Janet Jackson's Boob Flash everyone is talking about

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Saturday, February 21, 2004 18:53
VIEWED: 17347
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

TALLGRRL

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Werespaz:
It seems like something that could have easily been planned, but with "plausible deniability". After all, controversy creates exposure (no pun intended.. well, yes it was) and it would be a great way for Janet to get some additional press (as if 10 million viewers wasn't enough).

-The SpAz

Janet wears nipple jewelry. Wow. Big deal. Seen that stuff before. I know people who wear stuff like that all the time. Under their suits.
Apparently she was wearing a red lace top under her pleather getup. Seems likely to me that Justin was supposed to rip off the top layer, exposing the filmy negligee underneath, complete with the shiney "oh my god what's THAT on her breast" jewelry underneath.
Even without the accidental exposure, it would have been miles of pub for JJ. The photographs alone would have people's mouths agape.
We just got lucky and got to see a flash of everything before the director yelled "Go Camera THREE!!!" (Anyone without TIVO will see more breast exposure in a Girls Gone Wild commercial at 3am.)
What I'm amazed at is that "outrage".
The NFL, who took 18 MILLION dollars to be sponsored by a company that makes a hard-on pill, is "outraged" by the "crass" event.
They thought nothing crass about the ad they ran during the Superbowl featuring Mike Ditka throwing a football through a tire for Levitra. How subtle the imagery. Sheesh. ("By the way, erections lasting more than 4 hours should be reported to a doctor." No, ya think?)
Seems to me that we need to do some growin' up here.
It's a breast, fer chrissakes.
For people that are screaming "What about the children?!" Well...a lot of those "children" were probaby clamped onto a breast not too long ago.
They've seen it.
I guess now, by the time they're not on a breast anymore, they've been brainwashed to believe that breasts are dirty. Shame, that.

We, as a nation and a society are simultaneously obsessed and revolted by breasts.
(Gee, thanks Pilgrims. No wonder you got kicked outta Europe.)
It's almost too bad that this exposure didn't take place in October, which is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Then we could have some serious discussion instead of all of this pseudo-controversy.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:18 PM

Janet is looking pretty haggard these days.

KNIBBLET

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:38 PM

My summation: "Whatever".

I was planning on watching the halftime show BECAUSE it was Janet Jackson.

Three minutes before it was to begin, they announced that Justin Timberlake would also be 'performing'. As I can't stand that talentless wanker, I went into the kitchen and spent the time baking a cake for my coworkers to enjoy on Monday morning.

So we saw Janet's boobie. A body part. Whoopie. It's a breast - get over it. Why is her breast obscene when the football players breasts are not obscene.

Who in the world decided that cheerleaders who wear next to nothing and fulfill no function other than to be decorations aren't obscene? At least Janet has a talent she can put on her resume other than "can jiggle for 20 minutes without getting dizzy".

CALHOUN

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:39 PM

Agreed ManiacNumberOne,

My first reaction to this pic was eeeeewww! she looks like her brother Michael.

STATIC

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 9:31 PM

I think some folks are missing my point a bit.

Yeah. . .I think it was pretty uncool for them to do a booby flash during something that really should be a 'rated G' event. . .

and YES. . .I KNOW that you EXPECT 'Fear Factor' to be nasty. . .

My point is. . .

TV SUCKS right now BECAUSE of those very things!

You shouldn't HAVE to just shrug and say, "That IS gross, but hey, it's "Fear Factor" so it's SUPPOSED to be."

You should be able to turn on the TV and hear an announcer say:

"FEAR FACTOR will not be seen tonight because we suddenly realized that THEY DRINK MOOSE JIZZ!!!!! We're REALLY sorry that all of network television has completely SUCKED for the past several years and now that people with SOULS are in charge, we'd like to make it up to you. Here's FIREFLY. Thank you."

