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 -
Whilst that is obviously true, Jack,
Feb 3, 2004 9:40PM PST

it ignores the fact the parents living in the world as it is, who have morals, ethics and follow a strict code of conduct, may nevertheless think the crap that's been here and throughout the press is meaningless garbage.

I have morals, ethics and strictly follow a code of conduct. I find the reaction to Janet Jackson's action, from people who live in a country that has had nude beaches et al for decades, completely and utterly ridiculous.

Do you recall the Los angeles Olympics? One of Australia's major reporters was in LA just prior, to interview Americans about the Olympics. When a young lady was asked what she thought, she bared both breasts and told him to go f**k himself. When a body builder on the beach was asked to comment, our reporter was told to take his heterosexual **** out of there, or the weights would be shoved straight up it.

This raised a laugh with audiences throughout the world. A billion people or so.

So, a USA girls teats got shown to young children 20 years back. I didn't hear all you people who think a breast is temptation of women to lead men to hell way back when.

The entire need for a thread to discuss this is ridiculous.

Breasts are beautiful. Every one of them, even those carved to remove a cancer. Its the human body. Created, in your belief, in God's image.

Ian

- Collapse -
Ian, Let me understand this.......
Feb 4, 2004 12:25AM PST

You think it was all right for our children to see Janet's breast, But not ok for your children?? You complained in a newer thread about porn spam, I do agree with you I get sick of it also! But I also get sick of the immoral crowd in Hollywood showing their lack of morals to our youngsters! the problem as I see it is, as time goes by more and more of this conduct is acceptable! When I was growing up sanitary pads came in
brown wrapped packages, Now they do it openly in commercials! A natural body function, yes! But then it was considered private! Now nudity, sex. homosexual sex
and everything under the sun is being touted as normal and morally acceptable! Where do you draw the line?

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:Ian, Let me understand this.......
Feb 4, 2004 12:33AM PST

Draw the line in your own home with your own family. Turn off the TV or throw it out or lock it to PAX and Animal Planet. Check your children's mail. Know what they're reading. Meet their friends. You can't be with them 24/7 but you are the biggest influence in their life.

If you instill your moral sense in them the rest of society will not stand a chance of breaking it down.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Ian, Let me understand this.......
Feb 4, 2004 1:09AM PST

Exactly Dan, I agree with you! But the problem is Ian seems to have the idea that Janet flashing her breast was OK but sending the info to his boy's is wrong!
When my kids were small, I am a GreatGrandmother nowSad So no little ones at home, We got rid of the television for 3 years! We wanted our kids to read, talk and communicate with each other. At that time Three's Company was on and that show with McKenzie Phillips, I think it was One Day at a Time?? Was promoting values we found unacceptable! We just didn't like the fact that our oldest was a tv junkie! The kid didn't even respond to us when we talked to her, she was so mesmerized by the televisionSad So we did what we thought was right, and eliminated it from our home!
I don't approve of the things our children and Granddaughter allow/ allowed their kids to watch! We have two kids the younger ones that keep their kids from watching adult material! I guess we got thru to them and failed with the two older girlsSad

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Ian, Let me understand this.......
Feb 4, 2004 2:21AM PST

"Turn off the TV or throw it out or lock it to PAX and Animal Planet. "

Well that idea is sort of the point I think. Parents who do control what their children watch probably didn't expect nudity on tv during the SuperBowl coverage, not even on the halftime show. The dance and it's ending (intention or accidental) were probably exactly the type of thing they restrict their kids viewing to avoid. I think that's the main reason for the upset response across the nation.

And to repeat myself, it's not even just nudity, but the way it came about. The guy reached out with minimum intent to grab the breast, by Janet's statement to rip the outer garment and expose the bra, but ended up exposing the breast, intentional or othewise. But that is giving the idea it is proper for guys just to grab womens clothing and rip it off of them.

- Collapse -
And my point is...
Feb 4, 2004 3:03AM PST

That if you infuse your child with the correct moral sense it won't matter what they see on TV, or in magazines, or on the playground, or in Washington, or anywhere else.

