VisorCentral.com - OT - Janet Jackson's breast at Super Bowl halftime

VisorCentral.com >> Discussion >> Other Areas of Interest >> Off Topic
OT - Janet Jackson's breast at Super Bowl halftime


	Post a New Thread \| Post A Reply

Pages (9): « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Topic: OT - Janet Jackson's breast at Super Bowl halftime Pages (9): « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »

ilovedessert
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 37

PLEASE READ MY ORGINAL POSTING BEFORE PASSING JUDGEMENT ON ME!

It isn't her breast showing that bothers me at all. It was the fact thatit was her idea to get notority by allowing aman to rip part of her outfit off and then show it to the entire world

THUS REINFORCING THE IDEA TO YOUNG PEOPLE OR TO ANYONE THAT TEARING A WOMAN'S DRESS IS THE CORRECT THING TO DO! WHICH IT IS NOT!!

She is trailer trash, (in fact theyboth are), because neither she or Justin thought there was anything wrong with preserveing the myth that woman are to be treated like dirt!

Sad you miss the point. It is NEVER RIGHT for a man to sexuallya ssualt a woman. TRUST ME MANY YOUNG PEOPLE, DO AS THEY SEE! THAT IS WHY LIKE IT OR NOT WHEN YOU ARE A PUBLIC FIGURE YOU ARE A ROLE MODEL! TAKE CARE, JAY

PS SHE HAS SET BACK FEMISIM 50 YEARS AND THAT IT WHY I AM SO APPAULED!

__________________
PLEASE SUPPORT RESEARCH INTO FIBROMYALGIA, CHRONIC PAIN AND SPINAL INJURIES. IF YOU SUFFER FROM THESE, CONSIDER JOINING OR BETTER YET FORMING A SUPPORT GROUP. NO ONE SHOULD SUFFER FROM THE BURDEN OF CHRONIC PAIN, JAY M. S. FOUNDER, LEESBURG FIBROMYALGIA RESOURCES GROUP

02-08-2004 02:39 PM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert

Sad you miss the point. It is NEVER RIGHT for a man to sexually assualt a woman.

Jay I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Janet was sexually assaulted during the half time show. Tearing an article of a woman's clothing hardly constitutes sexual assault. With that thinking you're right back to the whole nudity = sex point of view. Not to mention that Janet was a willing player.

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

02-08-2004 08:46 PM

dlbrummels
Member

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 17

Just a rehearsed stunt to get another Jackson some more publicity.

Maybe the FCC should fine those two talentless wonders the cost to fill in that time, with some re-run Superbowl Commercials ? >

02-08-2004 08:54 PM

ilovedessert
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 37

quote:
Originally posted by Woof

Jay I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Janet was sexually assaulted during the half time show. Tearing an article of a woman's clothing hardly constitutes sexual assault. With that thinking you're right back to the whole nudity = sex point of view. Not to mention that Janet was a willing player.

Woof

YOU ARE MISSING UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM SAYING. I DO NOT MEAN JANET WAS SEXUALLY ASSUALTED, I THINK BY DOING WHAT THEY DID, IT WILL GIVE SOME KIDS, (LETS SAY 12 OR 14 YEAR OLDS), TO THINK IT IS OK TO BEHAVE THIS WAY!!! KIDS MOCK AND/OR COPY WHAT THEY SEE!

I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE CRIME HERE IS AS FAR AS THE FOLLOWING POST JUST B4 THIS ONE, I AGREE THEY BOTH ARE TALENLEST TWITS, TAKE CARE, JAY

02-08-2004 09:13 PM

rosenft
Member

Registered: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 2

I can't believe this thread has been viewed nearly 10,000 times.

Is this a sad commentary about PDA owners or what?

02-08-2004 09:20 PM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
....before Bush stole the election from Gore.

Uh I think Gore was the one who cried and got it sent to the Supreme Court. Couldn't handle the fact that just because he wonthe popular vote he didnt win the electorate. It's always worked that way and 2000 wasn't the first time it's happened. Anyone old enough to remember Dewey vs. Truman? Besides Gore would have been a pussy as president. But hey the guy did invent the internet so he deserves some credit right?