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:14 PM

Here's what I'm not getting. The FCC is now all ruffled up about that brief flash last Sunday - which was ridiculous, if you ask me - but doesn't have a thing to say about what goes on with Fear Factor - the ads for which make me close my eyes, because I can't stomach even a hint of the absurdities that go on.

On the most recent ad for Survivor, there's talk of the contestants going without water. As that's against basic humanity, I'm surprised they were allowed to air it.

A recent episode of The Division had an actress bare a breast briefly and those of us who know anatomy (thank you, life-drawing), would have easily seen her nipple in profile.

Bare butts on NYPD Blue. When did that become kosher?

Is this what it took? One "mishap" during the superbowl to put the FCC all up in arms? What the hell have they been doing the rest of the time?

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

ZAMPANO

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:14 PM

Quote:

It's a breast, fer chrissakes.
For people that are screaming "What about the children?!" Well...a lot of those "children" were probaby clamped onto a breast not too long ago.
They've seen it.
I guess now, by the time they're not on a breast anymore, they've been brainwashed to believe that breasts are dirty. Shame, that.

How very true. I couldn´t agree more.

TRAGICSTORY

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:25 PM

What really offended me was this "unintentional" and "wardrobe mal-function" lines they keep feeding us and expect us to believe. Everyone watching know you did it on purpose, just have to balls to admit it. The reason it is getting so much press is because everyone knows you are lieing. Stand up, say "Hey we're MTV! What did you expect?" and this issue will be a dead horse by tomorrow.

American's don't really care about a tit, they care about being lied to.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

KNIBBLET

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:31 PM

Alot of this has to do with the new regime in Washington.

The right-wing religious zomboids we have in Washington hate breasts. Remember our beloved Attorney General covered Lady Justice with a curtain so that she wouldn't flash the world during news conferences.

Michael Powell (head of the FCC) is obsessed with stamping out 'obscenity'. Of course, the American Family Association - an extreme right wing group of fundamentalists led by the nutjob Donald Wildmon - who want to control what you see and think have been giving the FCC an especially hard time lately.

As the current regime in Washington are counting on the 'knee-jerk hate everythings' to re-elect Dubya, they'll cave and cater.

Stupidity is allowed. After all, if you cater to the lowest common denominator, perhaps the people will grow so stupid, they'll believe any crap you feed them with a shovel.

Just my two cents.

We can show rape after rape after wife beating after murder ... but we cannot show a woman who is proud of her body unless she is being mutilated or degraded. We call it entertainment. Freedom of expression, we call obscenity.

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gruesome:
A viewer has a reasonable expectaion that fear factor will be nasty...

Let's go with the theme of reasonable expectation.

It was *MTV* sponsoring the event. Have you seen what kind of crap they have on MTV (all 3 channels of it?) nowadays?

I could've understood reasonable expectation if Disney was putting on the halftime show. MTV? You are going to have guaranteed boootay, ultra skimpy outfits, champagne rain, gangstas & ho's... Let's just say we aren't getting any Willie Nelson, Neil Diamond, Winona Jude, John Denver, or Wayne Newton.

Quote:
Originally posted by gruesome:

As the father of a baby girl and young son, I should be able to have the peace of mind that I can watch the superbowl without fear of exposing my children to such overt sexual themes including grinding. Then, top it off with a man ripping the top off of a woman... Then to watch them trip over themselves pretending initially like it was all unstaged? Be real...
If unplanned, I believe the term that they should be considering is ASSAULT. If planned, then they deliberately ignored the rating of the show.

Anyone that cannot understand why people would be angry about this, I can only hope are not currently raising children... It is a LEGITIMATE grievance to have expectations that ratings systems are adherred to.

You as a father of children should be allowing them to watch only pre-screened video tapes and programs - that way, there is absolutely no question as to what you think would be questionable. Yes, I went to the LOTR showing lately and cannot believe that kids were watching the ultra violent battle scenes and the Hobbits physically strangling each other. Kids cannot comprehend the story line, but they sure will remember the 8 stories high images of people slowly strangling and killing and hacking each other in hand to hand combat.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE