BS: Janet Jacksons Breast

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 09:59 PM

Is it the wrong color?

Witch don't madder to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 09:03 PM

I'll take her right breast. Mine was removed nearly 15 years ago!
**BG**




W.E.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: pdq
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 08:33 PM

Thank you, GUEST of 4:53, for the link to:

Columbia School of Journalism, " Who Owns What: Viacom"

MTV, CBS, 60 Minutes, Infinity Broadcasting, Simon and Schuster, etc., etc,, etc., all run by the same people???

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 08:20 PM

Dani, I've assumed it's like wearing the pants unzipped which my students informed me means, "I'm ready."

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: harpgirl
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 08:08 PM

I don't know what the big fuss is about when everyone knows the future will look like this:



http://www.oxfordancestors.com/book_adamscurse.html





We'll do what we want!

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Dani
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:37 PM

Breasts aside... for a moment (even yours, Sins)...

What the hell is all the crotch grabbing about? I don't get it. Or is it just as simple as it looks ("hey, look! All this and I've got a penis, too!")

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 06:18 PM

Claymore-

The 6th post did provide a blue clicky. You must have been browsing the posts at warp speed to have missed it.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 06:07 PM

Claymore -

You didn't read the fine print. Look above to:

      From: GUEST,keeping abreast of the issue - PM
      Date: 02 Feb 04 - 03:12 PM

      keeping abreast of the issue (link)

Not a particularly attractive pose, but unusually good resolution (300 dpi) for a web pic.

The most legitimate complaint I've noted was probably from the Scot, professional streaker, who was clubbed off the field, and who felt that JJ upstaged him. Nobody noticed his act.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM

The majority of abuse suffered by children is in the home. The perpetrators of this abuse are family members. Todays society is a lot more open than thirty years ago. I think this is a good thing, because kids are more likely to have a handle on what is happening and a lot more likely to talk about it.

I don't find a cosmetically enhanced breast offensive. My kids are used to seeing them in all shapes and sizes on the beach every year, it is the norm in Europe.Is topless bathing outlawed in the USA?

I do find beauty pageants where young girls ( and I mean under sixteens) are preened and primped into looking like hookers, extremely distasteful.Some cheerleading can be filed under that heading too. Thankfully not a roaring trade in the UK. I do find porn where women are subjected to degrading themselves, also distateful.Again not a huge UK industry.

Richard and Judy beat Justin and JJ to it anyway, almost.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:08 PM

Bare Breast for the Democratic primaries...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerry1.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:08 PM

Great... I read thirty column inches of fulminatious debate and not one damn blue clicky to the tit in question...

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:58 PM

Yes Ron, it was all there when we were in school. But now it's at least 10 times worse. (and that's a conservative estimate) Anyone who hasn't been in the schools in the last decade (and being a parent doesn't count...just ask your kids 5 years later what really went on) doesn't have a clue to what is going on in the majority of public (and most private) schools. Many classroom teachers don't even see the reality of what a kid suffers. Usually in extracurricular or out-of-the classroom activities the reality shows through.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:53 PM

If you want to know where else Viacom can peddle their football porn, have a look-see here at the Columbia Journalism Review's webpage for Viacom, at the "Who Owns What" site:

Who Owns What: Viacom

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:05 PM

Thanks for checking in guest.

I apologize for using the word "impulse". I meant to say just what you did, that the act was planned between Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake and that CBS, MTV and the NFL had no idea of their plan.

As to my attributing your blame of George Bush, I think I misunderstood your statement "which is done to act as subterfuge to things like the Bush budget".

I do agree with you guest in your comments about the FCC and the Republican Right. The fact that Powell wants to waste money investigating this and RE-OPENING up the case with Sting is a real sign that power corrupts.

By the way, I do understand that the anti-smoking ad was also allowed on the Superbowl. I'm sure the tobacco companies weren't happy with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:56 PM

Anyone who believes JJ and Justin were acting on impulse don't get either, IMO. This was a pre-planned, caluculated incident done to generate controversy, and get free pub for them both. Their reputations will not be hurt by this.

The FCC fine is around $28,000 which both entertainers can easily afford. Anyone who thinks Joe Football Fan didn't LOVE the bared breast thing is seriously delusional, regardless of slaps on the wrist in the appropriate places. This so-called controversy is giving both entertainers much more free publicity than an appearance on the Grammy Awards could ever do. And JJ has a new album due in stores soon.

