Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 179
  1. #61  
    Several observations
    1. I don't think it was a "pastie"....
    2. I don't think it was intended.
    3. Poor judgment in attire, a snap-on (and I don't mean the tool company) bustier was not a bright idea....

    4. I'm with geekymom....Winebrats avitar is still the shizznit!!

    Just my 2-cents worth.
    :shortcut:
  2. #62  
    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell orders an investigation, "great outrage among the American people", "heads are going to fall", President Bush's speaker comments on the incident, etc., etc. ... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/sup...son/index.html)

    Many people in the US seem to be closer to the Taliban than to the rest of the civilized world when it comes to a naked female breast shown on TV for a split second. It's profoundly silly, almost frightening.
  3. #63  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell orders an investigation, "great outrage among the American people", "heads are going to fall", President Bush's speaker comments on the incident, etc., etc. ... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/sup...son/index.html)

    Many people in the US seem to be closer to the Taliban than to the rest of the civilized world when it comes to a naked female breast shown on TV for a split second. It's profoundly silly, almost frightening.
    You're right, this is UNBELIEVEABLE!! All this craziness over something that we all have seen before. My 5 year old son saw it and laughed. He's not "Traumatized!" What a big waste of time and money on this investigation.
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  4. #64  
    Geez. It was a breast. Oh horror. With all the violence and whatnot these days, seeing a boob on the boob tube is the least of my worries.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #65  
    I was bothered by the whole thing. Not really by the 1-second breast flash, but by the entire performance. It was sleazy (the dancing, costumes, and lyrics) and not appropriate for a football game.

    If it was just my wife and I watching the game, I couldn't have cared less what happened. I would have just roll my eyes, laughed, and not thought much more about it.

    But I was watching the game with my four young daughters - and I don't want them seeing that garbage.

    I don't object to MTV's content - MTV can show what it wants, and people can choose to watch it or not. We can just change the channel. But this was a football game designed for family entertainment. The entertainment should be appropriate for the entire family.

    I shouldn't have to worry about what my children see during the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by heberman
    I was bothered by the whole thing. Not really by the 1-second breast flash, but by the entire performance. It was sleazy (the dancing, costumes, and lyrics) and not appropriate for a football game.

    But I was watching the game with my four young daughters - and I don't want them seeing that garbage.
    I shouldn't have to worry about what my children see during the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
    Fair enough, but life does not only consist of the violence shown on the field, where people are severely injured sometimes and sometimes even killed. That's ok, they chose to do so on their own will, you chose to watch it, and to let your girls watch, too.

    Life also consists of dancing, flirting, love, etc., your girls will find out. What caused the outrage was not the sleazyness (as you see it), but the fact that a female breast was shown on TV. I think there is something fundamentaly wrong if a female breast can cause such an outcry... In just about every other country (apart from some arabic ones), the speaker of a president would get fired for commenting on such a silly event, not the person who let it happen, on purpose or not.
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Life also consists of dancing, flirting, love, etc., your girls will find out.
    Life certainly consists of all that and a lot more. That's where the joys, and worries, of a parent comes from.

    By the way, TIVO (or in my case, the Dish Network PVR) is great for helping to control content. I can chose to watch what I want to watch, and skip most of the garbage (to me) from TV, including commercials. I love the commercial-skip buttons!

    Then there was the Janet Jackson TIVO rewind spike...
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  8. #68  
    all the hoopla please.

    They show the little kim outfit from the mtv music award where here breast is out all the time.

