Toxic

[MAD-3R]

My point is that it was done as part of a performance. It was inapropriate as hell. No argument from me on that issue. My problem is the degree to which people are jumping all over this. She had her right breast exposed on national TV during the superbowl. Whoop tie f'en doo. Fine her money for public exposure, but that would be about the extent of her punishment. To labeling it indecent, or corruption, or pornographic is ludicris. (I don't think anyone here has said it was Porno, but I have read it in some articals.)

As for my supposed female child doing it at 16; if I have done my job as a parent correctly, she won't. Or at least, I would know about it as part of a performance, though I dought I would allow her to do it.

Absent parents and parents who don't care is what is causing the shops to be selling this merchandice to kids far to young for it's content.

TO paraphrase the anti-drup campain. Parents, the anti-sex.

 

[STLThunder]

My respectful opinion: Was it appropriate? Absolutely not, especially for Network TV :nono: , but I think too many people have over-reacted to it. Look at the Media. All the talk has been about "the Incident" and hardly a mention of who played in or won the game. If the game were broadcast on HBO, nothing would have been said. The whole thing only lasted a few seconds, but thanks to the media it has been replayed thousands of times, sometimes with out being :censor: .

As for the commercials, some of them were a little over the top, but they only seem to reflect what the viewing public wants. Just look at all the "reality shows" on TV that get great ratings, they all have several themes in common, sex, greed, backstabbing, humiliation, gross outs (I refer to shows that have "contestants" eat gross things), etc. I have yet to find any "contestant" on those shows that seem to have any redeeming values at all. They all just want their fifteen minutes of fame.

Yes, I do watch some of them occasionaly. :lol:

Thanks for letting me express my opinion.

 

[Macon Marauder]

I haven't watched a Superbowl half-time show in years. When half-time starts is when I start channel surfing. So we missed it. Not to sound too smug, but what did people think? A CBS half-time show produced by MTV featuring JJ, Kid Rock, rappers, etc? That told me all I needed to know about what the "entertainment" would be.

I saw the pictures, replays, and I've read about it. My opinion is that it was inapproriate, and I'm glad my 14 and 10 year boys, and 8 year girl missed it. I asked them about it the next day after school, what they thought, what they're friends were saying, etc. The consensus was "gross!" But no big deal to them or the kids that saw it. They think JJ is "nasty" and "old" anyway (she's 37)!

FCC head (Colin Powell's son) and others are making political hay over this deal, IMHO. Yes, CBS is a mess, MTV is a bigger mess, and it just gets messier as you go up the line. No surprise there. But many of these outraged people are also just looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

My advice: know your kids and keep the lines of communication open. Bring them up the best way you know how. Chances are; they won't grow up to be a "JJ" or "Kid Rock" or whoever.

 

[woaface]

James,
This is a sincere question based on your last posting. I'm sure my two stepdaughters think I'm out of touch or a dweeb. I think that's normal for them to feel that way. Don't you think your folks are dweebs? I think I didn't realize how smart/cool my parents were until I was about 20 or so...Enlighten me, please.
-Dan

Depends on the situation. My mom over-reacts...a LOT. I don't know anyone who knows her well that doesn't think so, including my father. My father, he's cool. I definitely don't contend with how smart my parents are, my dad is a member of Mensa, and my mom failed that test by one point. I should mention she took that test at 9 in the morning while she was 8 months pregenate with me Once in a while, they are dweebs, but I do very much enjoy their company...I'm homeschooled and I'm around them quite a bit. I answer th at question honestly.

 

[woaface]

If the game were broadcast on HBO, nothing would have been said.

HBO isn't free. As far as I can remember, CBS is an over-the-air network, unlike HBO which you have to obtain through cable. 90 million people watched the Superbowl on CBS, I don't think nearly as many watch the big fight of the year on HBO.

To labeling it , or corruption, or ographic is ludicris. (I don't think anyone here has said it was o, but I have read it in some articals.)