Viacom has already made a pig pile of money on this. They will NOT lose a red cent. They own all the entertainment/media companies that celebrate this sort of stuff. They'll be peddling this Superbowl shit next week on their "100 Most Shocking Moments" shows over on MTV and VH1.

As far as AOL getting their money back goes--oh sure. I'll believe that when I see it. After all, AOL never peddles porn, right? Gimme a break.

I never said George Bush was behind this--you just claimed I did to score debating points.

What I said is this sort of righteous indignation scare is just the sort of mass distraction tactics used by the Republican Right to deflect attention from real, serious news, like the public policy debates it is their duty and responsibility to provide as stewards of our public airwaves. Oh wait--the Republican Right gutted the FCC Fairness Doctrine under Reagan, so they could show this Superbowl shit instead.

The Republican Right got all those "advocacy" ads and public service programs off the air, so the NFL could bring you all that is distracting, including JJ's breast complete with jewelry.

That is just the sort of thing their boys like to see with their football, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:38 PM

Maybe a little more football and a little less hype?

I turned the TV off before the game ever started because I got tired of the build-up. It's just a football game, for chrissake. It's not even particularly good football.

Canadian football! That's where it's at, man. A wider field, only three chances to make a first down, one more man on the field per side, and only 20 seconds allowed between plays, unlike American football which allows 45 seconds of farting around. Oh, and less money involved to screw things up even more.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:38 PM

Oops.. a clarification on the last sentence of my previous post. When I said that all entities knew what was going to happen, I was talking about the overall performances.... they did not know about Janet flashing her boob.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:34 PM

Frank, I think we agree on many things, more than we initially realized! We both feel that children need to be "taught", not "told". I don't think either of us felt the halftime show was appropriate for the game, and I think our only disagreement was on how we were "shocked" by the whole thing. If I can paraphrase, you seemed shocked at the trash, I felt that it was what I expected given the way culture has evolved in the last 50 years. It is hard to shock me. I am also a bit jaded being in the profession and having a close relative in upper mangagement at MTV. I don't approve of their programming all the time, but I do admire what they do. They produce some amazing documentaries that no one hears about because the media harps on incidents like this. Rock The Vote has made significant strides in getting young people to register to vote.

As to your point about the NFL.   This was not the first time MTV produced a half-time show. If this "breast" incident did not happen, I think Sunday's halftime show would not have been much of a discussion. The crotch grabbing and language can be seen in many network shows at all hours.

CBS did not hire MTV, the NFL did. The NFL owns the rights to all this. Since MTV and CBS are owned by Viacom, they kept The NFL was given an outline of what MTV was going to present. Once they were sold on the concept, MTV went to work on the details. All the entities were present at rehearsals so they knew what was going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:33 PM

Since I am not a football fan, I did not watch the SuperBowel. I probably would not have watched it anyway, but I had musical things to do while it was going on, so our modern day gladiators had to do their thing without my observation. As a result, I first heard of Janet Jackson's abrupt décolleté here on this very thread. My response was an amused "Sheesh!" So much for that, I thought.

But yesterday evening, somewhat before 6:00 p.m. I popped on the tube in preparation for watching the Jim Lehrer News Hour on PBS, as I usually do. I was somewhat early, so I surfed through the ghetto of cable news channels:   CNN, CNN Headline News, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News Service. The first thing that greeted me as Fox News came on (which I sometimes watch for amusement) was a view of Janet Jackson (bizarrely garbed as usual) prancing about a stage with some dude (Justin Timberlake, I presume—never heard of him 'til now) gallumphing around after her. He reaches around, grabs the front of her dress (or whatever she was wearing), and suddenly, for about a second and a half at most, Miss Jackson's right breast is exposed to the world. All of this at a considerable distance, too far to see anything but a flash of flesh, but no detail, not even the ornate pasty she is said to have been wearing. In the meantime, two talking heads are holding forth in an animated fashion, expressing shock and outrage. Then, through the magic of "instant replay," they showed it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again....

I changed channels to MSNBC, and there I saw Miss Jackson's sudden exposure again. And again. And again. And again....

ALL of the news channels were doing the same thing. Again. And again.... Even ESPN, of course! Instant replay, after all.