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

02-08-2004 09:23 PM

dlbrummels
Member

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 17

Plus one more...

02-08-2004 09:25 PM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

Jay teaching 12-14 years olds or any kids the difference between right and wrong is not the responsiblity of MTV, advertisers, Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake or any one else on the boob tube (no pun intended). It's the responsibility of parents. I can remember my mother telling me about the things I saw on tv. One of the most vivid memories I have is her saying, "It's just a movie, it isn't real." If parents took the time to explain the difference between what they see on tv and reality, kids would be better off. Of course parents have to have their right to raise and discipline their children restored. Because of all the liberal mamby pamby bullsh*t about self-esteem parents have their hands tied and kids know it. I could go on and on.

Bottom line it's not up to the tv world to teach right and wrong or sexuality or how to treat the opposite sex.

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

Last edited by Woof on 02-08-2004 at 10:01 PM

02-08-2004 09:32 PM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

Jay another thought occured to me while discussing this thread with my wife. You talk about feminism being set back 50 years. I have to take issue with that

If, as you seem to be defining it, feminism is about women having rights and making decisions for themselves etc, how is Janet choosing to expose herself on tv by any means hurting the cause. She made this decision to do this as an empowered woman. Just because you don't like what she did, doesn't make it bad for women. Now if a man forced her to do this then you might have something. Janet has made it clear she was in on it so there is no element of male domination.

I am going to guess that Halle Berry (previous post) is doing damage too? How about strippers and adult film stars. Are they setting feminism back? I'd like you to explain how women doing what they want is setting feminism back. Is it because they are exploiting themselves by choice? Yes I said that. Exploitation of the female form is not just for guys. Women have this option too.

On the other end of the spectrum, is a woman who chooses to stay home and and raise her children, rather than get a job, setting feminism back too?

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

02-08-2004 10:01 PM

clulup
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 191

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert

YOU ARE MISSING UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM SAYING. I DO NOT MEAN JANET WAS SEXUALLY ASSUALTED, I THINK BY DOING WHAT THEY DID, IT WILL GIVE SOME KIDS, (LETS SAY 12 OR 14 YEAR OLDS), TO THINK IT IS OK TO BEHAVE THIS WAY!!! KIDS MOCK AND/OR COPY WHAT THEY SEE!

I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE CRIME HERE IS AS FAR AS THE FOLLOWING POST JUST B4 THIS ONE, I AGREE THEY BOTH ARE TALENLEST TWITS, TAKE CARE, JAY

I think you miss the point. On an artistic level, shown by the mutually provocative dancing, Janet's message was "I want you to rip my clothes off [and then....]" - in the end, he did, a bit too litteral for some. Isn't it one of the fruits of feminism, that women are allowed to behave like that, too, when they want to, not only men?

Do you also worry that 14 year olds take the football players as role models and start attaking each other that way on the playground? Kids can tell the difference, if you help them a bit, they are not stupid. The way YOU (or other members of their real life) behave is FAR more important for how they act in their own lifes.

[P.S.: Skiing is great, but I took my laptop with me...]

02-08-2004 10:55 PM

clulup
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 191

quote:
Originally posted by rosenft
I can't believe this thread has been viewed nearly 10,000 times.

Is this a sad commentary about PDA owners or what?

Sex sells, doesn't it?

02-08-2004 10:57 PM

ilovedessert
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 37

Look at it this way, with all women have accopplished (sp) in the last few decades, they way janet gets noticed is to "flash 'em".

To me, it makes her look like she has to lower herself to the level that she did to get noticed. The feminism movement, wants females to be thought of more than just, as the song from "A Chorus Line" states T & A. So the first thing a partialy washed up singer/dancer does is to "flash em", to get nticed.

How can women be percevied as more than just t & a, if she has to lower herself to get noticed? Trust me, Janet was noticed, without having to lower herself like this. Especailly on the super bowl, when she knew their would be very, very young kids watching. That is what concerns me about this all. WE SEE IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, CHILDREN COPY WHAT THEY SEE & HEAR. So not just am afraid a young guy thinks it is OK to do this after seing Justin and Janet do it. It also makes it look as if, it is OK for women to have to resort to flashing hers to get noticed. It is sad, because Janet was noticed for so much more than that and look what she did to herself and women in general!