As for my supposed female child doing it at 16; if I have done my job as a parent correctly, she won't. Or at least, I would know about it as part of a performance, though I dought I would allow her to do it.

Do you know she's not doing it behind your back? It's not hard, not at all. It's way easier that stealing money from your wallet, or smoking behind your back. All she has to do is leave the house. What's wrong with labeling , corrupt, or ographic. It's not o...but ographic. It was , it was not decent. Corrupt? It'll corrupt some kids...just look at MTV. To think otherwise would be a mistake. It's a 'when in doubt' kind of thing...why bet that it won't be?

 

[Krytin]

My hat is off to Woaface and Billy! You are 100% right to bring up this thread and you have both taken the words right out of my mouth!
But this is a free country. I can respect another person's opinion - even if I don't agree with it.
I'm no saint and never will be and I don't judge what another human being does in private or in such a way that has no impact on persons that do not wish to be involved. The fact that many people are not offended by the entire half time show and even a few of the comercials is only proof that as a society we have let our standards of public decency and ethical values slip far to low for far to long. Too many generations have been exposed to increasingly poor taste and unethical acts to the effect that "no one cares" anymore! How very sad.

 

[MAD-3R]

Do you know she's not doing it behind your back? It's not hard, not at all. It's way easier that stealing money from your wallet, or smoking behind your back. All she has to do is leave the house. What's wrong with labeling , corrupt, or ographic. It's not o...but ographic. It was , it was not decent. Corrupt? It'll corrupt some kids...just look at MTV. To think otherwise would be a mistake. It's a 'when in doubt' kind of thing...why bet that it won't be?

But thats my point. If I had done things correctly, I would be able to trust them to make the right decition, without me secound guessing them. I now know that I didn't get away with half the shinanigans I thought I did while growning up. But my parents trusted me not to do anything REALLY stupid. Yes I smoked at 16, slipped out after cerfew, and snuck booze from the cabnet. But I didn't fool them. And, when the time came for me to make the decition on drugs or not, I made the right one.

And I found my dads stash of Playboys when I was 10 or so, and snuck one into my room to look at. There were articals? ANd I like to think I'm resonable well adjusted and even appear on the "normal" chart sometimes.

I do have the advantage of having an education in Classical art growing up. Living in Italy and visiting many of the great works teaches that the human body, when displayed in an artistic manor, is beautiful and not something to shield yourself from.

No matter if you found her performace disgusting and no matter how inapropreate, her performance was artistic and the display was part of the production.

 

[UAW 588]

CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG TOGETHER? :bigcry:

 

[woaface]

CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG TOGETHER? :bigcry:

We do, just disagreements on this forum

 

[woaface]

But my parents trusted me not to do anything REALLY stupid. Yes I smoked at 16, slipped out after cerfew, and snuck booze from the cabnet. But I didn't fool them. And, when the time came for me to make the decition on or not, I made the right one.

And I found my dads stash of s when I was 10 or so, and snuck one into my room to look at. There were articals? ANd I like to think I'm resonable well adjusted and even appear on the "normal" chart sometimes.

Completely normal...I've done stuff like that, and I've made the choice not to drink or do myself. Othere than one sip of Vadka at a friends house, I have not done, and will not do alcohol before I turn 21. Both of us have made good choices. But there are kids now-a-days that go way farther than that. It's very common, and more widespread than you think. Who helps them with these ideas? No you as a parent. Where do these ideas even come from? Definitely not you as a parent. As for art...sure, I can see how it's artistic, the boob was just blatent...if she wants to be artistic and beautiful about the boob, it shouldn't be flashed. It should be shown well. But not on the Superbowl, and certaintly not near kids. Just as you and I see it differently, kids are even more impressionable, and might not understand that as something of art, but as something they desire.

 

[MapleLeafMerc]

Societal standards

BillyG, you asked us collectively if we thought it would be ok if a sister or mother did what JJ did. But before giving us a chance to answer, you put an answer in our mouths and based the rest of your post on that. Please let people answer if you ask a question. I agree that what she did was irresponsible and selfish. I don't agree that CBS knew it was to happen.

