Winner or Loser? The 2004 Superbowl Halftime Show

[lucky-E-leven]

I'm thinking of going topless in protest to all the stink raised about a simple breast.

That will not go over well here in Conservativeville, Idaho, but damn what a liberating experience. I wonder if I'll make my point? Hell, with the snow we have here, I'll probably make two.

I'll join you...how do I get there? and do you happen to have any pasties depicting the sun or nipple rings? i'm fresh out.

-E

two points has me in stitches

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[MR. Gibson]

thanks for answering my question colly. I watch tv but I am very selective on what i watch. I( guess thats why i chose to watch the superbowl halftime show but hey i really wanted to see it because janet is my favorite female singer-not because she showed us her breast or anything. I think it would be actually more of a tease to guys if janet came out in a jumpsuit and stripped it off and had a bikini underneath and danced for us that way! but alas people would still complain. but people have to understand if you hire janet,britney spears or maddonna to do your show their going to sing and dance sexy. they are not going to sing mary had a little lamb and i don't think the superbowl crowd wants to see peter paul and mary or roy clark on his banjo. I do admit janet went a bit too far but i enjoyed it anyway!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

thanks for answering my question colly. I watch tv but I am very selective on what i watch. I( guess thats why i chose to watch the superbowl halftime show but hey i really wanted to see it because janet is my favorite female singer-not because she showed us her breast or anything. I think it would be actually more of a tease to guys if janet came out in a jumpsuit and stripped it off and had a bikini underneath and danced for us that way! but alas people would still complain. but people have to understand if you hire janet,britney spears or maddonna to do your show their going to sing and dance sexy. they are not going to sing mary had a little lamb and i don't think the superbowl crowd wants to see peter paul and mary or roy clark on his banjo. I do admit janet went a bit too far but i enjoyed it anyway!

I don't have any problem with breasts, janet's or anyone elses. However, when you hire someone to do a half time show live you are depending on them to stay within certain bounds. JJ went outside those bounds and it will probably end up costing Viacom, M-TV and the network a lot of money.

I think it would be absurd for the FCC to spend anytime investigating, it was obviously staged. So slap the wrists with fines and declare TV safe for families again and let it go. Let us hope Janet dosen't end up playing Martha Stewart to FCC in the same way the real Martha is playing to the SEC. You would thing these major regulatroy commissions had more important things to do, but apparently not, which really begs the question why do we have them inthe first place?

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Lost in the general agreement among people on this board that it is much a do about nothing (with apologies to janet's boob there ) is a broader implication. For the last few years the very far right has been pushing hard to have "indeceny" laws strenghtened and to bring cable and satellite TV under the FCC's broad mantle of censorship.

Janet, with her little stunt; which she now claims was totally her idea and that neither M-Tv, CBS or the NFL knew, has given that small group of would be censors not only a rallying point, but an incident that has incensed a very broad portion of the country and vastly strengthened thier support among the populace. The FCC is still getting complaints from viewers and the Senate committe headed by John McCain has sceduled a Febuary meeting to hear more about it. Being erotic writers for the most part, we, as much as anyone have to fear pin heads with a black marker and federal clout.

Up until now cable and satellite TV have escaped most regulation of content, but with Oberstrumbanfuherer Ashcroft at the helm, the protections they have enjoyed under the first amendment may get a very serious challenge, if not a complete stomping.

It was a cheap stunt, by someone who obviously felt her talent alone was not enough to get her notice and had to do something outrageous. In the short run Viacom, M-TV, the NFL and ABC may be the loosers. In the long run we may all end up paying for her lack of restraint.

Something to think about.

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Lost in the general agreement among people on this board that it is much a do about nothing (with apologies to janet's boob there ) is a broader implication. For the last few years the very far right has been pushing hard to have "indeceny" laws strenghtened and to bring cable and satellite TV under the FCC's broad mantle of censorship.

Janet, with her little stunt; which she now claims was totally her idea and that neither M-Tv, CBS or the NFL knew, has given that small group of would be censors not only a rallying point, but an incident that has incensed a very broad portion of the country and vastly strengthened thier support among the populace. The FCC is still getting complaints from viewers and the Senate committe headed by John McCain has sceduled a Febuary meeting to hear more about it. Being erotic writers for the most part, we, as much as anyone have to fear pin heads with a black marker and federal clout.