She has lasted way longer than most do in that biz and frankly she is a very attractive woman, who dances very well and frankly hardly has a voice.

The other issue is that they both lack any form of common sence, they knew the make up of the audance(sp) and what the show was and did it anyway. Her family gets all up in arms abotu how people mispercive her brother and yet, it just goes to show, she is not exactly the sharpest pencile in th ebox when it comes to common sense.

For that matter neither is Justin.

Everyone in show biz and sports has to realize, no matter if you like it or not, what you do publkicly matters, because it effects othher people, like it or not you are a roll model.

I would like to think when and if Janet becomes a Mother, she would not want her young daughter to have her dress ripped off of her. Yet, the likleyhood is, that some young guy would see what Justin and she did and think it is OK.

That is another way that she lowered the feminism movement, by making it possible to perpetuate the roll of a young woman as victim, (in the case of the super bowl it was an act, but who knows in real life).

A number of years ago, there was a TV movie, which showed a young guy raping a young with a broom stick, at a school. Within a week of that airing there were 4 or 5 cases of it happening at schools arround the country. Like it or not kids do as they see!

I wonder if Justin and Janet even realise that they could in a way be responsable (sp) for it happening to a young woman or are they more convered witht heir "Q" factor, (in tv their "Q" number (for quality), is what makes them "hot".

Perhaps all of the carring on about this will stop so young guy to think it is OK to rip off the dress or blouse off a young woman!

Sorry about the spelling and typing errors, I am disabled and it is going to rain here any second. Rainmeans an increase in pain = harder to type. take care, jay

02-08-2004 11:03 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by rosenft
I can't believe this thread has been viewed nearly 10,000 times.

Is this a sad commentary about PDA owners or what?

Not exactly. I think it's more a sad commentary on certain segments of the US as a whole (and probably by extension of all humans). PDA owners are not the only ones driving traffic up over this. We're just a microcosm of that.

02-08-2004 11:12 PM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

Jay, sorry the rain is a pain.

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert
Everyone in show biz and sports has to realize, no matter if you like it or not, what you do publkicly matters, because it effects othher people, like it or not you are a roll model

You know you would be right except for one thing. TV and superstars and sports figures do not have near the influence involved parents have. The media is not raising our children, we are. At least we are supposed to be. Those parents that let their tv dictate how their children behave deserve what they get.

I have spent a lifetime watching films w/nudity and violence, assinine tvs shows showing people doing the stupidest of things to themselves and others, played countless violent video games (4 hours 'killing' people on xbox live last nite), read thousands of books, fact and fiction depicting countless atrocities and yet in 39 years I have never killed or physically assulted someone, nor have I ever commited a sexual crime against a woman. Why? Oddly enough because my parents taught me the way to treat people and how to behave regardless of what I saw in the many forms of entertainment I enjoyed. They were the final say of right and wrong. Problem is so many people just let their kids do whatever. There is no "NO!" in many homes today. Kids get whatever they want when they want it because parents would rather give in than argue. Bloody cowards if you ask me.

I am also of the belief that was are masters of our own destiny. We are able to choose how things affect us, how people make us feel, how to react in a given situation. Look at you. You are experiencing pain because of your disability and the weather, but here you are typing away. Now is that my fault? I mean I've disagreed with you but you are not forced to respond are you? You are making a choice. So even though I am influencing you to type, I am not responsible for your pain. It's the same thing.

What we have done by assigning blame to everyone else is absolve ourselves of personal responsibility. Some peoples child rearing skills must be catastrophicaly deficient if one second of a partially nude bit of female flesh can corrupt their children. (Heberman you listening?) That is pathetic if it's true. Ms. Jackson has done no damage in my home with her display, because we are able to explain it away as the stupid misguided showmanship that celebrities often engage in to draw attention to themselves. No different than the revealing dresses on many awards show runways. In the big picture these actions don't matter in our childrens lives because we tell them these acts are not how normal people behave and better is expected of them. That's what I learned as a child. I was taught to hold myself to a better standard and not do something just because everyone else was. To this day I live that way.

