When is enough enough.....I hope this is it! I'm no prude, but this was absolutely tasteless. I think that this is going to backfire like the horse did in one of the commercials.

Okay...okay, so I don't know how to set up a poll.....Ignorance is bliss

Hey, nice try bluebirder! Seriously, good to see you trying stuff on the forum!

I agree with you. Enough is enough. Personally, I think it was all planned ahead of time. Looking at the still photos of the event (not that I closely examined them or anything), why else would she be wearing a pastie?

Fine the network! Actually fine Jackson and Timberlake both. They went way beyond the bounds of good taste.

I voted anyway!

They're trying to say it was an accident, but I don't buy it. Too many hints that it was planned all along.

I'm sorry I was watching at the time. I don't find JJ to be the LEAST bit appealing, and when her breast popped out, I just about tossed my cookies!

Now they're looking at Nellie too. But hey - just about any musician of that genre can't seem to keep from grabbing his crotch. I'm guessing they've all got a nasty rash of one sort or the other.

Fines are one idea, but they're not allowed to levy the kinds of fines that any of those involved would even blink at. What we need is for the FCC to start enforcing the law after years of negligence.

A boob!

I thought it was a publicity stunt as well. Anyone else notice Janet's dwindling nose? What's up with how the Jackson family can't hold on to their noses?

I fixed the poll, just make sure each answer is on a new line.

If you make a mistake, you can edit the polls you set up :-)

Thanks for the contribution, great question!

LOL

You've gotta wonder why it doesn't seem so obscene when baseball players grab thier crotches.

Maybe Nellie was wearing a support cup:-)

Thank you webmaster for fixing the poll for me...I appreciate it.

Isn't freedom of speech what has allowed television to go so graphic and anything goes? I'm just asking because I don't know. MTV was behind the half time show, but supposedly they didn't have anything to do with what Janet and Justin did. I guess it will all come out in the wash. The look on Janet's face though, when this happened, looked like a look of surprise or an oh no look. Maybe more got ripped off then what was supposed to.......

Well, if she was surprised, why did she not immediately crouch down? or toss up her hands==they stayed on her belly to make sure the camera got the shot...
But the pastie/ornament thing was what got me--of course it was planned...
Let's face it since M.Jackson a few years ago moon walked at half-time all the while fondling himself it has been going downhill--and MTV--heck, they launched Madonna("please look at me") in the early 80's...so there can be no misunderstanding about what MTV puts on....
I say--fire them all.

The FCC should not only fine CBS, but MTV as well since MTV produced the stunt. Parents shouldn't have to expose their kids to that kind of crap.

I saw Janet on the news this morning apologizing if anyone was offended by all this and that it really wasn't meant to be that way at all, but what did she expect! I'm still not sure if that was a pastie or a bandage as I heard on tv that she had her breast pierced recently and it was a bandage. Poor baby.....why in the world do these people want to encourage our children to do these things, (kiss other women on the lips in a sensual way, pierce navals, lips, noses, nipples, tongues). As far as I'm concerned the naval thing really looks downright ugly.

The press is going to have a field day with this one. MTV needs to be taken off the air too. Most of their shows are promoting filthy language, sex, kids smoking cigarettes, and passing it on like its the coolest thing to do. There's no innocence left for our kids. Snoop Dog had the thing called girls gone wild showing college girls and some much younger exposing themselves to the camera. He was more or less prostituting them on tv. How sad.

I heard that CBS was going to pull them from the Grammy awards coming up this Sunday night also. Justin Timberlake was scheduled to perform, and Janet Jackson was to be a presenter. Just something I heard, don't know if it's true or not.

Both CBS and MTV are owned by Viacom....

And since someone else already mentioned the word 'nipple',
what JJ was wearing was a ring of sorts....it was a sunburst
design with a hole in the middle that fits over her nipple....
there are pictures of it all over the Internet...I'm sure you
can 'Google' one up if you like...