Up until now cable and satellite TV have escaped most regulation of content, but with Oberstrumbanfuherer Ashcroft at the helm, the protections they have enjoyed under the first amendment may get a very serious challenge, if not a complete stomping.

It was a cheap stunt, by someone who obviously felt her talent alone was not enough to get her notice and had to do something outrageous. In the short run Viacom, M-TV, the NFL and ABC may be the loosers. In the long run we may all end up paying for her lack of restraint.

Something to think about.

-Colly

I get the point, but I lost quite a bit of faith in the first amendment when my high school banned books such as Tom Sawyer, Frankenstein, To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, 1984 (ironic?), The Crucible, Of Mice and Men, etc...

It was a cheap stunt J.J. pulled, and even cheaper that the gvmt. is sitting around drooling for this kind of crap to happen so that they may capitalize on their own personal moral agendas, but if porn gets shut down on cable and internet it will still be second to denying young minds the classics mentioned above.

Sorry to rant, but I'm still angry about it and damn it all if High School wasn't many years ago for me.

-E

Of the opinion that individual families are responsible for censoring their children's intake of 'the unacceptable' and not the government's.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I get the point, but I lost quite a bit of faith in the first amendment when my high school banned books such as Tom Sawyer, Frankenstein, To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, 1984 (ironic?), The Crucible, Of Mice and Men, etc...

It was a cheap stunt J.J. pulled, and even cheaper that the gvmt. is sitting around drooling for this kind of crap to happen so that they may capitalize on their own personal moral agendas, but if porn gets shut down on cable and internet it will still be second to denying young minds the classics mentioned above.

Sorry to rant, but I'm still angry about it and damn it all if High School wasn't many years ago for me.

-E

Of the opinion that individual families are responsible for censoring their children's intake of 'the unacceptable' and not the government's.

What concerns me is that founded or not there is widespread outrage. Silly, unbelieveable, dangerous things get done in government when John Q. Public is up in arms. Consider USA Patriot. Now they have another perfect excuse to go after civil liberties and have every expectation of the public not only accepting it, but lauding it.

Scary stuff.

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

What concerns me is that founded or not there is widespread outrage. Silly, unbelieveable, dangerous things get done in government when John Q. Public is up in arms. Consider USA Patriot. Now they have another perfect excuse to go after civil liberties and have every expectation of the public not only accepting it, but lauding it.

Scary stuff.

-Colly

I would be surprised if they were able to take this incident that far, but it's possible I'm not in touch with the extent of John Q. Public's outrage. I was not aware that the super conservatives were already working so diligently on broadening the FCC's spectrum of control, but I feel like the fear the gov. was able to tap into for the patriot act is simply not present in the *gasp* superbowl flash. Still, stranger things have happened and it would seem a perfect opportunity to force the issue while everyone has their feelings hurt about it.

This begs the question...What is our recourse for quelling the stink and taking the wind out of their sails?

-E

 

[Guest]

Colly is right on the mark. The outrage fits the agenda of those fighting all matter of "evil", wanting to undo gay rights and Roe v. Wade, and support faith-based orgs. and the institution of marriage.

Now I'm feeling depressed.

Perdita

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Colly is right on the mark. The outrage fits the agenda of those fighting all matter of "evil", wanting to undo gay rights and Roe v. Wade, and support faith-based orgs. and the institution of marriage.

Now I'm feeling depressed.

Perdita

My depression comes from thinking we might suffer four more years of that agenda.



If these flowers are able to get past the 'woman/woman' censorship filter the government is busy tweaking, please accept them and be depressed no more, Perdita.

-E

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I would be surprised if they were able to take this incident that far, but it's possible I'm not in touch with the extent of John Q. Public's outrage. I was not aware that the super conservatives were already working so diligently on broadening the FCC's spectrum of control, but I feel like the fear the gov. was able to tap into for the patriot act is simply not present in the *gasp* superbowl flash. Still, stranger things have happened and it would seem a perfect opportunity to force the issue while everyone has their feelings hurt about it.

This begs the question...What is our recourse for quelling the stink and taking the wind out of their sails?

-E

They have been pushing for broader censorship powers for a long while, but this inciednt gives the political muscle to make it stick. Over 1.7 million children between the ages of 2 and 11 were watching the superbowl half time show. You had better believe they will ride that pony till it drops to keep people mad. It isn't fear they are working with here, it's outrage, the very same outrage Janet and Justin hoped to provoke to sell records.