The best thing we as a society could have done was just ignore the Jackson breast event. But instead we caved in to Ms. Jacksons desire for notoriety and made this a lasting event in history. The only reason it's a big deal is because some people chose to react rather than ignore that which is trivial and pointless and move on.

quote:
How can women be percevied as more than just t & a, if she has to lower herself to get noticed?

Talk about having a low perception of women. Most people in today's world do not think of women as T&A as you so quaintly put it. Women today are far more than just a piece of ass. I think most women would be insulted by the fact that you think their position in the world is so fragile that one second of breast flesh on tv could send them crashing into pre suffrage days. I also love the quote "with all women have accomplished in the last few decades". Women have been accomplishing for thousands of years. Don't try to make it sound like women were under lock and key until the 60's. That's a load of crap.

Lastly my wife is still waiting for your answer to my earlier question, as am I? "...is a woman who chooses to stay home and and raise her children, rather than get a job, setting feminism back too?

Ok I am finally done. Sorry for the novel folks.

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

02-09-2004 01:25 AM

ilovedessert
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 37

HIYA, UNFORTUANATELY THERE ARE STILL MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO THINK IT'S A T & A WORLD, ESPECIALLY OUT OF THSI COUNTRY. I WAS RATHER SURPRISED THAT KIND OF FOOLISHNESS STILL EXISITS IN TO 20 TH AND 21ST CENTURYS, BUT WHEN I WENT TO RUSSIA & JAPAN A FEW YEARS AGO, IT WAS AN EYE OPENER IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE. TAKE CARE, JAY

02-09-2004 01:40 AM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

Then perhaps you should worry about protecting the kids from them.

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

02-09-2004 03:47 AM

dlbrummels
Member

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 17

There is no excuse for this being on primetime tv, without a delay.

Sure most kids it would noit affect, but remember the boy who killed his little female friend emulating a wrestlers move ?

Remember Columbine ? There are people on the edge out there, and just because sex and violence didn't affect you, doesn't mean little Johnie knows right from wrong.

Do we need twisted people who hide behind free speech, and say violence and pornography are their amendment rights ?

02-09-2004 03:53 AM

Woof
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 30

Both of your examples can at least in part be attributed to uninvolved parents.

As far as the tv delay goes, I think people should be more responsible and learn to deal with things however unpleasant. I personally would rather not have the government or the broadcast industry deciding what is best for me. (There's a warning label on my damn toothpaste for God's sake. Ridiculous) Those that are afraid of what might happen on live tv should not watch. Besides you can see as bad or worse everyday on tv, for hours on end. That was a few seconds. Maybe we should tape delay the world so no one ever gets offended. Please! Thats just stupid.

As far as I know neither violence nor pornography is a right guaranteed by the 1st amendment. But I gather you would take the right to make violent or pornographic materials away from those you think are sickos. Fact of the matter is, if there was no one watching or buying that stuff no one would make it. You have the right to decide for yourself that those things are not appropriate but not for others. If that's hiding behind free speech, color me hidden.

Little Johnie's parents need to be slapped if they are unwilling or too stupid to teach him right from wrong. Thats my point! TV shouldn't be used to teach these concepts. Thats a parents job. Columbine didnt happen because of tv or video games, it happened because no one took the responsibility to teach those kids the way to behave in society.

Woof

__________________
Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe....stupidity is.

02-09-2004 04:21 AM

dlbrummels
Member

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 17

Utter nonsense.

It is just that kind of attitude that has led the morality in this country in a downward spiral.

Teach the kids how to behave ? They behaved themselves everyday right to the day they killed.

Yes the parents were at fault, so was Hollywood, the movie industry, record industry, the school, friends, as well as the school district, and society itself.

Responsibilty, you throw that one around to everybody but yourself. When society, rates parents to be good people based on the amount of money they make, and took their kid on vacation once a year ?

Yes live shows should be delayed. If you need your smut and violence to feel alive, you can have your channel for it, contolled by you.

But to say let anything go cause I don't want censorship is truly irresponsible and puts the blame right back on you.

Pornography is always hiding behind the First Admendment. Slapping the parents is fine but it won't bring back all the lives lost.

Kids raised watching rape, killing, violence, are likely to emulate that behaviour as adults you see it happening every day !