Superbowl Nudity

Post by **Sylvus** » February 2, 2004, 4:58 pm

What is popular opinion on the nudity at the superbowl? It's 2004, were people actually offended by the mostly naked streaker guy and one exposed breast? If it did bother you, why? For example, why should someone who was watching the game with their kids/family be upset because their child saw a breast; how is that a bad thing for someone to see?

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 2, 2004, 5:03 pm

I'm indifferent. I could not care less if someone's nipple-shield covered boob shows up on TV. If our society didn't view nudity as the devil incarnate, and viewed it instead as natural, this wouldn't even be an issue.

I mean really, who doesn't have two boobs? Even males have nips. Some people even have three!

Big fucking deal.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 2, 2004, 5:04 pm

I'm indifferent, I guess, then again I have an unhealthy addicition to porn that's going to end up getting the better of me one day..

I guess it depends, really. If it had been full out there, Janet flashing both tits and pulling her panties off for the world to see, I think I might have been offended, given the number of children in the stands... I just don't think it would be appropiate to flash a 7yr old. However, given how fast they cut away - and they cut away HELLA fast - I can count it as an accidental mooning (boobing?).

As for the streaker, his crotch was, at least, covered (according to the picture I posted earlier, could have been a photoshop) and you never really saw him on the TV itself, aside from a while blur when they were chasing him down the field so I never even gave that a thought's credit.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 2, 2004, 5:08 pm

i thought they were both funny.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 2, 2004, 5:14 pm

Indifferent. I've seen boobs and quite a bit more on beaches all over the world. Don't want to say it gets blase, but if you can't\aren't going to touch it who cares? I got bored with porn when I was around 25...

Unless the parents make a big deal over it, most kids probably wouldn't even have noticed it on TV with the fast cut away they did.

From the stands? I doubt you could tell what happened from the distance most people are at.

Dups. · Post by **Dups.** » February 2, 2004, 5:14 pm

Post by **Sylvus** » February 2, 2004, 5:19 pm

I agree with the humor part, I would classify that as being titillated. But I, of course, had to go with the cheap pun.

I really don't understand why we have such a puritanical view of nudity in this country. It would be one thing if JJ had fellated JT on stage, or they had performed lewd sex acts, but all she did was bare what most people suckle on as babes. Now the FCC is talking about levying a ~$30k fine on them, or a fine that could amount to millions if they impose it on each affiliate that broadcast the game. It's totally ludicrous.

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 2, 2004, 5:40 pm

censors have been becoming increasingly lax over the years

i believe in the 40's or so a woman was considered indecent, or nude if she were shown in full body underwear or whatever they wore then

then in the 50's? or whenever i dream of jeanie was on the air they did not allow the exposure of jeanie's belly button

now you see whats on tv now a days and most of it blows that away, even on prime time channels, you can see naked butts, or women in underwear commercials, or janets boobie on the superbowl halftime show !

i wonder if they will have to pay any fines or anything for that happening

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 2, 2004, 5:42 pm

I think every Super Bowl halftime should feature an all-nude number. I just might watch it then.

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » February 2, 2004, 5:46 pm

If that nip was shown in an Avatar here on VV it woulda been NWS!

C'mon its 2004!

---

IT'S AN OUTRAGE!

Prepare for an Amish Assault!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 2, 2004, 5:55 pm

the FCC will fine them enough to help float the budget deficit!!

Vailex Darkfury · Post by **Vailex Darkfury** » February 2, 2004, 6:05 pm

Im indifferent. Im very desensitized.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 2, 2004, 6:16 pm

We are bringing this guy in to moderate VeeshanVault. There's going to be some changes around here!

FCC Chief Michael Powell, the agency's chief federal regulator, said he was outraged by what he saw at intermission and said there would be "an immediate investigation into last night's broadcast.

"I'm outraged by what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl," he said in a statement issued Monday. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the TV for the celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 2, 2004, 6:17 pm

A network just got fined $27,000 for Bono saying fuck during the Golden Globes by the FCC. They actually want to make it more painful and raise the fine up to 10x that amount to eliminate the "slap on the wrist" concept.
How much do you think they are going to nail CBS for Janet's hooter?