If that outrage is harnessed to give her a platinum album and nothing else, great on her. For that kinda money I think most of us would be willing to flash a boob with the nipple covered.

But the far right won't be preaching it as "one little" incedent. They will be preaching it as the culmination of our lax attitudes and where will it it end? I mean I have read less than right wing opinions on it asking what's next, two people having sex at the 50 yard line? It's overblown, but the people with an agenda want that outrage, you can bet through the bible belt preachers will be harping on it come sunday. The FCC is already moving, an investigation, possibly millions in fines. The network is already in full damage control mode, even M-TV realizes they crossed the line this time.

The real problem with crossing the line is that unlike getting close to it, you can't back away now. You are over it. Several million people who saturday evening considered the people telling them TV was evil for their kids to be alarmist whackos are now wondering if maybe they aren't right. Politicians tap into that, they keep up with what their consituency is angry about, and if it dosen't blow over quickly you could see repercussions not only in November, but even before that in senate hearings and possibly new legislation.

-Colly

Edited to add: It goes without saying that G.W. & Co would happily extend the government's power over what you can watch or read. And With Little Himmler as AG it goes without saying they will gladly enforec morality on you whether you like it or no given theleast opportunity.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Edited to add: It goes without saying that G.W. & Co would happily extend the government's power over what you can watch or read. And With Little Himmler as AG it goes without saying they will gladly enforec morality on you whether you like it or no given theleast opportunity.

I suppose you're right, but do not expect me to go quietly

As of July 31, 2003 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children.

It is a shame that 3.5 million kids don't even have a home or a television to see such booblasphemy on, but we should all get our panties in a bunch over the 1.7 million that are going to hell in a handbasket because of the corruption they are forced to ingest over the public airwaves.

-E

If I ever become famous, I may be tempted to tattoo these stats on my ass and moon the superbowl crowd, so that at the very least, their outrage could fall on something important, in addition to my indecency.

 

[minsue]

Something to think about.

-Colly

Pssst! Colly, your commie pinko liberalism showing again!



- Mindy

 

[minsue]

I suppose you're right, but do not expect me to go quietly

As of July 31, 2003 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children.

It is a shame that 3.5 million kids don't even have a home or a television to see such booblasphemy on, but we should all get our panties in a bunch over the 1.7 million that are going to hell in a handbasket because of the corruption they are forced to ingest over the public airwaves.

-E

If I ever become famous, I may be tempted to tattoo these stats on my ass and moon the superbowl crowd, so that at the very least, their outrage could fall on something important, in addition to my indecency.

Beautiful, E. Absolutely beautiful.

 

[sweetnpetite]

"Over-the-air TV channels cannot air "obscene'' material at any time and cannot air ``indecent'' material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene as describing sexual conduct ``in a patently offensive way'' and lacking ``serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.'' Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions."

but flatulence apparently skirts the law on this one

 

[sweetnpetite]

Wow, Colly- I was starting to doubt your claims of being a 'conservative' but now I can see that you are indeed

Here are some of my thoughts on the topic, not really aimed at you or anything, just shooting off at the mouth:O

I have three kids, and I have to say that my ten year old would have been extatic to have seen that! And well- good for him! He's at his dads, so I don't know if he was watching, but either way I doubt he'll be scared for life.


Remember how scandalized people were when Elvis shook his hips or when Jim Morison said "Girl we couldn't get much higher" on national tv? Sure we all laugh about it now, but these same types of people were really really upset. Of course they were right- we *were* all corrupted by Elvis the Pelvis. We're so corrupted in fact that most of us don't even know how to be properly indignant when a breast (gasp!) is exposed in public. How will we expain it to our children? (Meanwhile elementary students all over the country are having oral sex on the schoolbus and no-ones the wiser) Maybe instead of asking how we are going to explain it to Junior. we should ask Junior to explain it to us.

The saying no puvblicity is bad publicity has been a holwood Maxium for years. Janet has a new Album coming out. to be honest I had forgotten Janet Jackson existed. She is in the spotlight now and it can't hurt her record sales.

I didn't watch the halftime show, in fact I hit mute and went back to my book for it. Like many less than even casual fans I watch the game for the commercials. Had it not been for that boobage stunt I wouldn't have been able to tell you who was in the halftime show, I still don't have any clue who the guy was, but I am pop culture challenged.