You later posted again and asked us if we had the guts to answer. Strong words, and yes, I do. I will assume that you mean a female of comparable age and standing to Janet Jackson. By that I mean that JJ was NOT a teenaged daughter, but a middle-aged, seasoned veteran of the game of self promotion. I hope you can agree that it is misleading and inaccurate to compare Janet Jackson at 37 to my 17 year old daughter. IF my daughter had been an entertainer all her life like Janet Jackson, then yes I would be used to it by now. I am sure you don't mean to suggest that my daughter is presently capable of doing what Janet Jackson did.

junehan touched on another key point in this debate by suggesting that parents no longer want to be parents and want the government to do it for them. I think that has truth in it, but IMHO is just a symptom of the original problem. This problem is the trend, started in the 70's-80's, for governments to increasingly intrude into the private lives of its citizens as it applied to child rearing.

In Canada we have what is commonly known as the Young Offenders Act. It was recently revised and renamed, but the goals remain the same. That is, the focus has shifted from holding young people responsible for their actions, to an approach that offers little in the form of consequences. Instead, it places most of the emphasis on finding causes (excuses) for crime. Underage teens and gang leaders are all aware that until one reaches the legal age, even murder draws only minimal sentences. Even worse, in today's society, criminals receive more attention and "help" from the so-called justice system than the victims of crime.

Along with the tendency to excuse young people from the normal consequences of crime has been a concerted effort by activists and certain elements of the legal system to portray simple acts of discipline such as spanking as crimes. These groups have more or less successfully stigmatized what was a fairly successful form of child rearing. Instead, when spanking is mentioned now, it is made to sound like you have been torturing your child in private. As for teachers, I really feel sorry for them. If they even look sideways at a kid now, that kid can run to his parent's lawyer and scream abuse. No wonder kids aren't learning or behaving as well as we would hope.

Woaface, if you have a problem with the standards of society today, I would suggest that you talk to the social engineers, elected and otherwise, that have virtually eliminated the fear of serious consequences for one's actions, at least for the underaged.

As for your comment to MAD-3R- "Do you know she's not doing it behind your back?" I can only say that I have not read anything on this website as completely rude and disrespectful. You are not at high school talking to one of your peers here.

 

[BillyGman]

Wow! This thread has really taken off! MapleleafMerc, thanks for your opinions, but I only agree w/what you've said about constraints that the government puts on child rearing. As far as your comparisant of your daughter if she was 17 to Janet jackson I think your point is unrealistic. But first let me say that you're wrong to say that I didn't give people a chance to answer my question. Originaly I did, and they chose to skirt around that issue, and I then later had to bring it up again in a later post before anyone would attempt to answer.

What difference does it make how old a lady is? As long as she's an adult, what's the difference? And why should it be okay for a celebrity to expose herself in public, but not okay for your daughter to do so? Does someone have to get paid for doing that to make it okay? If so, then does that mean that you would accept your daughter being a Prostitute? After all they get paid too. Right? Don't you even see the double standard there? I don't care if someone tries to justify it by giving it a fancy label such as "Art" or not. Bottom line is, if you cannot appreciate your 17, or 18 year old daughter flashing her breasts on the beach to some guys driving by, or by doing that in front of a TV camera at a baseball game, then how can you appreciate Janet jackson doing that in public simply because she has celebrity status? In other words, it's called "art" when Janet jackson, Britney Spears, or Christine Aguilera does that, but it cannot be "art" if your daughter does it? Why? I can tell you why, but before you accuse me of answering the question for you again, I'll hold back on that answer until you provide one first.

