:33AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
That is none of YOUR business Charlie!
Feb 6, 2004 11:41AM PST

Not one of the mods announced in SE when you were banned, now did they? Or when your buds Blake and Tim were banned?

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re: So ban me Dave ...
Feb 6, 2004 12:10PM PST

Hi, Evie.

His post stands because there's nothing wrong with it -- and the sentiments he expresses fit with modern psychology. For instance, see this recent Time Magazine cover story: The Power of Love.
>> How does our love life shape us? mind, body, and soul? Let us count the ways. One thing you can say about lust, it sure shows up early. Talk all you want about the honey-sweet face of an innocent newborn, the fact is, from the moment we appear in the world, we're not much more than squalling balls of passion. Our needs aren't many: to sleep, to eat, to be held, to be changed. Satisfy these, and there won't be any trouble. Fail to, and you will hear about it. Of all the urges that drive us, it's the passion to be held that makes itself known first.<<

Just because Ian's views don't fit yours doesn't make them wrong, and certainly doesn't make them perverted.

-- 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 -
Time Magazine again? (NT)
Feb 6, 2004 1:01PM PST

.

- Collapse -
NT - And?
Feb 6, 2004 2:17PM PST

`?

- Collapse -
clever move
Feb 6, 2004 1:55PM PST

The complete article is 1691 words long, and is all yours if you care to pay $x.xx

- Collapse -
By what reading ...
Feb 6, 2004 10:38PM PST

... is there nothing wrong with telling someone to watch young girls on rocking horses? That is very different from relating a story or acknowledging that children can experience sexual sensations at a very young age.

I guess all of Ian's a$$-kissing has finally swayed whatever sense of impartiality you have. This has nothing to do with opinions Dave. At every turn in this thread Ian and others have sought to disparage anyone for holding a religious belief or for being offended by his views on sexuality.

I note that your Time piece doesn't mention masturbation or sexuality. It's no secret to any of us that humans are governed by all sorts of senses and physical needs. Nobody is calling Ian a pervert for his beliefs of the child as a sexual being, but I unabashedly say he is perverted for encouraging people to watch young girls (and in his method of doing so indicates that this is an experience HE has had) on the off chance they might catch them in the act of discovering that sensation and prove his point right? I do, however, contend that there is a big difference between having the plumbing and wiring functioning and discovered at a young age and equating that with post-pubescent "adult" sexuality. Those who seek to sexualize children generally fall in the camp of those who would have the legal age of consent at 13 or younger.

What's really sick about the sexualizing of our teens is that it is not the 13 y.o. boys the 13.y.o. girls are primarily having sex with, it's 16-17-18 y.o.s who prey on them, and it's incredibly sad that the 13 y.o. girl no longer even has "good girls don't" to keep her virginity around anymore Sad

BTW, coincidentally I was listening to Dr. Joy Brown (no right wing prude she!) the other day and a caller called in about her 6 y.o. god daughter masturbating in public. The FIRST question asked was if the girl had been examined for molestation because there is a pretty strong concensus in the field that when children masturbate in the sense we think of as adults, they have usually been taught Sad Ed made the perfect analogy -- a newborn touching its genitals is no more masturbating than that newborn is doing calesthenics by touching its toes. And I've seen my fair share of babies smile while dumping a nice load in their diapers but I'm pretty sure that doesn't indicate they are taking great pleasure in soiling themselves. LOL

I would like to know where I have ever stated that my beliefs are based on religious convictions. Ian's persistent attacks on the "God group" are far more blatant and pointed than his perceived persecution by any that he might label as same. It's OK for him to call me disgusting. It's OK for you to disparage and demean the beliefs of any that don't follow your brand of Catholicism as being prudish or those of a bluenose. You find certain things unconcionable and spare no words expressing them all the time. So when some of us express our revulsion at your opinion that fetus = parasite we should certainly be allowed to do that.

Sad Evie

- Collapse -
I'm beginning to understand
Feb 7, 2004 8:28AM PST

his inlaws and their opinions better.

