Boo on CBS

[sturob]

Yeah, it's all interesting, isn't it? I got called to do something during the half-time show so I missed the boob. Boob-hoob.

Oh, the video game and violence cracks: most video games aren't even coded in the US; as a matter of fact, a company in Montreal (which can either be considered Canadian or Quebecois) codes/writes very violent video games. And the Japanese games are violent as all get-out. And actually pretty twisted; they seem to enjoy little cute fluffy animals ripping each other to bloody shreds.

And I haven't really heard of any Hollywood violent flicks being boycotted by the supremely-enlightened amazingly-intellectual citizens of the EC, either. It's really childish of me to say it, but I am sick to death of both sides bitching about each other; Americans fond of hating Europe, Europeans fond of hating the US. Especially on the Chiffboard.

I thought the CBS evening news last night was interesting only in that Dan Rather said the thing was obviously planned. Or, maybe he implied it; I can't remember the wording.

Stuart

[Jack]

Quote @ sturob

It's really childish of me to say it, but I am sick to death of both sides bitching about each other; Americans fond of hating Europe, Europeans fond of hating the US. Especially on the Chiffboard.

But....I love Europe.

[sturob]

OK, Cran, YOU love Europe.

You're odd in many ways.

Stuart

[GaryKelly]

And I'm really rather fond of the US.

I was rather astonished when I read that Ms Jackson's nipple was obscured by a 'pasty'. I just had to search the web for a photo of the 'event'...imagine my disappointment when in none of the photos could I find a large meat-and-potato-filled savoury pastry.

http://www.ginsters.com/products.cfm?productid=36

[Dana]

I thought the whole half-time show was disgusting. I'm really perturbed that many people think it's OK to have people gyrating and masturbating to the music on a major U.S. broadcast. (Oh, I suppose they were singing, too). My teenage kids saw it, and thought the whole experience was great. It's not the bare breast in particular that upsets me, it's the whole thing.

[sturob]

I know, I know, now all the reasonable people post.

Stuart

[Lorenzo]

Janet Jackson has finally confessed that the whole thing was a cover-up. It was planned from the beginning, but she didn't do it during rehersals because, well...that would've really been a tempest in a tea cup.

What do you expect from CBS? While they deeply regret this kind of exposure, they don't consider it abnormal...viewers just hang out during half-time anyway, watching the boob-tube. And besides, the incident was hardly any different that watching the Tony Awards...or the old Golden Globes Awards.

[Grannymouse]

I thought the whole half-time show was disgusting. I'm really perturbed that many people think it's OK to have people gyrating and masturbating to the music on a major U.S. broadcast. (Oh, I suppose they were singing, too). My teenage kids saw it, and thought the whole experience was great. It's not the bare breast in particular that upsets me, it's the whole thing.

I totally agree. Watching the first minute was enough for me. It reminded me too much of her brother and i wondered what CBS was thinking. Great game though, even if my team lost.

GM

[pthouron]

Just the fact that this (non)event elicits six pages of debate is an indication in itself of where our priorities are these days... but a couple of points:
1-The nudity (if you MUST call it that) was not half as offensive as all the implied stuff in the performance (and let's face it, JJ has been making a living off that kind of prurient innuendo for a while now).
2-People, if you think your kids are going to be permanently traumatized because they saw a breast, YOU have a problem. Maybe it starts with the fact that the Superbowl is known for that kind of half-time show and knowing that, maybe your kids shouldn't be allowed to sit in front of it in the first place. And the Superbowl as a FAMILY show? Cut me a break: are we forgetting about the ceaseless onslaught of commercials, which I think are far more damaging to a kid's intelligence than a bit of nudity? And adds from four different manufacturers of "boner pills"? Those not offensive?
As a writer in the NY Times pointed out, if the NFL is so concerned about such excesses, why doesn't it go to a network that will abide by its rule, rather than go to the highest bidder? But that would be putting their money where their mouth is...

