Boo on CBS

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:18 pm

I thought this was a thread about Bloomfield. That's just to show how innocent i am...

Anyway, after reading what it's really about, i reeeally think Justin Timberlake's singing is a lot more offensive than Janet Jackson's breast. Let's have more breasts and fewer boy bands on TV!

On a side note, does this solve the question of whether Janet and Michael are the same person? Maybe not...

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:21 pm

Paul wrote:I dunno.. I watched the game at my neighbor's house. He played the Sousaphone in highschool band. His school band along the rest of the country's top highschool bands put on the halftime show for the 1968 Superbowl. He said they did a patriotic themed show. I personally feel that something like that would be much more appropriate for a halftime show today.

I don't know. Patriotic themed anything these days usually serves as prelude to bombing another of the world's poorest countries back into the stone age. But a Sousaphone-themed show would perhaps be a good thing.

U2 · Post by U2 » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:26 pm

I love the concept of television with all those news channels and entertainment choices. I can get the news from the perspective of the far right or switch to another channel and get the news from the perspective of the near right (more commonly referred to as ‘the left’). My remote has a “mute” button so I don’t have to stand up to silence Toby Keith, draped in our flag, singing a song about not knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran. [Hey Toby - we have soldiers over there - learn the difference you stupid hick!] Or, another “cowboy” crooning “God blessed Texas with his own hand. . .” (On second thought, that might be a truck commercial - dunno, I’m pretty fast with the mute button, and there are lots of shiny trucks and mud puddles).

I understand why someone wouldn’t own a television set, but I don’t understand why someone who wouldn’t own one would think to make that point in an internet chat room. To each his own - even those of you who think we need more patriotic half-time shows. I have my on/off switch.

antstastegood · Post by **antstastegood** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:49 pm

U2 wrote: I understand why someone wouldn’t own a television set, but I don’t understand why someone who wouldn’t own one would think to make that point in an internet chat room.

Television is a one way street, a packaged bundle of information specifically crafted to get inside my mind and manipulate it according to the consumption industry's interests. Internet chat and forums are a free, open exchange of ideas and opinions, with great potential for educating and improving one's mind.

two cents,

ants

fiddling_tenor · Post by **fiddling_tenor** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:57 pm

What's really unfortunate about the JJackson episode is that her breast cast shadow and now we're to endure another six weeks of winter!

Blackbeer · Post by **Blackbeer** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:08 pm

Ah.........leave it to page four to add some perspective and send me off to feed the horses with a chuckel and a smile. And now knowing there is still at least 6 more weeks of this infernal weather. Realy, I am snowed out.

Tom

Sunnywindo · Post by **Sunnywindo** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:28 pm

A woman lovingly breastfeeding her infant is a far cry from a guy and gal jumping around on stage with the guy singing "going to have you naked by the end of this song" in refrence to the gal and then ripping the clothing off her breast on national TV and calling it entertainment like this was acceptable, normal behavior. Though from what I've read this was only a part of an overall sexually sugestive half time show.

To say it's just a breast, everyone has seen or is going to see a bare breast sometime, what't the big deal seems silly to me. One could also say that everyone has seen or is going to see a totally nude woman someday, so why not next time just have him rip all of her clothing off? After all, it's just a body. So where is that final line drawn between what is generally acceptable and what is not? What was not acceptable for general public entertainment consumption ten or fifteen years ago is acceptable today and what is shocking today will errode to become acceptable down the road, that final line moving over just a bit more and a bit more and so it goes as far as there are viewers watching and money being made.

Ultimately it was the manner and context in which this was done. Like this is normal and acceptable to sing about and behave in this way on national TV... objectifcation indeed. If some guy on the street were to go up to a woman and try to rip any part of her clothes off it's typically called assult. This in a show where families will be watching together. Many folks who don't want their young children being exposed to the concept that it's okay to treat each other as sex objects. Some people still care about what their children are exposed to, some still have some kind of standards within their homes, still try to teach them concepts like decency, respect, etc. Some people anyhow. And I would imagine they wouldn't appreciate having their concerns pooh-poohed by those who hold to a different set of standards when it comes to their own children. Who would?

Of course, that this half-time show was put on by MTV should have been a big red flag of caution for any that are somewhat familiar with MTV. This isn't exactly new behavoir from them. Like ordering a steak and then getting all shocked and upset that it's not like chicken. :roll:

As for hypocricy, there's plenty of that to go around on all sides of the isle, not just with TV.

If I had seen the half-time show, it would have been turned off within the first few minutes as I have personal objections to the selction music they had... though in truth, the whole Super Bowl would have been turned off within the first few seconds as we aren't TV sports fans around here. My hubby prefers to listen to me play whistle on a Sunday afternoon (though I think he lets his affections for me cloud his perceptions of my actual ability to play music.

)

Sara

BTW... fiddling_tenor, love your signature about Milli Vanilli

Post by **Dale** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:00 pm

I probably won't be doing an issue in time, but I am always speculating about possible headlines for Chiff & Fipple issues. How 'bout:

Chiff & Fipple Suffers Unfortunate Wardrobe Malfunction!