- Collapse -
What you mean is.. you are sick of someone saying that your decisions based upon religious beliefs may be incorrect. Glenda, you are incorrect. nt
Feb 5, 2004 9:54PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Enough ...
Feb 5, 2004 10:36PM PST

... of your deragatory assaults on anyone who has religious convictions just because you apparently don't. Many of the views of those here that are religious are not solely based in those religious beliefs, Christians have real life experiences too Ian.

Now I don't have kids, but I was baby sitter to the neighborhood for most of my teen years, camp counselor to literally hundreds, and am often around the numerous kids of various family and friends. I can HONESTLY say that I've never seen a young girl masturbate in public. I have seen many tugging at their crotches when they needed to pee!

I do recall feeling a new sensation as a child climbing a rope in the gym. It was many years before I connected that with womanhood or sexuality. Just because the anatomy is there as a child doesn't mean we ought to throw all out the window and assume kids should be making that connection. What we regard as "adult" sexuality has no application where children are concerned. Sexualizing them is NOT progress.

Please, let your children remain children. There should be no need to teach a 9 y.o. how to put on a condom. Sheesh! Sad

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 5, 2004 11:40PM PST
- Collapse -
That's quite a god you've got there Ian.
Feb 6, 2004 1:32AM PST

Allowing you to call people 'distorting monster'! Like all false gods, this one will fail you.

- Collapse -
Re: quite a god you've got there Ian -- and ditto for yours
Feb 6, 2004 12:23PM PST
- Collapse -
OK, you don't see a problem with
Feb 6, 2004 1:07PM PST

'distorting monster'? I think we're definitely on different wave lengths.

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 6, 2004 4:16AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Enough ... -- And enough
Feb 6, 2004 12:20PM PST

of your and James' and KP's insistence that anyone whose religious (or secular humanist) ethics don't agree with yours is perverted, immoral, and wrong ipso facto.

The TOS demand respect for other members, even if you don't agree with their beliefs. Though I disagree with many of your values, I respect you as a person. Yet y'all are not willing to extend the same respect to Ian. That attitude is precisely what prompted the sins of my own Church in the past, when people were tortured, crushed and burned for their beliefs. Except they weren't called "people" -- they were called "jews and heretics," which made it ok. Our own society now is seriously discussing the first Constitutional Amendment in history to decrease rather than increas individuals' rights by denying gays the same rights as every other member of our society. "Hate the sin but love the sinner" may sound great, but saying you love someone while you squelch his/her rights and livelihood is hardly an act of love.

-- 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 -
Not at all based on religous beliefs Ian,But.........
Feb 6, 2004 2:23AM PST

on common decency! These are discussions, that, if you want to talk about them should be done with a group of people that you know and that they agree to talk about it! Sorry, but I was taught that you just don't talk about some things in public.

Glenda
Not an attack on you! Just your choice of topics

- Collapse -
Why???
Feb 6, 2004 2:46AM PST

is it so hard to understand that it is preferrable to continue the thread here?

- Collapse -
Re:you want to direct traffic charley?
Feb 6, 2004 4:24AM PST

go work for the municipality

- Collapse -
(NT) Shrug, evidently not preferrable to them C. Thunell
Feb 6, 2004 8:13AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Half a loaf...poor Ms. Jackson
Feb 3, 2004 3:13AM PST

to have only one at such a tender age! But then,after all,she is only a self created cartoon character so it is hard to be synpathetic about her (its?) loss!

- Collapse -
nt) Well, that was silly. Hope it gave you a thrill, sure bored me.
Feb 3, 2004 9:55PM PST

.

- Collapse -
No, the MAIN issue is sex and its exploitation.
Feb 2, 2004 11:04PM PST

That's one of the main ways Janet Jackson and her ilk make their money.

- Collapse -
I don't know....
Feb 2, 2004 11:07PM PST

but do you think the stock market is good? If so, please do a search on the following stocks @ NASDAQ: On Command Corporation, Ricks Cabaret International, Private Media Group and Metro Global Media...