I'm pretty danged sure that none of my neices and nephews now think it's ok to rip off a girl's bodice after watching the superbowl.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:And my point is...
Feb 4, 2004 3:18AM PST

"...if you infuse your child with the correct moral sense it won't matter what they see on TV..."

After a certain age, you're probably right. But while you're trying to infuse that moral sense, if the child sees contradictary apparently acceptable acts, it will confuse the child.

One incident isn't going to corrupt anyone. But one incident at the wrong time is enough to weaken those moral senses you're trying to teach.

If everyone accepts one incident without question, there will be another, and another.

The point I'm trying to make is that the parent shouldn't have to block the child from everything outside the house to guide what they see. And tv is in the home, so that gives it even more influence and weight.

A parent has a right for a program to meet expected standards for the type and time of the show. Even when the expected standards aren't up to the particular parent's preference, the parent should be able to form a reasonable opinion of what to expect.

- Collapse -
Re: And my point is...
Feb 4, 2004 3:37AM PST

Hi, Roger.

I think part of the problem is that many people are uncomfortable with openly discussing issues involving sexuality. I agree -- this incident shouldn't have happened, given the circumstances. But it did -- and there was a commerical immedoiately after. That was a good opportunity for a discussion of the action and how inappropriate it was, thereby reinforcing your values. But I wonder in how many homes that discussion ensured.

-- 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 -
Re:Re: And my point is...
Feb 4, 2004 4:08AM PST

"...good opportunity for a discussion of the action and how inappropriate it was,..."

Valid point there. But there are plenty of other opportunities for such I'm sure, no matter how careful parents are.

I still think it would have been just as wrong as far as being deliberate even if had just torn off top to expose bra as they claimed was planned.

Either way, the problem isn't the quick view of the breast itself, just what the place and timing says about such behavior being acceptable.

- Collapse -
Well, how wonderful, a commercial break makes it all OK, unless...
Feb 4, 2004 9:56AM PST

...the parents don't do their job, which makes it all their fault instead, huh?

- Collapse -
You've nailed it James! (NT)
Feb 4, 2004 11:08AM PST

.

- Collapse -
It was one of those moments...
Feb 4, 2004 11:37AM PST

...where you have to shake your head in disbelief of what you just heard or read.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:And my point is...
Feb 4, 2004 3:37AM PST

Such an incident as we have here presents a good opportunity to discuss correct and unacceptable behavior.

Dan

- Collapse -
So our discussion will get Janet Jackson to correct her actions? Hurray for opportunity?(nt)
Feb 4, 2004 10:07AM PST

What makes you think parents need someone imposing such "opportunity" on them unwanted so they will speak to their children about it? Would you call it a "wonderful opportunity"? If the kids see someone killed by a car is that the "opportunity" to speak to them about speeders and crossing the street safely? If the driver was drunk is that another wonderful opportunity to speak to the children about the dangers of drinking and driving? Do you think parents really need such opportunities to speak to their children as they grow up about such things? Are we parents just a bunch of ingrates for not appreciating all this wonderful opportunity Janet Jackson gives us? Consider this an opportunity for you to....

- Collapse -
Above is not NT post.
Feb 4, 2004 10:08AM PST

.

- Collapse -
An opportunity for me to....what, James?
Feb 4, 2004 10:44PM PST

Unless you're going to lock your kids in a cell they are going to see naked bodies, dead bodies, drunk bodies. If you let them watch TV it's damn near certain that they've already seen death and destruction a thousand times over, both real and portrayed. Some parents take advantage of such incidents to help their children grow stronger in their morals. Other parents should, but don't. Some parents become hysterical and frighten and bewilder their children. That is entirely the choice of the parent. Children are going to see all manner of bad things under unplanned circumstances. Welcome to the real world.

Dan

- Collapse -
Ahhh...Janet gave us a teachable moment. How nice!
Feb 4, 2004 11:11AM PST

I don't think we need this kind of memory in our kids' minds.

- Collapse -
Not really a question of nice.
Feb 4, 2004 10:48PM PST

Your kids' minds are rapidly being filled with memories of many kinds. You cannot isolate them from the world. You can protect them from many things, but not from everything.