    Of course her's is a little firmer.

    but supposedly it was only supposed to be the black part of the outfit not the whole breast area.
  9. #69  
    Originally posted by heberman
    [...] But I was watching the game with my four young daughters - and I don't want them seeing that garbage. [...]
    So the violence and often foul language involved in a football game is appropriate, but the halftime show was out of bounds?
    I shouldn't have to worry about what my children see during the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
    Well, there is always the option of changing the channel. From what I recall, many stations display a counter. Personally, I wasn't worried at all. My daughter was watching Schoolhouse Rock while the whole game was going on. Maybe the SuperBowl should start just airing the cheerleaders doing routines during halftime. No chance for suggestive dance moves or the 'accidental' flashing of body parts there.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by Toby
    So the violence and often foul language involved in a football game is appropriate, but the halftime show was out of bounds?
    The on-field football violence isn't that big of a deal. It's part of the game. But I did have my daughter with me at a college football game where a fan jumped out of the stands and tackled a cheerleader of the other team running past with the team flag. Bad move - those male cheerleaders are huge guys. The cheerleader hit the fan about 20 times in the face before the police broke it up.

    As to the foul language, my kids aren't watching sports on TV closely enough to notice that - yet.

    Well, there is always the option of changing the channel...My daughter was watching Schoolhouse Rock while the whole game was going on.
    Good point. I probably should have turned the channel during the performance. But my point is that I shouldn't have to turn the channel during the Superbowl, or even worry about the content of the halftime show. It's not like I am watching an HBO version of a football game. It's on CBS during the early evening hours.

    Schoolhouse Rock? I want to check that out myself! ("I'm just a bill")

    Remember U2's Superbowl performance a couple of years ago? That was very cool.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by heberman
    The on-field football violence isn't that big of a deal.
    That's subjective, isn't it?
    It's part of the game.
    Amazing how we can become desensitized to such things, eh?
    [...] As to the foul language, my kids aren't watching sports on TV closely enough to notice that - yet.
    They aren't watching closely enough to hear the occasional uncensored rant, and yet they're watching closely enough to be traumatized by a stray boob?
    [...] But my point is that I shouldn't have to turn the channel during the Superbowl, or even worry about the content of the halftime show.
    Why not? The content of the commercials can get quite risque, so why expect the halftime show to be sanitized?
    It's not like I am watching an HBO version of a football game.
    Since when is football 'family entertainment'? I must be out of the times.
    It's on CBS during the early evening hours.
    What does that have to do with anything? Football plays in the middle of the day during the regular season and is filled with ads which use sex to sell their product. Why does the championship of a sex and violence cocktail suddenly become a church meeting?
    Schoolhouse Rock? I want to check that out myself! ("I'm just a bill")
    The DVD set is great. Lots of behind the scenes stuff to dig.
    Remember U2's Superbowl performance a couple of years ago? That was very cool.
    I don't typically watch the half-time show honestly.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #72  
    Toby,

    1. Subjective - yes. My wife and I have the same discussion about movies. We have different ideas about what is good or not for the children.

    2. Yes.

    3. It's not merely the boob flash which bothered me - it was the entire dance. I don't want my girls to think that's "normal" for dressing, dancing, etc. Check out Drudge's front page picture for an example young girls don't need to follow.

    4. In my experience, Superbowl commericals haven't been overtly risque. (with the exception of CBS's own promos for the Grammys or whatever it). However, like I previously explained, TIVO-commercial skipping is great for keeping adult-oriented commercials away from children.

    5. I'm the only one in my house who watches football on TV. But Superbowl Sunday, everyone likes to get together to watch the game, commercials, halftime show, the spectacle.

    I'm beginning to sound like a prude, and I don't mean to. I just want to convey to my 12-year old and 9-year old daughters the right messages about sexuality and music.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by heberman
    It's not merely the boob flash which bothered me - it was the entire dance. I don't want my girls to think that's "normal" for dressing, dancing, etc. Check out Drudge's front page picture for an example young girls don't need to follow.
    I'm of the opinion that talking to them about it and explaining your views on it is going to be much more effective in the long run than depending on TV executives isolating them from the way some other people behave.
    In my experience, Superbowl commericals haven't been overtly risque.
    This year's were relatively tame, but megaswill commercials of past years aren't exactly relying on the product for sales (Swedish bikini team, Twins, etc.). OTOH, the most popular commercial involved a crotch-biting dog.
    I'm the only one in my house who watches football on TV. But Superbowl Sunday, everyone likes to get together to watch the game, commercials, halftime show, the spectacle.
    Well, you can't deny that they certainly saw a spectacle.
    I'm beginning to sound like a prude, and I don't mean to. I just want to convey to my 12-year old and 9-year old daughters the right messages about sexuality and music.
    Well, as I said, I think that talking to them about it afterward is going to be much more effective than relying on TV execs to be 'moral'. Was there a rating on the half-time show?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #74  
    If a person turns on a football game, they should expect violence and profanity.