People are outraged, but by and large I haven't seen all that much outrage that a boob made it onto regular TV. I have seen more outrage that J.J and her co performer obviously planned this, in a deliberate, crass and classless attempt at self promotion. That kind of behavior is fine for the golden globes, or the emmy's or what have you, that's performers gathered together and you expect the attempts at one upsman ship.

The Superbowl, despite the NFL's over the top halftime extraveganzas is about two teams of people who have grinded out a shot at the championship of their sport. It's their shining moment, their 60 minutes in the spotlight with a nation watching. I see more outrage among sorts fans, that a pair of twits, invited to perfor before millions on TV can't be thankful for that opportunity and exposure, but have to do something that upstages the atheletes.

No one was talking about the game the day after, even though it was one of the closest in a long time and was a very good game by all accounts. Everyone was talking baout twit and tit. Thats a real shame and a real disservice to the men who worked so hard to get to the pinacle of thier sport.

Parents angry about their children seeing it also have a valid argument. To you, or me or most people here, it's a tit, big deal. To a parent who is careful to montior what their kids watch and is worried about the permissiveness of the times, it's a slap in the face to have something as "safe" as a sporting event become a meiliu for someone to do that.

It was crass, classless, tasteless and the very worst sort of self-promotion on the part of two people who should have just been thankful they had been given an opportunity for worldwide exposure. Opportunity neither would have been able to generate on the merits of their performing skills.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

Exactly. It's almost a slap in the face to every woman in the world. I mean, good God, they actually HAVE those nasty little (big?) beasts on their person. We should shun them, make them cover them up, the nasty sinners.

It's Eve-syndrome all over again.

Oy.

It was the devil that made breasts- the devil I say!!!!!

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think it was Freud who theorized that it was a male fear of the implicit connection a mother was able to form during breast feeding that led to a need to make sure women were covered.

Me? I just think our species is stupid.

Hmm, men are afraid of connection. Don't know why I didn't think of that before. I'll have to look into this Freud guy a little more- I always thought he was obsessed with Penises

 

[sweetnpetite]

So...If it's not illegal (the cops' asses as precedent), then what is the big deal about the breast that makes it worth an FCC investigation?

It's that parents were shocked and offended? And that CBS wasn't warned in advance?

Are these offended parents and this apologetic network the same ones who were letting their kids watch Justin and Janet perform a dance to a song whose most memorable lyric is, "I'm gonna get you naked before the end of this song?"

I don't get it. I do, but the hypocrisy of it amazes me.

What makes it a big deal? in a word, the nipple.

secondly, to be fair, NYPD Blue does have an 'adult content' warning. (Then again, they also knew that the half-time show was being put on by MTV. Now don't they already know that is devil music. What were they thinking letting there children sit in front of the tv for that?)

However, an ad for viagra is pretty 'adult' How do the ultra-concervatives explain that to their kids? or ads for summer's eve and always and playtex? what about breast cancer and breast feeding? What about those formula comercials that say 'breast is best'? or the yogert ad that says 'together we can lick breast cancer" (I can't help it, you put lick and breast together like that, it creates a picture.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think I love you

I suppose you're right, but do not expect me to go quietly

As of July 31, 2003 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children.

It is a shame that 3.5 million kids don't even have a home or a television to see such booblasphemy on, but we should all get our panties in a bunch over the 1.7 million that are going to hell in a handbasket because of the corruption they are forced to ingest over the public airwaves.

-E

If I ever become famous, I may be tempted to tattoo these stats on my ass and moon the superbowl crowd, so that at the very least, their outrage could fall on something important, in addition to my indecency.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

coming up roses

Absolutely beautiful.

No, lady, what's beautiful is your rosy cheeks...have you been naughty? Or have I just never noticed this before?

-E

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Wow, Colly- I was starting to doubt your claims of being a 'conservative' but now I can see that you are indeed

Here are some of my thoughts on the topic, not really aimed at you or anything, just shooting off at the mouth:O

I have three kids, and I have to say that my ten year old would have been extatic to have seen that! And well- good for him! He's at his dads, so I don't know if he was watching, but either way I doubt he'll be scared for life.


