Janet Jackson's Pierced Nipple

VIOLENCE Violence VIOLENCE Violence VIOLENCE on TV then we see a part of a women and we're upset. Which would you rather do without?

I do! I'm looking at my Vaultgirl's Calender as we speak.

Walt wrote:

Good to see everybody has there mind on track and field

Sorry,That was VaultGirl's

The Dina wrote:

I do! I'm looking at my Vaultgirl's Calender as we speak.

Walt wrote:

Good to see everybody has there mind on track and field

I can see why Flagpole et. al are uncomfortable with the nipplage and basically agree with their position.

However, I would point out that it is RIDICULOUS that so much attention is made concerning one slightly covered milk teat compared to:

1. "Kill all the Haitans" - type simulated murder for sale to kids any day of the week in any town USA via Grand Theft Auto.

2. Top - Rated "artists" such as Eminem loved & praised with music advocating slicing your wife's throat, etc.

3. Any of the violent, hate-filled garbage on MTV.

Adults: what do you think is more responsible for the disgusting (sorry guys) attitude displayed by so many of the obvious sub - 18 posters on this website for this type of issue? A nipple shown on TV, or all the horrific violence?

The Founding Fathers NEVER intended free speach to include the type of garbage found on MTV, broadcast on radio stations, etc. (basically, anything banned by Wal-Mart if you think about it). Not to mention the Internet (underage Russian donkey gangbangs et al). But try to even suggest CENSORSHIP and people think you are suddenly advocating a 1984 Orwellian society or something. So friggin' stupid . . . freedom of POLITICAL speech should be ensured forever, but as for the rest of the garbage out there, time to slam it.

The only way to do that is take back the judiciary and academia from the liberal elite. The courts set the tone. A simple ruling by the Supremes that Grand Theft Auto (or Janet Jackson's nipple exposure, though trivial in comparison to me) is the equivalent of pornography in a single US jurisdiction (thus allowing it's distribution to be RESTRICTED, not forbidden) would do it. Same thing for highway signs advocating sleazy sex shops, MTV (yes, let some district in Iowa ban it if they want to), etc. Give the power to restrict FILTH back to local districts. This is America--if you don't like it, move to San Francisco. They'll vote to let you watch the aforementioned donky gangbangs while burning the American flag on the way to an Al Queda meeting at the local homeless needle distribution and cash pickup center.

That's Ice, baby!

Yeh, I really f***in appreciated my 9 & 6 year old daughters seeing that shit. She's as much as a freak and a sicko as that brother of hers.

According to Drudge, this went all the way to the top of the CBS Execs. Now that is f***ing bull shit. Here they won't air a f***ing MoveOn.org commercial because they don't air advocacy commercials, yet they advocate sex and nudity during halftime for christsakes......what a media we have.

Nice, but I like symmetry. Show the other one too. Ah, f*** it. I'm going to go bang my wife.

aristotle wrote:

According to Drudge, this went all the way to the top of the CBS Execs. Now that is f***ing bull shit. Here they won't air a f***ing MoveOn.org commercial because they don't air advocacy commercials, yet they advocate sex and nudity during halftime for christsakes......what a media we have.

that's an interesting reading of the article when it says exactly the opposite. cbs said they were at rehersals and there was no indications this would happen. further, mtv produced the halftime show.

chuck d wrote:

aristotle wrote:

According to Drudge, this went all the way to the top of the CBS Execs. Now that is f***ing bull shit. Here they won't air a f***ing MoveOn.org commercial because they don't air advocacy commercials, yet they advocate sex and nudity during halftime for christsakes......what a media we have.

that's an interesting reading of the article when it says exactly the opposite. cbs said they were at rehersals and there was no indications this would happen. further, mtv produced the halftime show.

Hmm. Perhaps I will have to give CBS the benefit of the doubt then - I'll wait to pass judgement. Shows where Janet Jackson's career is when she has to resort to stuff like that.

bum wrote:

Nice, but I like symmetry. Show the other one too. Ah, f*** it. I'm going to go bang my wife.

" But guess what, your "little girls" will be getting their shit pierced before you know it!!!!"

LOL..........we've got seem good jokesters here.

btw, flagpole, soory, but yes, you are a prude.

to answer your first question, perhaps. the rest really don't need answering, since you're trying to be all rhetorical on my ass. but failing, really. if you were so concerned about the development of your mythical five year old kid, you probably wouldn't bank on network television to be a cornerstone of that development. one tit isn't going to do anything worse vis-a-vis the f***ed attention span said mythical child has already developed.

whoa! are you still paying attention, or did something on the telly catch your eye? okay. my logic is flawed? you're flawed. i'm not arguing for nudity on TV, per se, so much as arguing against your spasmodic victorianism. make sure neal cassady gives you a goodnight kiss when he tucks you in tonight up in dry-hole ivory tower land.