 

[MapleLeafMerc]

What difference does it make how old a lady is? As long as she's an adult, what's the difference? And why should it be okay for a celebrity to expose herself in public, but not okay for your daughter to do so? Does someone have to get paid for doing that to make it okay? If so, then does that mean that you would accept your daughter being a Prostitute? After all they get paid too. Right? Don't you even see the double standard there? I don't care if someone tries to justify it by giving it a fancy label such as "Art" or not. Bottom line is, if you cannot appreciate your 17, or 18 year old daughter flashing her breasts on the beach to some guys driving by, or by doing that in front of a TV camera at a baseball game, then how can you appreciate Janet jackson doing that in public simply because she has celebrity status? In other words, it's called "art" when Janet jackson, Britney Spears, or Christine Aguilera does that, but it cannot be "art" if your daughter does it? Why? I can tell you why, but before you accuse me of answering the question for you again, I'll hold back on that answer until you provide one first.

Billy, I haven't said it was ok for JJ to do what she did; in fact I called it inappropriate and selfish. My first post and original point was that the reaction to what JJ did at the Super Bowl has not been commensurable to the offence. I also did not call it art, nor do I "appreciate" what she did, just as I can't say I appreciate your hypothesis of my daughter as a prostitute being part of your argument.

The original point and source of Woaface's and your anger was (I thought), that a female exposed her breast on a program that children were watching. I therefore don't understand how my (or anyone's) daughter's private actions, such as flashing at the beach, is in any way germane to this discussion.

As for your last question, no, it was not art what JJ did and it would not be art if someone's daughter did it either. If I haven't clarified my position sufficiently for you here, let's just agree to disagree, ok?

 

[MAD-3R]

As for your last question, no, it was not art what JJ did and it would not be art if someone's daughter did it either. If I haven't clarified my position sufficiently for you here, let's just agree to disagree, ok?

But how was it not art?

 

[woaface]

Lol, ok let's not get carried away with ourselves! Im sorry, I didn't think that was a rude comment, or at least I didn't mean it to be. I more-or-less meant to say that it's so easy for kids to get away with stuff now and that these ideas don't come from the parent. I apologize if it was offensive

How was it art?I think that being shown artistically, it wouldn't have been suddenly shown and then the camera being pulled away from it. Art is a display of some sort, that isn't given to only a second of the publics eye and burst out in sexual angst.

 

[BillyGman]

Mapleleaf, my coments were not only directed at you, but also at MAD3R, who insists that the raunch of such celebs is "art". Gimmie a break. And that's why I felt that I had to go to the extreme w/my hypothetical examples such as someone's daughter being a prostitute in order to make a point. That's all. If you don't agree, then hey, it's your opinion, and my opinion is mine. Good enough. I noticed that MAD3R has chosen to avoid dealing w/my hypothetical examples directly. If something is called "art" just because a celebrity does it, yet cannot be called "art" if your own daughter does it simply because she doesn't get payed for it, then that's a crock and a double standard,and the only reason why guys go to the extreme liberal stance of calling raunch "art" is because they like looking at a exposed woman's body in public because they get off on it, and ofcourse they would feel guilty if they were to look at their own daughter doing that since they wouldn't feel it was proper to look at her like that which indeed it wouldn't be. But every woma including Janet Jackson is someone's daughter. The point is, that that if the woman in question is doing such a thing in view of the public eye, then what's the difference if she's getting payed to do it, or not? It's either acceptable or it isn't. But perverse men who enjoy such acts are determined to defend it by calling it "art". If the shoe fits. Wear it. What other reason would anyone be calling that "art" unless they can watch their own daughter do the same and call that "art" and still have a clear concsience about it? And that's the question that nobody on here who calls such a public display "art" can directly answer since they would have to admit their guilt to answer such a question honestly.

And this had nothing to do w/anyone's daughter being a prostitute. That's just a hypothetical question devised to bring out an ethical question here. This is an ethical issue. NOT one of "art". It's unfortunate that I had to go to such extremes w/my wording just to get some honesty out of people who defend such actions of celebrities as Janet jackson, and others. I don't enjoy having to go to such extremes simply to make a point, but I feel that somebody has to make a stand for what is right.