    If they turn on Sinemax, they should expect soft core porn.

    I'm sure more than a few guys here would have been turned off if Janet ripped off Justins pants and his thingie was flopping around for all to see. Unless it is really, really small. Then it would be funny. But I digress...

    "They" (whomever they may be) forced some people to see something that they were not expecting to see, and did not want to see.

    That's what the big deal is all about.

    Imagine this video being played on the local news, without first informing you of what you are about to see. ( It's okay to click the link. The video is a link on that page. )
    I have the world in my Palm
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Well, as I said, I think that talking to them about it afterward is going to be much more effective than relying on TV execs to be 'moral'. Was there a rating on the half-time show?
    I guess heberman would find it difficult to explain why the show and the boob are bad. Not because children don't understand, but because - in my view - there are no good reasons.

    "Seeing a breast is bad because....?"
    "Dancing like she dances is bad because....?"
  16. #76  
    Originally posted by thppfft
    "They" (whomever they may be) forced some people to see something that they were not expecting to see, and did not want to see.

    That's what the big deal is all about.

    Imagine this video being played on the local news, without first informing you of what you are about to see. ( It's okay to click the link. The video is a link on that page. )
    Bad comparison. The images on the bombing video show the worst people can do to each other, the most brutal things that can happen to a human body. Kids as well as grown-ups have problems with accepting and dealing with something like that, that is normal.

    How can you compare that to a flirtatious dance, and the sighting of a female breast? Cruelty, violence, murders, etc. in movies is normal (don't tell me the TV programs are not full of it at seven or eight in the evening), but a breast causes an outcry....???
  17. #77  
    I ahgree with you Clulup. The hypocrisy of it all is astounding. What is a breast gping to do to anyone? In Europe things like this is common an dyou do not see kids growing up as perverted, immoral etc. Violent video games, movies and music are more of a threat to society than one breast. Geesh one would think that they were having sex or stage or something.

    Originally posted by clulup

    Bad comparison. The images on the bombing video show the worst people can do to each other, the most brutal things that can happen to a human body. Kids as well as grown-ups have problems with accepting and dealing with something like that, that is normal.

    How can you compare that to a flirtatious dance, and the sighting of a female breast? Cruelty, violence, murders, etc. in movies is normal (don't tell me the TV programs are not full of it at seven or eight in the evening), but a breast causes an outcry....???
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  18. #78  
    The big deal is not that a breast was shown...

    It is a well know fact that some people do not want to see a naked breast.

    The bid deal is not that a breast was show. It's that some people do not wish to see that.

    It is also understood that a naked breast is something that is not shown on a program that is advertised as being "family oriented".

    The big deal is not that a breast was shown. It's that it was shown on a "family oriented" broadcast.

    In other countries, people know ahead of time that some programming will contain nudity. These people then have the option of not watching the show. Here, the showing of the breast was totally unexpected.

    The big deal is not that a breast was show. It's that it was unexpected.

    So, to sum it up, the big deal is:
    Forcing people, who do not want to see a naked breast, into see one, by showing it on a program where seeing one is unexpected.
    ( can someone help me out with the grammar here! )


    Just for the record, I am not offended by seeing her naked breast. However, I was offended that people that do not wish to see such things were forced to do so.

    I do not want to be forced to see something that I do not want to see (like the graphic bus bombing video).

    Therefore, I must respect what other people do not want to see (such as a naked breast).

    That's how I can compare a "The images on the bombing video show the worst people can do to each other, the most brutal things that can happen to a human body.", with, "...flirtatious dance, and the sighting of a female breast"


    For the questions:
    "Seeing a breast is bad because....?"
    "Dancing like she dances is bad because....?"