The implication of all this replaying was "Look fast, or you'll miss it!"

On the Jim Lehrer News Hour (a fairly serious news program) they did not lead with this. At the very end of the opening news briefs before going into the longer stories, Lehrer mentioned it with a rather wry smile, showed the clip once, then moved on to the sort of things that a good news program should be concerned with.

As a result of this sudden onslaught of displaying feminine attributes (only one attribute, really) on television, three thoughts occurred to me:—

The first is a comment attributed to King Charles II, said to have been a notorious womanizer. Upon observing a woman in his court who sported a gown with an extremely low neckline, he is said to have remarked to a companion, "God's blood, sir! I haven't seen such a display since the day I was weaned!"

The second thought was in noting how outraged the talking heads were at this "tasteless display"—as they continued the "tasteless display" of Miss Jackson's boob over and over. I just heard a media critic on KUOW (local NPR affiliate) comment that he was at home watching the game and taking notes on his clipboard, and apparently reached for his beer at the wrong moment because he missed it entirely. He saw the clip later (again, and again, and again. . . .), noted that the exposure lasted for less than two seconds and was at too great a distance to see anything. His opinion was that if the news Twinkies hadn't gone up like a haystack on fire, it would not have suddenly become the Story of the Year. If it was intentional, which it pretty obviously was, then congratulations to Miss Jackson, because she has gone a long way toward resuscitating a flagging career.

And the third thought was a restatement of the old conundrum about "why are there so many more horses asses than there are horses?" If one were to take the number of human females over the age of puberty and multiply their number by two, assuming normal circumstances, one would then know how many boobs there are in the world. And yet, the actual number of boobs is much larger than that. It is my belief that many of those excess boobs are in the television news business.

Ruminations on a slow Tuesday morning. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Pseudolus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:17 PM

Hey Ron, we finally agree on something! haha! Actually I think we're a lot closer than we sound on this, but the John Flynn thing? I'm right there with ya, "Dragon" is an awesome CD! I have all of his CD's and love them all but "To the Point" also stands out as a favorite to me....

If you get a chance folks, go to the site listed above where you can listen to clips of some of John's work. You can even order CD's online. Hmmm, I wonder if I'll get a commission? HA!

Back to the Breast, I do have a difficult time blaming the NFL for this whole thing. Yeah, they paid for it but there's no indication so far that they actually requested it. The commisioner came out immediately denouncing the incident. I mean the NFL hired CBS and CBS hired MTV and MTV hired Timberlake and Jackson. The performers didn't tell MTV who didn't tell CBS who didn't tell the NFL. I guess my question is, what should the NFL have done differently? I'm not trying to start more of a fuss here I'd really like to know what y'all think...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mooh
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:12 PM

Dave...Oh. I hate those smiley things too, but only in my own writing. I get ya now. Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:04 PM

Who IS Justin Timberlake and why do we care.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:43 PM

Guest - AOL sponsored the MTV produced half-time show. There is a story out that they are now asking for money back. Viacom could lose big money. Capiche?

Although I haven't seen it reported yet, I believe that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake have been removed from the Grammy Awards in the fallout over this incident. Capiche?

As much as I would like to blame George W. for this incident, I don't think your case holds much water.   This was not a ploy by major corporations, this was Janet Jackson acting on impulse.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:38 PM

Well, one of the advertisements that appeared right after the breast baring incident was none other than CBS--again, using JJ's tits--hyping JJ's upcoming appearance at the Grammy Awards this Sunday night on...you guessed it (or should I say, I hope you do) CBS.

Capiche? CBS, the NFL and the FCC all got the halftime show they wanted, and the halftime show they paid plenty to get on in primetime. The advertisers know these viewers better than they know themselves, and gave the viewers just what they wanted and were looking for. If you were shocked, you either haven't been paying attention, or you are doing your best to act outraged on behalf of the Republican Right agenda, which is done to act as subterfuge to things like the Bush budget, the debacle of the FCC rules getting changed under the radar in the appropriations bill, and to deflect attention away from the WMD controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:36 PM

MOOH said:
Dave...So, rehearsing the assault makes it acceptable? Mooh.

No, rehearsing it makes it not an assault.   Not tasteful, not good television, not good morals, but not a wrong against her, not an assault.