According to this, they're still 'in':

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,13416,00.html

What are you a bunch of Quakers or something? Most of you act like you've never seen a boob or something! I saw a look of suprize on Janet's face when that happened, and from what I've read, Justin was only supposed to rip off the top part of her costume to reveal the red lace underneath. If you looked closley, she did have red lace on under the leather. It happened so fast that I didn't even notice what was happening at first. AND why aren't all of you griping about the streaker that came out on the field at the end of half time? What's the difference? COMPLETLY NAKED? OR JUST A COVERED BOOB? Don't see any there. Turn your TV's to ANY network at night and you'll see and hear a lot more than a covered boob! I just think people are over reacting...Maybe it was an accident, maybe not, who cares? You people would have a hard time in most other countries, maybe you should stay home so you won't be OUTRAGED by a BOOB! Anyone else watch any of the other commercials? I think they were JUST as sexually charged as anything else that happened that day! FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, IT WAS 2 SECONDS OF BOOB! Check out this story....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3456497.stm

Exactly.

One ought to be able to choose what their kids are exposed to in their homes. The biggest problem here is that it was the wrong venue. You don't tune in to a football game halftime show expecting to see somebody exposing herself.

It's not being prudish to ask to be able to choose what you want to watch and allow your children to watch in your own home. Just because the airways are filled with this and much worse filth doesn't mean any of us have to be forced to watch it.

That's the issue.

McGrupp is correct that there aren't many (thought there ARE still some) stations that are free of objectionable content. A fair number of families refuse to even allow a television in their homes at all because of the risk of the children being exposed to it.

I agree with McGrupp - BFD! We all came into this world naked - God obviously wanted it that way, otherwise we'd be born with clothes on. Nobody made a big deal when Kid Rock ripped his shirt off for all the world to see - oh that's right, protruding breasts are MUCH morse than flat ones. They're all body parts people! We've all seen them before, even your children. It's not even like you could see much of anything. I watched the whole show and didn't realize what had happened until the next day when everyone was talking about it.

In almost any other country, nobody would bat an eye at this, but in this country, we're all up in arms. Don't we have better things to worry about?

I beg to differ.

There are a number of countries in which people have parts of their bodies removed over this sort of thing.

Yes, hence the reason I said almost every country. I would like to think that we are more civilized than those countries where you'd have a body part removed for this type of thing. Those are the types of countries where we are trying to liberate the people from that kind of treatment (Iraq).

As I said in my previous staement, I didn't even notice what was happening until the next day when Janet's boob was PLASTERED all over every NEWS station in the country...I don't see the FCC going after them for showing it the next day! Also...This comment...

"The biggest problem here is that it was the wrong venue. You don't tune in to a football game halftime show expecting to see somebody exposing herself."

LOL! That is too funny, you didn't really expect Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Kid Rock, and Nelly NOT to be sexully charged? MTV produced it for crying out loud! What did you expect? A clown twisting ballon's at halftime? Part of the problem is that people teach there kids that if you see a boob, it must be sexual, when it doesn't have to be that way at all. A womans body is one of the most beatuiful things ever created...Able to make life, give birth to another human being, and keep life going (BOOBS/BREAST FEEDING)...Sillyness!!

I've heard it said that Europeans are laughing their asses off over this.

So what's up with nude beaches and nudist colonies? And those tribes that you see on the nature channels where everyone is naked their entire lives. They walk around with stuff bouncing and swaying and no one even bats an eye.

There is even a boy's bare butt that shows up often, right on these forums!!


Nudity is more funny than scandalous if you ask me. Especially when it's of such a comical shape, moves like jello, and has some freaky ninja star type device on it.

THANK GOD!!! Very well put Heather!!!!! VERY WELL PUT INDEED! And yes, they are laughing at us...LOL!!!

Here's an interesting take from the BBC in the United Kingdom:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3456497.stm

Heather:

OK, now look at the picture on that link...Does that not look like a look of suprise to you? They both have that "UH-OH" look on their faces. They've all appologized, what more needs to be done to have this dropped?