My intentions are never to offend anyone on here, but if my examples that I feel had to be brought out offend anyone, then perhaps they're offended merely because they're guilty, and the truth sometimes hurts. At one time or another we're all guilty of something, and we have to face the facts, and admit to ourselves that we're wrong, and make a change. But some people refuse to admit that they're stance is ever wrong. And that's unfortunate.

 

[Dr Caleb]

But how was it not art?

It made no statement. It served no esthetic value. It made no attempt to be thoughtful.

From what I gather, JT was supposed to tear of her leather garment, and expose some sort of undergarment. Perhaps that would have been slightly provocative, in line with the style of dance and music they were doing at the time. But since the outer garment didn't come off without the undergarment, it turned from art to exposure.

Now, I'm not an art critic, and what some people class as 'art' I usually see as 'junk', but to each their own.

Good points MLM. I also fail to see BillyG's parallel between someone's daughter exposing themself in public, and a life of prostitution.

And to answer your question BillyG, I have no idea how I would feel. If my sister decided to flip up her shirt on national TV or on a public beach, that would be her business. She's an adult, and I cannot speculate on how I would feel about something that hasn't happened yet.

I suppose I wouldn't be concerned, as she spent a couple years in Austrailia where topless beaches are common and seeing a womans breasts is about as common as seeing a mans. The social taboo of public nudity just isn't the same for all people. In most places, a womans naked breasts aren't even taboo.

(Observe that commercial someone posted from Europe - the one with the cigar being rolled between a woman's breasts.. . )

This has to be the largest use of the work 'breast' in any thread on MM.net to date

 

[BillyGman]

the points I've made in my last post stands, and the question I've posed goes unanswered since nobody wants to deal w/it directly out of fear of guilt. I'm not talking about this happening in any society were all woman walk around exposed, but one where they don't. I'm talking about where the superbowl takes place, and that's in this country, NOT in Australia. But again you go to the extreme to avoid dealing w/my question directly because deep in your heart you know that I have a valid point but you allow your pride to prevent you from admiting that you're wrong.

Sure this is a board about cars, but we have a "Lounge" forum to discuss off-topics such as this. but I see that someone has questioned this discussion simply because he's running out of answers to fabricate.

Yes, this has been an intense debate, and because certain people refuse admit that my points are valid, then I have to go for the jugular. if you just admited that I had an accurate point in the first place, or simply abstained from arguing w/me, then i would let it go. but as long as you post and skirt around mt questioning, or offer answers that don't directly deal w/the points I've made, then I'll keep coming back. Like it or not.

 

[Ross]

OK, I guess I have to chime in on the issue of "art." In recent years we have seen such things as a crucifix in a glass of urine called "art," and even supported by federal tax dollars. I have seen local tax dollars spent on "public art" which is nothing more than huge chunks of jagged, welded steel thrown together and called "sculpture." Today, any no-talent scam artist can call his junk "art" and some liberal will agree, just to be cool. It has become so politically incorrect to say "Michaelangelo produced art. Rembrandt produced art. This is trash." Nowadays, I can put my loaded garbage can on display, and some idiot will call it art. OK, all you lovers of modern "art," flame away.

 

[woaface]

OK, I guess I have to chime in on the issue of "art." In recent years we have seen such things as a crucifix in a glass of urine called "art," and even supported by federal tax dollars. I have seen local tax dollars spent on "public art" which is nothing more than huge chunks of jagged, welded steel thrown together and called "sculpture." Today, any no-talent scam artist can call his junk "art" and some liberal will agree, just to be cool. It has become so politically incorrect to say "Michaelangelo produced art. Rembrandt produced art. This is trash." Nowadays, I can put my loaded garbage can on display, and some idiot will call it art. OK, all you lovers of modern "art," flame away.

Whoo! I'll second that. You know, I read in the paper today that Justin Timberlake said his parents were embarrassed by the offensive act

(On how it wasn't art because...)It made no statement. It served no esthetic value. It made no attempt to be thoughtful.

I completely (and obviously) agree.