[mamakash]

I'm surprised a poll hasn't been added to this thread. Can you add a poll to an already existing thread?
I don't watch football and don't really care what was exposed. It makes for good talk around the watercooler in the office on Monday.
The US is a strange country/culture, we think it's OK to get at close to nudity as possible, but can never allow a nipple to be shown. Nude=sex. Who the heck ever started that rediculous thinking? They have the occasional Victoria's Secrets television shows . . . it's not nudity, but it's definatly sexual. I remember catching a portion of a show called "top model" . . . they were airbrushing the woman and then posing them. I didn't know a painted boob wasn't a nude boob. So, it's silly to say we're holding to a higher moral standerd by exposing as much as we can, but never quite getting to nude. The former is usually more explicit than the latter.
Are views different on this side of the pond? An excellent movie from the BBC "I capture the castle" got an R rating because of a scene where Tara Fitzgerald stood nude in the rain. It wasn't much to speak of, but I can image the flack it would generate in this country if the film had been rated PG13. Hypocrisy!

[Nanohedron]

Context, mamakash. A nude standing in the rain in a film has an entirely different context than being flashed when the viewer has no choice in the matter. If I go to view a film, I expect the possibility of the odd nude take, preferably done in an artful manner. I see beauty in that. In the case of the halftime show, that comes off as a prurient frat party stunt, to me. I don't see the hypocrisy in taking context into account, but that's just me.

[mamakash]

Context, mamakash. A nude standing in the rain in a film has an entirely different context than being flashed when the viewer has no choice in the matter. If I go to view a film, I expect the possibility of the odd nude take, preferably done in an artful manner. I see beauty in that. In the case of the halftime show, that comes off as a prurient frat party stunt, to me. I don't see the hypocrisy in taking context into account, but that's just me.

Opps, sorry, Nanahedron. I meant that the american culture won't allow nudity but will get away with everything as long as there is no full nudity. A bare butt is still a bare butt, even if it's wearing a G-string. That's hypocisy.

[Nanohedron]

Point taken. A comparable head-scratcher would be Japanese manga, their version of our comic books, available to all and sundry, and chock full with sex, bestiality and violence -and often quite hilarious, if you're up to the joke- but nary a pubic hair will you see. Big no-no, that.

[ErikT]

Opps, sorry, Nanahedron. I meant that the american culture won't allow nudity but will get away with everything as long as there is no full nudity. A bare butt is still a bare butt, even if it's wearing a G-string. That's hypocisy.

Here we are back to that hypocrisy thing. I'm not certain that a culture can be hypocritical.... or maybe by definition it's hypocritical. A culture is the blending and compromising of many different beliefs to achieve something that everyone can live with. Further, a country such as America has many sub-cultures each with its own beliefs.

Here's what I bet... I bet that anyone that finds a problem with what they saw on the Super Bowl would also have a problem with JJ wearing a G-string in the same context.

I also bet that anyone that has no problem with the Super Bowl half-time show will also have no problem with seeing JJ in a G-string.

If this is true, and I think it is, then neither group is being hypocritical according to your definition. But you know what... these groups have to live together. So yes, in America you're going to see some compromise. To you that might look like hypocrisy, but to me, I see it as a better alternative to slaughtering the group that doesn't believe the same as you - which is what happens in many countries around the world.

Still, as a member of the first group, I will be happy to express my views to the policy makers and society in general. The fact that I have my views and express them and that they do not correspond with the compromise does not make me or anyone else a hypocrit.

Erik (who has killed his TV, doesn't watch Victoria Secret shows but is happy when my wife wears said clothing for me, and prefers not to see naked human rear ends in movies)

[glauber]

I'm surprised nobody has commented yet that the supposedly exposed boob was actually mostly covered by some kind of boob ornament. I think this is false advertisement and deliberatelly misleading the American people. To make things worse, every time they replay the scene now they have that digital blur thing covering the whole mammalian area, adding offense to injury. How are we supposed to make up our minds if we are denied access to the facts? I wonder what Al Sharpton has to say about this fiasco.

Who's JJ, what instrument does he play, and what's the problem with his G string?