    They open up a whole 'nother can of worms. There is really only one answer, and I'm totaly serious with it. I'm not being facetious.
    "Because the neuro pathways in my brain are linked in such a way that seeing such things stimulates the pain center in my brain more than the pleasure center."

    If you think I'm joking, then answer these questions:
    What food do you like the least?
    Why don't you like it?
    Because it doesn't taste good? Why doesn't it taste good?

    Well, I happen to like that food, so I don't think your answer is valid.
    I have the world in my Palm
  19. #79  
    Originally posted by thppfft
    So, to sum it up, the big deal is:
    Forcing people, who do not want to see a naked breast, into see one, by showing it on a program where seeing one is unexpected.

    ....

    "Because the neuro pathways in my brain are linked in such a way that seeing such things stimulates the pain center in my brain more than the pleasure center."

    If you think I'm joking, then answer these questions:
    What food do you like the least?
    Why don't you like it?
    Because it doesn't taste good? Why doesn't it taste good?

    Well, I happen to like that food, so I don't think your answer is valid.
    The big deal is, that there is no point in seeing a naked breast as a big deal, and to feel terribly offended, forced to see things one did not want to see, etc. It does not do any harm to anybody to see a naked breast from time to time (even less to children than to grown-ups). Some people may differ, but I don't see the advantage of that. All I was saying is that I find it very strange that such a silly detail can cause such an outcry, just as you may find it strange that in some countries, it would cause an outcry if a woman would drive a car.

    However, I am sorry that seeing a breast stimulates your pain center, I hope you did not have that as a baby (just kidding).

    As to your food analogy, the correct form would be the following headline: "Public outcry: Citizens were served food containing apple, although it is well known that some people do not like apples!!!" - I would think: Fair enough, no one should eat apple if he does not want to, but hey, what's the big deal if some do anyway? I did not know apples were illeagal in the US, at least they aren't here....
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by clulup
    I guess heberman would find it difficult to explain why the show and the boob are bad. Not because children don't understand, but because - in my view - there are no good reasons.

    "Seeing a breast is bad because....?"
    "Dancing like she dances is bad because....?"
    Yes, a breast is natural. Janet Jackson was on stage pulling up her white smock to breastfeed baby Jesus. Yeah clulup, it was soooo natural and normal.

    Actually, the dress, lyrics, and dancing, and boob flash were designed to shock and titillate the viewers, including my kids - and that's wrong.

    The guys dressed up in women's lingerie and makeup - soooo natural and normal, right?

    The bumping and grinding - we should take all of those cross-dressed, writhing and moaning performers to the elementary schools to entertain all the kids, right clulup? There is nothing wrong with that!

    The Superbowl "pimp n ho" act. Nothing wrong with that for kids, is there? Why should we complain?

    Nothing wrong with a half-time show which has: Nelly's hit "Hot in Herre," which asks a girl to "take off all your clothes"; Kid Rock's lyrics about hookers; and Justin saying he's going to get Janet naked and dancing like they're five feet from the door of a pay-by-the-hour motel.

    Actually, it is all wrong. Context is everything here. If I went to a strip club, I should expect strippers and what I saw at the Superbowl. If I go to McDonalds with my children, I don't expect ladies on the tables taking their clothes off. Why? Because the context is different. At McDonalds, I doubt even clulup would be claiming, "It's just a breast! A naked body is OK!"

    Sexual titillation for children is never OK. Ever. Bumping, grinding, writhing, on-stage simulating sexual scenes is never OK for children. Ever. Children have a right, and a need, to be protected from adult sexual appetites.

    That's why we give ratings to movies, don't let kids into strip clubs, and don't show porn on network television. (Porn is just men and women "au natural" doing what we all do, right?) We draw lines everywhere to help protect children from adult sexual conduct. Janet, Justin, and the rest of the half-dressed grinding, writhing masses went over that line.
    Last edited by heberman; 02/04/2004 at 11:10 AM.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!

Posting Permissions