I guess I should have put a smiley with my comment. But I hate 'em.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:28 PM

Hey Guest - wake up!   The NFL has been blamed by several of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:20 PM

We have tried to teach the girls in our family that they don't want or have to put up with such touchings, rubbings, etc. unless they want to. And we've tried to reinforce it in positive ways, by empowering them as people ("Heck, yeah, go try the climbing wall!") and then by empowering them so that they can do something about it if they have to ("Jiu-jitsu lessons start in ten minutes, girls!"). And we have tried to explain to them the concepts of responsibility and ethics and self-definition and, frankly, I think we've succeeded pretty darn well. None of them feel inferior to anyone else, least of all to the guys in high school.

To whit:

E, to me: "Uncle Mike, I don't think I'll date in high school."
Me: "Why is that?"
E: "'Cause I've gone to school with all of the guys all of my life, and they're all JERKS!"

Or, overheard, niece M. talking on the phone to a friend (she's 13):
"Well, if he were to try that stuff with me I'd break it off and hand him back a bleeding stump." (I hope that she was talking about the guys hands, but I dunno.)

Their paternal grandmother could have rassled a panther while plowing the fields and feedin' the kids at the same time. And their paternal great-grandmother was even tougher. And both fit the classical definition of "a lady."

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:18 PM

Can you discuss the other breast tomorrow I feel sure it has felt left out - or maybe left in, in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:13 PM

Frank - John Flynn is one of the best songwriters, performers and human beings to come around in a long time.   His CD "Dragon" was one of my favorites from last year. This is someone EVERYONE should be listening to.

John hasn't yet played the Superbowl, but he has played the Vet many times.   I look forward to seeing him at the new park next year!

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:11 PM

The greatest irony of all--not one of you is faulting the NFL/AFL. They are the ones who pay for gig--including Jackson and whats his puny head.

Even greater irony--none of you fault those who bankrolled the gig--the advertisers.

And some of you fear that 12 year olds don't understand what is happening here? Hell, we're adults, and most the adults here don't get what happened.

Everyone who is a regular non-critical TV viewer who doesn't understand that the trashy half-time show is the MTV entertainment segment of the game, which was aired on CBS, doesn't get it.

They are both owned by Viacom. Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, is playing the smoke and mirrors game over the FCC controversy about the Viacoms of this world buying and peddling their influence, be it with the FCC, the Republican National Committee, the White House, or the National Football League.

Anybody who sat there watching the Superbowl halftime who claims to have been shocked by the incident is either really, really, really fucking stupid, or playing the game of the Republican right agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:10 PM

Well Mooh, I'm honestly not sure if there was a rating for the Superbowl. The ratings are voluntary on the part of the broadcaster. You do bring up a good point, there should have been a rating before the performance. I am betting there was.

One aspect that was lost in all of this - the original intent of the half-time show.   It was meant to touch upon the themes of empowerment and getting out the vote. Those ideas were completly lost in the performance and everything, including the game itself, has been lost in the furor of over the breast.

I also think that SOME of these songs and performances also overshadow the many positive messages and images that come across in songs today, even in rap music. There is a great sense of empowerment and self-worth.

Mary, your description of high school with the loud talk, bullying, language, attitudes towards women, etc. - those were issues in my day. There is nothing new under the sun, except maybe we are now wearing our parents hats!

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:38 PM

Yeah, Mary, it is trying at times. The best I can offer is that I take the stuff on head up. I look for opportunities to to have conversation, and then talk about it in a matter of fact way. The trick is to do so without demonizing sexuality. One of the things that our hung up American society has tried to stifle is the natural inclination to explore awakening sexuality. In doing so, they created the backlash we see now, and have seen in the last 40 years. The old Celts would encourage their children to explore these facets of themselves and guide them in a healthy way. We should never deny the sexual nature that we all possess, and nurturing that is, it seems to me, the key to raising well adjusted adults. As a very liberal person, that is what is so troubling about these displays. They seem to want to reduce my young woman to something that I am not willing to allow. This child, indeed all my girls, are being raised to make a difference and leave this place better than what they found it. These types of displays make it difficult, but I will use them as teaching moments as well. Maybe in the abstract, they will even be positive tools.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:26 PM