A big part of a parent's job is to prepare them for what they cannot be protected from and to help them afterward.

Dan

- Collapse -
Just like tender young plants
Feb 5, 2004 6:44AM PST

before reaching their stronger maturity, you protect them as much as possible against things that will weaken or hurt them.

- Collapse -
Please continue the thread...
Feb 5, 2004 10:32AM PST
- Collapse -
NT- I'm glad you agree with me.
Feb 5, 2004 11:05PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I finally feel a need to respond...........
Feb 4, 2004 1:33AM PST

............or maybe just feeling tough enough to deal with a response from someone else deciding to kick my butt. Happy

This thread has gone from one end to the other and back again.

* There are obviously some folks from other countries and backgrounds that do not find what occurred during a worldwide broadcast to be offensive at all, and think most any form of nudity at any time should be considered natural and acceptable.

* There are those who feel that what happened in regard to when, where, why, and how, to be inappropriate, but that nudity in general is not immoral nor offensive if kept in the appropriate context - within their own realm of acceptance, of course. (I am pretty much in this group)

* There are some people who post here who appear to have more of a stance that there is "good" and "evil" and not much in-between - and that the superbowl halftime event was on the "evil" side of the coin.

SpeakEasy seems to be famous for having long drawn out discussions/arguments where nasty things are said in the seeming attempt to "change" someone's opinion/feelings/attitude/religion/etc. or, if not change them, at least make them feel belittled/degraded/slighted/demeaned/etc. while informing them we think differently than they do.

This particular thread/discussion certainly keeps SpeakEasy on the map in regard to this idea! It's a classic!! Not necessarily a "good" classic, but one nonetheless. Wink

JMO,

Marcia
Oregon/USA

- Collapse -
So where in that........
Feb 4, 2004 1:46AM PST

Broad spectrum do you put my post? I was not trying to demean Ian at all! I find his stand on what is acceptable for his boy's to be dramatically different than what he thinks our kids should be exposed to. I don't think the flashing was acceptable at all! I think the human body is a marvel and beautiful! But as some one else noted in the right place! I don't really think a football game was the right place, do you?
There is such a big difference in where nudity is acceptable, Nudity in art is acceptable for me, as long as it isn't in a graphic sexual nature. Nude sunbathing? Hey! If you have the body go for it! At least a parent has the option to NOT expose their children to it! I don't think the breast flashing harmed any child, but I do think it was low class and vulgar! To me, If this incident was an accident, then that is understandable, If done on purpose for commercial reasons then it was a bad decision!

Glenda

- Collapse -
Sorry, Glenda :(
Feb 4, 2004 2:25AM PST

I did not mean to specifically reply to your post out of all of those that appear. It just happened to be the last one of the thread when I clicked "reply".

My statement was meant to be more in general to the thread as a whole as opposed to any one person(s) opinion.

I apologize for the misunderstanding based on my poor choice of where to post my reply.

- Collapse -
Thank you:)
Feb 4, 2004 2:52AM PST

Was wondering what I said that implied I was attacking anyoneSad
Glenda

- Collapse -
Low class and vulgar? ?
Feb 4, 2004 3:07AM PST

How much of the entire superbowl holiday extravaganza wasn't? ? ?

Dan

- Collapse -
hehehe The game itself? NT
Feb 4, 2004 3:11AM PST
Happy)
- Collapse -
Everything
Feb 4, 2004 3:39AM PST

.

- Collapse -
??? The Game was low class & Vulgar too???
Feb 4, 2004 3:43AM PST

Did I understand correctly?

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:??? The Game was low class & Vulgar too???
Feb 4, 2004 3:57AM PST

This is football. We're not talking a chess match or cricket. No tea was being served. Ok, I was drinking tea, but that's besides the point.

I watch football but I don't forget what is really going on. Sure they're trained atheletes working together and all that. But it's still huge men trying to smash and crush other men. Sweat, dirt, blood. Huge amounts of foul language even for those of us with the most rudimentary lip reading skills. Taunting one's opponents. Fighting at regular intervals.

I watch football, but it ain't no viola recital.

Dan