Remember how scandalized people were when Elvis shook his hips or when Jim Morison said "Girl we couldn't get much higher" on national tv? Sure we all laugh about it now, but these same types of people were really really upset. Of course they were right- we *were* all corrupted by Elvis the Pelvis. We're so corrupted in fact that most of us don't even know how to be properly indignant when a breast (gasp!) is exposed in public. How will we expain it to our children? (Meanwhile elementary students all over the country are having oral sex on the schoolbus and no-ones the wiser) Maybe instead of asking how we are going to explain it to Junior. we should ask Junior to explain it to us.

When Elvis and Jim and don't forget that scandalous three's company with 2 women living with on man! were on the conservatives and traditional values folks were outraged. They were however, beneath their stuffy and stodgiy exteriors just that conservative. Conservatives don't want needless change and their reactions to that kind of thing was really more of an enforce the laws that are there.

There are still some conservatives out there, but the party of the conservatives has been hijacked by the religious right and the Neo-cons. These people aren't conservative SnP, they are reactionary. They embrace change, as long as it's change towards the kind of world they want for everyone.

Like it or not, silly or not, the FCC's power to regulate content on the broadcast airwaves is nearly absolute and it's founded in a pretty intelligent and solid precept. That precept is that the broadcast airwaves are public domain, as anyone with a television can turn it on and you are subjected to whatever station your TV happens to pick up. In the legalistic lingo broadcast airwaves are uninvited guests in your home and thus their content should be regulated. This is why the FCC has no power to regulate cable or Sat TV. You have to buy equiptment and pay for the service therefore whatever comes in on those mediums is invited.

The religious right and now the Neo-cons have been pushing to censor what you can see, hear, read, watch for a while now. Thanks to Janet and Justin's antics they went from being a pretty powerless special interest to having some political clout. Enough clout to force a senate investigation into the "filth" we now see on television.

I don't really care who shows their boobs on TV. If you read my works you can tell I have nothing against tits I also don't have children so they could be showing XXX porn 24/7 on CBS and it wouldn't make any difference to me.

Here's the catch, they don't. And both performers were well aware of what they do and do not allow. And both of them went right ahead and showed their asses (or tits) in this case. The complete arrogance with which these people seem to act enrages me. Laws, rules, regulations apply to other people, not to me, I'm a star! Horse feathers.

If you are a liberal or a Democrat you should be even more pissed off than I am. A whole lot of parents are now angry because thay feel they were blindsided. If you are a serious parent and try to regulate what your kids see on Television, you naturally feel like you can relax your guard and let them watch the super bowl. It's a sporting event and a family thing in millions of households. Come election time the prompt FCC investigation and (I am guessing) super stiff fines is going to be grist for the republican campaign. And it will not surprise me one bit if new laws to protect "common decency" get enacted that further step on our civil rights.

You don't care, I don't really care, but a huge number of people do. The thought police are going to ride that outrage, they are gonna use it as leverage to push congressmen into taking "prompt" action. For prompt here read knee-jerk.

If nothing comes of it it was still an extremely arrogant and stupid stunt. If big brother wins another victory over my civil rights because of it, then it was a crying shame.

-Colly

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[shereads]

If you are a liberal or a Democrat you should be even more pissed off than I am. A whole lot of parents are now angry because thay feel they were blindsided. If you are a serious parent and try to regulate what your kids see on Television, you naturally feel like you can relax your guard and let them watch the super bowl.

Nothing angers me like hypocrisy. A parent who shares with his or her child the spectacle of a group of young men and women dancing and writhing to a song about gettting naked has alreaady chosen to expose the child to entertainment of an overtly sexual nature.

The fact that a breast is revealed for a moment doesn't make the dance and the song more sexual. Breasts are shown in National Geographic and in art museums; the only thing "obscene" about this particular breast was its context, which was an entertainment appropriate to MTV and not to young children. But I can bet that the reason CBS approved the performance - and that it was okay with the FCC right up until the "reveal" - is that most parents allow their young kids to watch MTV, and in fact buy Justin and Janet's CDs for their kids, without caring that the lyrics are instructing the kids to have sex.

If the song is fine for you and your kids and is approved by CBS and if it's enjoyable enough to the head of the FCC that he doesn't rush to turn off the set and shield his family from a performance that celebrates the sex act, then please get off of the high horse about the breast. As for being furious at a couple of entertainers, please! It was in all likelihood a stunt that was not intended to go as far as it did, which would explain why janet jackson does seem upset in shots from backstage.

I'm outraged at the outrage. It's a sign of lazy parenting.