Mick has articulated (quite well IMO) the issues here. I don't envy you having to raise young girls in this culture/climate with no help from anyone/anything/any institution etc. I was stunned when my own daughter, at the age of 6, would do a bump and grind and sing "Do it to me one more time." The passivity in that attitude hurt me more than anything. Then, for me, a math teacher, to see young girls drop out of math classes, or try to hide their brains...it just hurts. Or in teaching high school just a few years ago, to hear the unbelievable language (often hidden from adults) and to witness the attitudes toward women/rape/violence/detachment. Or to daily witness crotch grabbing, strutting, very, very loud talk, physical intimidation and bullying...very distressing. I really think these issues affect the parents of girls more than anyone, at least for this generation. Mick, take care of those young women. And let us know how we can help the young women in our lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Pseudolus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:17 PM

Slight thread drift...someone mentioned the statue (nicknamed Minnie Lou by the way) that Ashcroft covered with a VERY expensive tarp. One of my all-time favorite singer/songwriters John Flynn wrote a song about just that. It's called, apropriately, Minnie Lou and here's a link to John's site with the lyrics....

Frank


Minnie Lou

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mooh
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:08 PM

Ron...No, I don't suppose JJ considers it an assault, but it WAS an assault on [admitedly my] good taste and what I think younger minds should be subjected to. I don't think of it as an assault on JJ either, just horrendous bad judgement. My 12 year old came home from school with several different young teen viewpoints. She gets it, but most of her classmates apparently don't, especially the boys.

Equating this with any film or stage performance might be a stretch. I wasn't aware that the Superbowl has a rating. Does it?

The "assault" aside, had I seen the game I would have not seen the show. None of my family and none of my adult friends (as far as I'm aware) cares for the genre of music performed. Could they not have found something else to present, or is everyone so starstruck and celebrity obsessed that this represents general entertainment?

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:43 PM

Sure takes people's attention off of Michael for a while, doesn't it? That Jackson family, what will they think of next!

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:42 PM

Well, I didn't see it, but I feel like I did!

I don't think it's necessarily The Breast that's an issue. There's naked breasts on PBS all the time, and not all of them on women who live in countries where women usually go topless. Context is everything. It sounds to me like the whole halftime show was pretty trashy, which is sad.

But I'm just an unfrozen caveman. I don't understand about these Modern Ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:06 PM

Fair point, Ron, and I stand corrected.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:04 PM

Wait a second Mick, you are the one mixing up the nudity with the message. MTV and CBS did not apologize for the tone of their half-time show, they only apologized for the nudity.

You are correct - the NFL knew EXACTLY what type of show they were getting when they hired MTV to do the half-time show. MTV has nothing to apologize for, they delivered what they were asked for.

As for Mooh's point, I'm not sure if I agree with you. Do we consider any stage or film performance an "assault"? This was entertainment, even though most of us agree it was pretty awful.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:50 AM

Ron ..... I think you know that I am referring to Timberlake and Jackson .... and from everything I have read, including their own statements, this was their doing. That is not to excuse or alibi CBS and MTV. They knew full well that their "stars" would try to garner ratings, and were aiming at the younger audience. They knew that Nelly would grab his penis ..... and condoned, even encouraged it. They were hoping, IMO, for controversy as we all know that is good for business/ratings. That is the reason, IMO, that Jackson and Timberlake felt OK with their decision. Now they are trying to set up the "plausible deniability" gambit.

Busting Timberlake and Jackson would be like busting the street level narcotics dealer. Makes you feel better, but does nothing to resolve the real issue, and that is money.

I repeat..........nudity is not the issue. The message is the issue.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mooh
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:47 AM

So, it wasn't an assault because it was consensual? Whether it was predetermined by JJ and JT alone, or with the approval of the powers is material only to those seeking or avoiding blame. The end result is that it was in poor taste in a time and place where many impressionable young minds were watching. Not that we should be surprised mind you, considering what passes for acceptable behavior in general society and among its leaders, including the TV Gods.

But for heaven's sake, can't this immature, self-impressed, egomaniacal, ill-considered behavior be kept outside of the daytime/primetime slots? Or has money, hype, ego, and image entirely eclipsed good judgement?

What price values?