Ridseard · Post by **Ridseard** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:01 pm

Football is a violent game, but maybe we need spectator sports like this in order to vent our natural aggressiveness vicariously. It's certainly more humane than bullfighting or gladiatorial combat, and the participants do it voluntarily.

It was a great game, even though we lost.

Too bad thousands (millions?) of kids are going to be traumatized for life because they saw a breast.

rebl_rn · Post by **rebl_rn** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:14 pm

U2 wrote: My remote has a “mute” button so I don’t have to stand up to silence Toby Keith, draped in our flag, singing a song about not knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran. [Hey Toby - we have soldiers over there - learn the difference you stupid hick!]

I'm not trying to get nit-picky or anything (ok, maybe I am), but it was Alan Jackson who sang about not knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran in his beautiful song "Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning", a very non-violent tribute to Sept. 11. The full verse is:
"I'm just a singer of simple songs/I'm not a real political man/I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you/the difference in Iraq and Iran/But I know Jesus and I talk to God/And I remember this from when I was young/ Faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us/And the greatest is love".

Toby of course is the guy "wrapped in the flag" who sings his "Angry American/Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" song which can certainly be seen as condoning war and violence. But Alan's song is totally different, and I hate to see it get mixed up with something else.

As to the Superbowl, I am ashamed of myself for watching it only for the commercials, (and I was pretty disappointed in those, for the most part). I missed the halftime debacle. I don't think anyone is scarred for life because they witnessed that, but that's not the point. To me the stupidest thing is everyone saying it was an accident. Just own up to it, why don't you?

Beth

DCrom · Post by **DCrom** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:25 pm

glauber wrote:Anyway, after reading what it's really about, i reeeally think Justin Timberlake's singing is a lot more offensive than Janet Jackson's breast. Let's have more breasts and fewer boy bands on TV!

On a side note, does this solve the question of whether Janet and Michael are the same person? Maybe not...

Quote seen on a blog: "Why does Janet Jackson have white breasts?"

Don't know why it surprises anyone that she did this - the one talent she unarguably does possess is self-publicity. Didn't she pose in Playboy the last time her career needed a bit of a boost? :roll:

And it could have been worse . . . heard on the radio this morning "I just thank God it was Janet, not Michael!"

Post by **Nanohedron** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:30 pm

DCrom wrote:Didn't she pose in Playboy the last time her career needed a bit of a boost?

That would be LaToya. Talk about a Jacko lookalike!!! Yikes. Too weird by half.

DazedinLA · Post by **DazedinLA** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:02 pm

Um, I missed it...I was at a session, playing jigs and reels and drinking Guiness.

I didnt see the "event", but I agree with those who comment that the performance's suggestion of violence and objectification of women seems to be the real problem here.

I do find it interesting that there is such hoopla over this, when semi-pornographic yet fully-clothed gyrations of the female talent on most of today's music videos is already on display to America's youth on a 24/7 basis.

The truth is, humans like sex. They like to do it, watch it, talk about, think about, and our recent technological advancements have caused an exponential increase in the means by which we can indulge these appetites, while also steadily wearing away at the effectiveness of the traditional means of controlling/repressing these effects. Does it mean the end of our society as we know it? Maybe. But then, some changes are not a bad thing. After all, who among us would really want to live under the repressed rules and social mores of our Plymouth forefathers? So some change is a good thing, the question is, how much and how soon?

I wonder if we would have as much dysfunction in our society if it could evolve to a point where instead of rules like "sex is bad/indecent" we evolve to "sex is good, but infidelity, objectification, violence and abuse are bad".

Azalin · Post by **Azalin** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:04 pm

I just don't get why would a breast, which is a body part that nature (or God for the faithfuls) gave women creates so much turmoil. The american culture, sorry if I offense some people, is so hypocrite sometimes. You guys show violence and blood at any time of the day, you guys make video games (which kids will play) that are just about killing anything, and yet, a breast on TV is worse than thousands of deaths of innocent iraqis.

DCrom · Post by **DCrom** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:15 pm

Azalin wrote:I just don't get why would a breast, which is a body part that nature (or God for the faithfuls) gave women creates so much turmoil. The american culture, sorry if I offense some people, is so hypocrite sometimes. You guys show violence and blood at any time of the day, you guys make video games (which kids will play) that are just about killing anything, and yet, a breast on TV is worse than thousands of deaths of innocent iraqis.

Oh, I agree with you about the brouhaha. As a culture we have severe hangups about nudity and the human body. But in the long view, we *are* getting less hung-up on it.

(I admit to mixed feelings - my older daughter once told me that that she thought I wouldn't object to her mother in a swim suit made out of three postage stamps but that I would prefer her to wear one of those Victorian bathing costumes with arms, legs, and a skirt. I pled guilty.)

I'll also admit to being more amused than outraged by the whole thing. As in "you asked MTV to produce the halftime show, and were surprised that it wasn't PG rated???" I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find out there is gambling at Rick's.

PS: Nanohedron is right - it was LaToya in Playboy posing with a snake. Is there any more or less normal person in that family?

<edit> How did we get from the Superbowl to Iraq? Y'know, sometimes a cigar is . . . just a cigar.

Chiff and Fipple Forums

Boo on CBS

How do you feel about the Superbowl halftime entertainment?