"...maybe you should stay at home so you won't be outraged by a boob."

I WAS at home!!!!!

"...if you see a boob, then it must be sexual, when it doesn't have to be that way at all."

No, it doesn't have to be that way, but in this case, it was meant to be sexual.

Tribal nudity on National Geographic is only a depiction of the norm of that society, and the tribal members aren't shown imitating a sexual act for shock value.

Oh so you're quick eye saw that entire boob in 2 seconds? 2 seconds was all that it was shown for...You must have one SHARP eye! Or, MOR THAN LIKELY, you probably saw it on CNN the next day JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DID and then decided to get all poopy about it! No, boobs ARE NOT ALWAYS a sexual thing, and I do not feel that it was MEANT to happen that way anyway. Imitating a sexual act?? You may want to turn to MTV, then remember that THEY are the ones that put on the show in the first place, so what do you expect to see?

BTW - Are you offended at seeing "Tribal Nudity"? A boob is a boob is a boob....

On a lighter note....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...notes020404.DTL

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4163446/

I don't care who is performing. If they're on broadcast TV they're subject to FCC regulations. They violated said regulations, plain and simple.

FCC has been negligent for a long time. Hopefully this will prompt us to hold them accountable for said negligence.

Good links, McGrupp!

Actually, my 8 year old said, " What the..." . I was lost trying to figure out if I saw what I thought I saw. Yes, it was a very brief glimpse. No, tribal nudity does not bother, just pointing out that kind of nudity is far different than what we are discussing here. I'm also not offended by mothers breastfeeding in public. I don't watch, or allow my child to watch, MTV because their programming is not what I consider entertainment. The presentation was on broadcast TV, so it should be cleaned up, whether it's presented by Grandma's Retirement Village or Hugh Hefner.

Actually, the MSN link was pretty funny.
I have no problem with nudity, porn, obscene language, etc. as long as it is in a location where only the people who want to see/hear it are able to access it. Just because I like a show/band doesn't mean everyone else has to like it or be intentionally subjected to it. This 20-something is not a prude, just a parent who doesn't want her child to feel that she must devalue herself for attention and success.

All I can figure is that there must not be much news in the world right now. EVEN THOUGH we lose an average of one soldier per day in Iraq, that's not good enough. It's just ridiculous how big of a deal this is being made into...BOREDOM...That's all it is! There's a hell of lot more important things to worry about than seeing Janet Jackson's boob!

McGrupp, agreed. Snow removal and a boob. Top stories. Crazy. I enjoyed those links you posted as well. Too funny!

All this said in the name of 2 seconds of breast? Ah well. I'd rather see parents being too stern with their children rather than not caring at all or spoiling them rotten.


From Mail Call...


This quote makes me half deranged just reading it.

Not just the 2 seconds, that was just the icing on the cake.

Anyone else think Brit and Justin should get back together and make a "private" sex video? Seems like the next logical step in their quest for publicity

Since you're so worried about seeing a boob, soooo very involved with that, I'll bet you didn't even hear about this...Nope, because people's priorities are totally screwed!!! Boobs or deaths? I'd rather deal with the boobs!

http://www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnew...97709221300.xml

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial.../no_more_riots/

Thanks for the backup Heather! I'm glad you enjoyed the stories! It's a SAD, SAD day for news when you hear all about a boob, and yet no word on deaths in Beantown over a STUPID GAME! RIDICULOUS!

You people need to get a grip here. Whether they had planned to show the red lace or the boob, it was planned to be a publicity stunt to get their names back into the presses and in the forefront, especially since Janet is about to release a new album. It's a marketing tool. All of these expressions of shock and horror are just a means of marketing themselves.

Now, if everybody would just quit talking about it, "being offended" and go back to ignoring them, they would see that they were unsuccessful and hopefully not try any more tricks. It's like raising children - a child will do whatever it takes to get the desired reaction from their parent, but when it doesn't get the reaction they want, they stop doing whatever it was.