Tito, are you out of your f***ing mind? You think that Janet motherf***ing Jackson is better than U2?!? U2 have written some of the most timeless songs in musical history, while Janet Jackson is just a sex junkie that lives off her brother's fame.

As for the comment about capitalizing on 9/11, which is a f***ing sick thing to say in the first place, but whatever, Janet Jackson wouldn't know good taste if it bitchslapped her across the face. She's just a marginally talented slut trying to keep her career going with props and stunts.

GET A CLUE, TITO JACKSON!!!

where did i write that i thought janet jackson was better than u2? not that i think u2 is better either. you are cleary "out of your f***ing mind" to be responding to things that havent been written.

Areola wrote:

Yeh, I really f***in appreciated my 9 & 6 year old daughters seeing that shit. She's as much as a freak and a sicko as that brother of hers.

Yea why couldn't they just beat each other's brains out, like those brain dead fat pigs on the football field, patting each other on their asses between head butts.

According to your double standard, it's okay to worship those freaks and sickos, but not okay for a woman to show here breasts.

As your young daughters grow up, they're not going to put up with your constrictive thinking and bad attitudes.

areola,

Just kidding you earlier, but have to ask. Honestly, what's worse for a kid to watch - Justin grinding his little dog against anything and everything, or Janet's breast? If your daughters were allowed to watch Justin, then surely you knew there was going to be some "explicit" movements. I just can't believe people are shocked at this. Never mind that the show was completely worthless from a musical sense, but c'mon folks, IT'S JANET JACKSON AND JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE - were you really expecting a f***ing musical masterpiece??? They ONLY thing you could expect is bumping and grinding. If you are shocked and outraged (and that includes the networks) then you guys really aren't that bright.

yes I am sure seeing a split second shot of her breast was as harmful for thier development as reading the foul language thier parents use on this site would be.

Areola wrote:

Yeh, I really f***in appreciated my 9 & 6 year old daughters seeing that shit. She's as much as a freak and a sicko as that brother of hers.

I think that America does have a weird condemnation for nudity. That being said, there is a time and a place for it. Janet Jackson exposing herself during a superbowl halftime show is just stupid. What the hell does it have to do with the performance and what is going on? That is really my only problem with it. A couple of talentless ass-clowns did it as a publicity stunt. It had nothing to do with expressing their artistic talent.

I do find it rather ridiculous how people are so quick to shun something like nudity, but seem to readily accept all the violence in our society. Maybe we can thank the good Puritan who played a big role in the development of our country for that. Something like nudity - how outrageous. Execute people - not a problem.

So, if they want to have some mild nudity on commercials on TV, I have no problem with that. There are a lot worse things out there.

A couple people mentioned U2. They are simply awesome. One of the very greatest rock groups ever. I remember when Bono dropped the f bomb with a "f***ing brilliant" at the Golden Globes last year. Of course, a lot of people get into an uproar. I wonder how many of those people devote a huge amount of their time to helping poverty-stricken 3rd world countries? Probably not too many.

Truth Guy wrote:

bum wrote:

Nice, but I like symmetry. Show the other one too. Ah, f*** it. I'm going to go bang my wife.

" But guess what, your "little girls" will be getting their shit pierced before you know it!!!!"

LOL..........we've got seem good jokesters here.

btw, flagpole, soory, but yes, you are a prude.

Nope, not a prude. Nudity just doesn't have a place in an even like that when small children are watching.

Of course I've talked with my son about nudity and sex. Of course I've attempted to prepare him for this issue in his life. But that doesn't mean CBS should drop an unannounced bombshell into my living room.

Look at it this way. I explain the game of football to my son; then using experience with his reactions to football and other violence in the past, I make the decision that he can watch the game (which he ignores, anyway, because he thinks football is boring ... good for him). Now, what if one of the players suddenly comes to the line of scrimmage, then pulls out a knife and stabs an opposing player in the eye? Is this "violence" the same as that inherent in the game of football itself?

Of course it isn't.

Nor would my son's reaction to it be the same.

It would be disturbing on the same level that "R" rated violence is disturbing to him while the "PG-13" violence of, say, Men In Black is not.

There is a gray area when it comes to children's ability to deal with visceral emotion, and it is the parents' duty to bring their children along at the rate that serves their children best (knowing, of course, that much is beyond their ability to control).

The Timberlake-Jackson stunt didn't belong in the Superbowl.

As for me being a artistically-deprived cretin, or whatever was suggested in an above-post, I've made a pretty good living over the past decade as an edgy writer. One of the rules for writing a PG-13 rated film versus an R rated film is this: you can only say "f***" once and it can't mean sex--if even Hollywood understands the line between what young members of our society can handle and what they can't, I think the Superbowl halftime show could probably figure it out, too.