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:43 AM

Frank, you are missing my point. I am not saying it is inevitable, I am saying that we have let culture progress to this point and now we are all shocked by it. It is ironic. We used to laugh when our "elders" complained about the length of the Beatle's hair or the short miniskirts or those kids running around naked or the suggestive lyrics of the Rolling Stones. When we were the youth, we "seemed" to know what was right and wrong. Now that we've become the parents, we are now becoming shocked at what culture is throwing at us. I do agree that what may be obvious to an adult is not so clear to a 12 year old, but I do think they can understand more than we give them credit for.

What can we do? As you say we can teach our children.   We should also try to understand where this culture has evolved from if we expect to have any credence.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Pseudolus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:27 AM

See, the problem is, we're focusing in on just the exposing of the breast, that's not what I referred to as trash, and in fact that was only one part of an entire discussion. So no, I did not dictate their opinions in fact I let them speak first so that my opinion would not influence theirs. The entire mood of the dance (as interprutted by my kids) was demeaning. I agreed. It was at THAT point that I told them I felt the whole thing was trash. There is a certain amount of parenthood that involves teaching and at that point, after the discussion, it was time to do just that. I also tried to explain to them that just because they see it on TV, doesn't mean that that's the way things are or should be. Kids are easily influenced and it may seem obvious to an adult where the line is, it may not be so clear to a 12 year old.

I don't own any Pat Boone records but if you think that there's no point in being angered by something like this because change is inevitable, then I ask you again, what do they have to do to shock you? Would getting totally naked and fornicating on the stage have been a shocker? Or just another step in the inevitable chain?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:23 AM

not even a breast, really, just a plastic bag with some liquid in it & some skin stretched over it.

o, the outrage! you'd think Bill Clinton was somehow responsible! if not directly involved.

gives the FCC chief something to do for show while he gives away the airwaves to a few corporate interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:13 AM

"I discussed this issue with my kids as well, and I told them that it was trash"

Doesn't sound like a discussion Frank, it sounds like you were making their decision.

If you read my earlier note, you will notice that I said the half-time show was NOT appropriate for the Super Bowl. What I did say is that I am surprised people are so shocked at this incident. These moves are part of our culture!

Mick said something very important. He has spent time teaching his children that sexuality is a wonderous thing and that body image does not determine worth.   That is the lesson. IF we are all doing that as parents, then I think we can be comfortable that they can watch the junk on TV and separate reality from fiction. If we can teach our children where fantasy ends and reality begins, we have done our job. We can't be scared by the boogeymen of TV - the boogeymen that ALL of us have helped to create.

Remember when Elvis's butt, Jerry Lee Lewis's shaking, and songs like "Wake Up Little Suzie" gave our parents cause for concern? Same story, diffent age. Rock and Roll has ALWAYS been about rebellion and challenging values. Those of you think that it can crawl back to something more innocent should dust off the old Pat Boone records and keep your fingers crossed.

Dave - you are wrong. This is not what they did in rehearsal. The removal of her breastplate was worked out between Jackson & Timberlake. The move was never included in the rehearsals.

Mick - the "folks" at MTV do have children.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Mooh
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:12 AM

Dave...So, rehearsing the assault makes it acceptable? Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 11:06 AM

Proportions looked OK to me ?

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 10:55 AM

Powdered ricin (nerve toxin) is detected in the Senate Office Building on Monday, 16 people are decontaminated.

Inject as much as fits on the head of a pin and it is deadly, inhaled as a powder you'd need to inhale a lot more to get sick. Sounds like a sick trick or joke, a stunt intended to terrorize the nation on a big political day (seven primaries and caucuses today).

But what? ABC Goodmorning America gives some conservative twit far too much time to pronounce bad things about Janet Jackson's right tit. For twenty minutes they must have gone on with reaction interviews, after 30 seconds on something that should actually be news.

Get a sense of proportion, America!

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 10:42 AM

Harpgirl said:

Right-O, Mick. Justin Timberlake should have been arrested for sexual assault, don't you think?

Why? He was just doing what they did in rehearsal.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Janet Jacksons Breast
From: Pseudolus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 10:41 AM

So Ron, what would they have had to do to shock you? Sounds like you're saying we're gonna get there eventually anyway so let em just have sex if it's just a performance. The point is, it has to stop somewhere. I discussed this issue with my kids as well, and I told them that it was trash, and I told them that just because people are famous, it doesn't mean they can't be idiots.

Frank

P.S. For the record, the language you speak of is not allowed in my house or on the TV when my kids are around...