Maybe there’s already a thread on this, in which case please close this. Otherwise, am I the only one who finds it a little irritating to call what happened at the Super Bowl Halftime show (Janet Jackson getting half of her costume ripped off by Justin Timberlake) “classless, crass, and deplorable”? I mean, c’mon, it’s just a boob! And if it really was unintentional, I think Janet Jackson’s feeling embarrassed enough for everyone… I personally would be a bit mortified to suddenly have my clothes ripped off in front of millions of people. (the article I was reading: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4131637/ )
Anyway, people need to get that stick out of their asses. I can think of alot more valid things to deem “deplorable” than this. (like… for example… how much football players get paid in comparison to teachers… :P)
(As a side note, I didn’t actually get to see it happen - out of curiousity, did it look staged?)
The fact that people treat the Super Bowl almost as one would a religious holiday is more disturbing, I think.
Yeah. She got her dress ripped. That sucks- poor Janet and all that. If it was on purpose, he (or the person that came up with the idea) is an asshole, but otherwise… eh.
I saw the video and honestly it could have been either way. He reached across and seemed to grab the costume and tear like he was doing it intentionally to make a statement or something, but she look quite stunned when it happened as if it wasn’t expected.
Personally I think that it was blown out of porportion by the FCC, If it was a istake, they happen, too bad. If it was a statement or something, it was genus because of having all the people watching.
It was not only on prime time TV, but also durring the Super Bowl. Millions of familys were watching it, that means KIDS were watching it as well. It was staged for sure, no question about it, and it was very tasteless. Janet Jackson just wanted to get more attention after years of not being in the limelight.
It would be fine on cable, but this was on CBS and not even after 10. Yeah, it might be just a boob, but it was on TV durring the most watch sporting even of the year.
Originally posted by BlueMageOne
[b]It was not only on prime time TV, but also durring the Super Bowl. Millions of familys were watching it, that means KIDS were watching it as well. It was staged for sure, no question about it, and it was very tasteless. Janet Jackson just wanted to get more attention after years of not being in the limelight.
It would be fine on cable, but this was on CBS and not even after 10. Yeah, it might be just a boob, but it was on TV durring the most watch sporting even of the year. [/b]
Yes, millions of mindless drones were tuned in to the tv just like every year… but I digress. <.<
Anyway, I’m well aware that it was on prime time tv and during the super bowl. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that a boob’s a boob and this is all being blown out of proportion.
I saw it, and it didn’t look rehersed. It was very smooth, I didn’t even notice til I saw her tit hanging out. I thought it popped out til I saw the pictures and saw Justin holding the part of her top in his hand.
I think it was staged. MTV has a track record with “shocking” moments, I mean hell, the VMA’s are usually pretty packed with crazy shit (save for the last few years).
Maba said what I was thinking - I was sort of hoping the boob in question was an actual person and not a breast.
From what I read on CNN , Justin Timberlake was “supposed” to take off Janet’s top to reveal a red lacy bra or something like that. Instead, a lot more happened to come off. That was one take on the matter that I read in the article (clicka).
I don’t really care about seeing breasts. However, I do understand the FCC perspective - millions of people watch the Super Bowl on network TV, and a lot of those people probably don’t want their children to see what they did see. Hell, standards seem to be different for network TV anyway. I think that someone needs to take responsibility for what happened, but at the same time it’s not “deplorable”.
Originally posted by Astral Anyway, I’m well aware that it was on prime time tv and during the super bowl. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that a boob’s a boob and this is all being blown out of proportion.
It’s because it helps set a precedent, each time this happens people will throw less of a fit and eventually it will become commonplace. The same things happened in the past several years with some of the tamer curse words.
In fact this may have been the reason MTV pulled this stunt, breasts already make up a large amount of their programming and their ratings could only increase if they could get away with showing exposed breasts. This may have been an attempt to make toplessness TV more mainstream.
I don’t think it was appropriate at all, because quite obviously, it was a family viewing, and getting one’s cup ripped off a breast is not something every member of the household has to see and tolerate. It’s encouraging behavior and very misleading to unstable individuals.
However yes, it was blown out of proportion, in my opinion, but only because the whole thing is entirely silly. I didn’t see such a hooplah raised when Christina Aguilera released Dirrty, or when BS and Madonna kissed. of course there was media frenzy, but they never got <i>scolded</i>. I don’t see why Ms Newscaster doesn’t give a long and brash speech about the inappropriateness about those. Television is television. Hypocrites.
Originally posted by BlueMageOne It was not only on prime time TV, but also durring the Super Bowl. Millions of familys were watching it, that means KIDS were watching it as well.
See, this illustrates exactly why the fuss over an exposed breast is so idiotic - because it implies that it’s perfectly fine and wholesome for “KIDS” to watch beer commercials, commercials with flatulent horses, scantily clad cheerleaders, coaches mouthing obscenities, and, well, the aggressive sport itself, but a momentary look at a woman’s breast is somehow unthinkably damaging to them.
However, people can argue that, well, the kids parents are probably there with them when those kinds of commercials come on. That, and since beer commercials and the other commercials you speak came on, they weren’t…exactly forcing anything obscene directly onto the viewer. A boob hanging out in front of a million viewers is a lot more controversial than some beer commercial with a horse farting because, while both are classless, the boob thing wasn’t…ahem, the horse thing wasn’t obscene AND classless; Janet Jacksons boob hanging out is both of those things. That’s why a commercial involving a dog biting some guy’s balls so his owner can get some beer won’t find itself getting any real big amount of complaints, and this sort of thing will.
Obscene and classless, two twines of the same rope, but not exactly the same material.
But that’s the whole point! Why is a dog biting some guy’s balls so his owner can get some beer somehow less obscene than a split-second view of a female breast? It’s exactly that idea of what is and isn’t “obscene” that makes no sense.
(the article I was reading: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4131637/ )