If you folks want to continue talking about it and "being offended" by it, that's your problem, but in the scheme of things, this issue is small potatoes. GET A LIFE!

McGrupp, no need to thank me for expressing my own opinions.

Comparing nudity and sex to the horrors of death and destruction was big with Larry Flynt when his magazine Hustler came under fire for indecency. Anyone see the movie, "The People Versus Larry Flynt"? I thought it really hit home when Woody Harrelson, (as Larry Flynt), showed pictures of nudity and sex and then asked the masses if they thought that was indecent compared to graffic pictures of wars, mutilated bodies, starving children. It put things into perspective for me, but then again, I am speaking in terms of adults, not children. A flash of boob, as is the topic of conversation, isn't a big deal in my eyes whether it be child or adult.

When I was a child, I was allowed to watch anything, except for sex. Which is what I think the norm is these days. One of our first rented movies was Rambo First Blood. I was allowed blood, gore, killing, war, cuss words, anything BUT sex. I've always been an avid fan of horror movies. I'm thinking the reasoning behind it might have gone something like this: can you see little Heather going out to murder and kill? Nahhh. Can you see little Heather going out to have sex? Well, of course, everyone has sex eventually. Oh my god, well we had better not let her see anything sexual, then maybe she won't know about sex and therefore won't have sex until she's, oh, maybe 30. I think I'm rambling now and have lost my point smewhere.... will stop.

McGrupp,

None of us who disagree with you have stooped to making fun of your opinions. PLEASE desist making fun of ours. Grow up already.

Had I belittled and poked fun at those supporting homosexual marriage in a thread not long past, others would have rightly been all over me for it. What goes around comes around, but please let's not.

P.S. "What are you, a bunch of Quakers?" - So what if we were? - Your bigotry is showing.

McGrupp's bigotry? There's the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh come on now! When did I ever say "What are you, a bunch of queers?" Let's compare apples and apples.

Or respond in kind to the use of the term "Bible thumper" by referring to anyone as a "fudge packer".

One can express a strongly-held opinion without being patently offensive.

Definition of a bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So is it not true that you are not accepting of homosexuals because of your religious beliefs?

When did I pick on your opinion BMIC? I don't really care what your opinion is and will continue to pick, prode and poke all I want...DEAL WITH IT!

Look at that definition. I believe I tolerated you quite well.

I disagreed with most of your contentions, and stated my opposition to preference on the basis of homosexuality, but I tolerated your views, and I dare say even respected them, however powerfully I disagreed with them. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

This should be good for a while...I always love a good argument!

BTW: BMIC...DESIST THIS!!!

So you INTEND to insult, offend and provoke people? Surely you must realize that this will be counterproductive.

I really wonder if this is the place for such behavior.

I've heard you were passive agressive, but I didn't know what extent it went to. Yep, that is what I plan to do, pick on people the entire time, even though I still have NO IDEA what you are reffering to! I have my opinion and you have yours, are you going to change mine? Ummm...NO, I DON'T THINK SO! Will I change yours? No, because I really don't care about your opinion!

Getting a little harsh there McGrupp. You might want to consider chilling out for awhile.

A little harsh? How am I being harsh? I didn't do anything to him and he's saying that I'm picking on his opinion? I never said anything to that guy! So how am I being harsh?

Also, BMIC "PICKS" on people's opinions so why can't everyone else pick on his?

Harsh, in my opinion.

Actually, you had no choice BUT to tolerate my views, there's really no choice there when you're posting to a message board. You will not TOLERATE gay marriage, correct? Also, not everyone who disagrees with YOU, is a bigot either. I never said everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot, but by DEFINITION (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot), you are a bigot.

Here's the extended version:

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

See above...He still hasn't answered who's opinion I was "PICKING" on. Maybe harsh, but honestly, I don't care about anyones opinion if they don't care about mine, which most people on this board do not, so what's the difference? IT'S JUST A MESSAGE BOARD FOR GODS SAKES!

Yeah, get a McGripp, McGrupp!