The time now is 11/23/08 - 06:43
Log in: Username: Password:
Search forums for:
  
Calculator Running Log Uploads Smilies Calendar
FAQ Search    Articles Register Log in

Janet Jackson's "accidental" exposure at the Super


www.runningforums.com Forum Index -> Riff-Raff Hang Out Goto page Previous   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6   Next

Post new topic   Reply to topic
elkid
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 15:47    Post subject:
I would imagine the "shocked" and "appalled" responses on forums like these are exactly the reaction they wanted. I find it funny that most people have no problem with women whipping 'em out to breastfeed in public but are offended by this stunt. Like MW said, a boob's a boob, regardless of the situational context.
pokychick
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 5640
Location: City of Dis
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:01    Post subject:
elkid wrote:
I would imagine the "shocked" and "appalled" responses on forums like these are exactly the reaction they wanted. I find it funny that most people have no problem with women whipping 'em out to breastfeed in public but are offended by this stunt. Like MW said, a boob's a boob, regardless of the situational context.


Mr Poky never ripped off my maternity bra in public so I could feed little Poky. Mr. Green
camelia bedelia
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:05    Post subject:
elkid wrote:
Like MW said, a boob's a boob, regardless of the situational context.


I disagree. I wouldn't say I'm offended the stunt, but what I thought was inappropriate was the sexuality that was displayed, not the nudity. An image of a woman being stripped against her will is not appropriate for a family show.

Women don't breast-feed in public in attempt to turn anyone on.
elkid
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:12    Post subject:
camelia bedelia wrote:
elkid wrote:
Like MW said, a boob's a boob, regardless of the situational context.


I disagree. I wouldn't say I'm offended the stunt, but what I thought was inappropriate was the sexuality that was displayed, not the nudity. An image of a woman being stripped against her will is not appropriate for a family show.

Women don't breast-feed in public in attempt to turn anyone on.

TV has a lot of sexuality - that's a fact. To expect any sporting event these days to not have it, especially on TV, is naive.

No way was Jackson stripped against her will; otherwise you would've seen one of her bodyguards immediately come after Timberlake, and you wouldn't hear any apologies from her camp; rather, you'd hear screams of LAW SUIT!

The Super Bowl is considered a family show? The annual homage to testosterone and alcohol binging? I must've been watching the other game all these years. Especially those that prominently feature a T&A-focused cheerleading squad.

Flashers don't expose themselves in public in an attempt to turn anyone on, either, but no one would support their nakedness. Then again, if they had a baby hanging off them or if they wore pasties maybe they'd stand a chance.
camelia bedelia
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:18    Post subject:
elkid wrote:
camelia bedelia wrote:
elkid wrote:
Like MW said, a boob's a boob, regardless of the situational context.


I disagree. I wouldn't say I'm offended the stunt, but what I thought was inappropriate was the sexuality that was displayed, not the nudity. An image of a woman being stripped against her will is not appropriate for a family show.

Women don't breast-feed in public in attempt to turn anyone on.

TV has a lot of sexuality - that's a fact. To expect any sporting event these days to not have it, especially on TV, is naive.



I know sexuality is everywhere, and that is why I make choices about what my kids do/and do not watch. I don't think I'm naive to think kids should be able to watch a football game without someone getting naked.



Quote:
No way was Jackson stripped against her will; otherwise you would've seen one of her bodyguards immediately come after Timberlake, and you wouldn't hear any apologies from her camp; rather, you'd hear screams of LAW SUIT!


I know it wasn't really against her will, but that is the image they were going for. I don't find that cute or sexy and it is certainly not something I would want to teach my kids is O.K.
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
Reply with quote
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:18    Post subject:
elkid wrote:
To expect any sporting event these days to not have it, especially on TV, is naive.


Were there bewbies displayed during the Tour de France?
rolling rock
The Pinball
Reply with quote
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16218
Location: unknown zone
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:19    Post subject:
i think what bothers me the most is that the weasel loser Timerlake ripped it off of her. it becomes a sexual power issue to me i guess.

it seemed to leave the weasel in a position of power and that pisses me off. boob schmoob. she shouldda yanked his drawers down around his knees exposing his Scooby-Do Underoos. now that would have been a fitting end to the debacle. Wink
Running Brewer
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 3872
Location: Santa Poco
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:22    Post subject:
don't live sporting events broadcast with a 7 second delay just for such events? I.e. someone swearing, naked people, etc...
spongebob
Former FFL Champion
Reply with quote
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 3602
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:23    Post subject:
Speaking of out of place sexuality, is it just me or did anyone else notice there are now 3 different pills available that help men obtain erections.

And all 3 had Super Bowl adds.

Does this disturb anyone else?
camelia bedelia
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:24    Post subject:
rolling rock wrote:
i think what bothers me the most is that the weasel loser Timerlake ripped it off of her. it becomes a sexual power issue to me i guess.



Exactly.
Running Brewer
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 3872
Location: Santa Poco
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:24    Post subject:
Runner X wrote:
Speaking of out of place sexuality, is it just me or did anyone else notice there are now 3 different pills available that help men obtain erections.

And all 3 had Super Bowl adds.

Does this disturb anyone else?


and then JJ goes and shows a boob, coincidence? I think not!
keltic63
the kilted one
Reply with quote
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:29    Post subject:
and does this mean that we'll be seeing more boobs at 5k's from now on?
airehead
Oompa Loofah
Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 16:32    Post subject:
Runner X wrote:
Speaking of out of place sexuality, is it just me or did anyone else notice there are now 3 different pills available that help men obtain erections.

And all 3 had Super Bowl adds.

Does this disturb anyone else?


With all those ads, you would think that football has a disproportionately large (no pun intended, I think) fan base with erectile problems?

I don't see this many ads during basketball. dunno
genie
Master of Prissface
Reply with quote
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 17:55    Post subject:
camelia bedelia wrote:


I know sexuality is everywhere, and that is why I make choices about what my kids do/and do not watch. I don't think I'm naive to think kids should be able to watch a football game without someone getting naked.


I agree, and I don't even have kids. Scantily clad cheerleaders is one thing, but that was ridiculously tacky and I can easily see how people would find it offensive.

As for the breastfeeding thing, if I had kids, I don't know that I'd personally be comfortable doing it in public, but that's just me. I don't see anything offensive about anyone else doing it. That's a little more natural than purposely flashing your boobs, or your ass or any other part of you for the purpose of "selling sex." Like someone else said, people who breastfeed aren't doing that.
Pebbles
Member
Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 2947
Location: Bedrock
| Back to top
PostPosted: 02/02/04 - 17:58    Post subject:
keltic63 wrote:
Pug wrote:
That's not a piercing. Think of it as a star with a hole in the middle attached to the nipple.


it's prolly a piercing. I've seen this jewelry. the star has a small hole in the center, but it's held in place by the piercing jewelry ie a "barbell."


Ding ding!! We have a winnah! That's exactly what it is....
Not that I know anything about it..... *bolts for the door*
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6   Next

www.runningforums.com Forum Index -> Riff-Raff Hang Out

Page 4 of 6

Related topics:
Wimmins...accidental exposure?