I remember thinking when she was singing her first song that she had a nice rack and that it would be nice if she did a playboy spread. Guess I didn't have to wait for that. Thanks Janet.

I liked seeing it but it was at the wrong time. I am all for nudity on TV but only if it is in the hours after my kid is in bed.

About the streaker...how tight is security if this guy can run out on to the field in a towel?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 2, 2004, 6:18 pm

the FCC ruled that Bono's use of the word "fuck" was OK since it did not describe a procreative act.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 2, 2004, 6:25 pm

In europe showing breasts on a shampoo comercial, or seeing a topless chick walking on the beach means nothing, as does hearing profanity or even seeing full nude shots is perficly acceptable on programs intended for adults. In spain theres this late night show called "cronicas martianas", in which they have a daily stripper on regular cable.

In this fucked up american society those godamn right wing christians are going to get offended if theres a .5 second shot of a titty on TV with a fucking sticker over it, but of course violence, killing and gore are more acceptable then something as natural and pleasent as sex, or a naked body.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » February 2, 2004, 6:26 pm

Indifferent.

As for children, I have a 7 year old girl, she starts asking questions and I have to answer them. I sure as hell am not gonna make a big deal out of a boob/penis/ass/pubic hair or whatever else part of human body.

You can treat what happened yesterday as kinda embarassing, but funny oops if you wish. Sort of like having a piece of TP stuck to you shoe when leaving the restroom or having an infant do an Old Faithful when changing his diaper.

Titty with a sticker over it reminded me of a dress someone wore once to some awards, Pam Anderson was it? The top of that dress was something like a fabric over one breast and a very tiny something over the nipple of the other breast. That coul've been during Grammy's or something like that, not on network television but kids these days can see this on MTV pretty often I think.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 2, 2004, 6:35 pm

In europe showing breasts on a shampoo comercial, or seeing a topless chick walking on the beach means nothing, as does hearing profanity

Reminds me of how much I laughed at the chevy commercial w/ all of the kids eating soap.

being nekkid is obviously evil and sinful and the perpetrators of this heinous act should be smited accordingly

Demags · Post by **Demags** » February 2, 2004, 6:38 pm

It was Lil' Kim that wore that outfit for some award show, they spoofed it pretty good on Mad TV when they did "Lord of the Blings" skit.

Being that her nipple was covered there was no nudity involved. If the nipple is covered the breast is considered covered as well.

Demags

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 2, 2004, 6:42 pm

I really didn't give a fuck...I enjoyed the game...I've mostly just been counting down to April now.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » February 2, 2004, 6:45 pm

Honestly, I think it went too far. The Super Bowl is made for mass audience appeal. I feel that it was done for ratings and controversy and introduced something that many children didn't need to see. I am not a prude by any means, however, I do believe that there are reasons for not showing certain body parts during times when young ones could be watching.

I think we are going to see some CBS and MTV execs' heads roll on this. Someone is gonna get so fired over this.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » February 2, 2004, 6:47 pm

everybody "involved" says it was not intentional, MTV claims it wasn't even planned or rehearsed

why would the heads roll? it will probably end with appologies and fines

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 2, 2004, 6:48 pm

what exactly happens to young ones who see this?

how many kids are actually in the stands at a superbowl anyway? It really the corporate blowjob these days more than anything else

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 2, 2004, 6:48 pm

Being that her nipple was covered there was no nudity involved. If the nipple is covered the breast is considered covered as well.

The nipple wasn't covered but the areola was. So, how would you classify that one?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 2, 2004, 7:01 pm

Ennia wrote:everybody "involved" says it was not intentional, MTV claims it wasn't even planned or rehearsed

yeah but they are lieing ! =)

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 2, 2004, 7:01 pm

You can deny OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of things.. weather it was rehearsed or not in fact is another story.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 2, 2004, 7:07 pm

I heard a double dong is going to be involved when Madonna tries to one up Janet at the next Awards show she's invited to.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 2, 2004, 7:16 pm

Adelrune Argenti wrote:I am not a prude by any means, however, I do believe that there are reasons for not showing certain body parts during times when young ones could be watching.

Such as? I seriously want to know, my curiosity has now been piqued and I really can't figure out why seeing a breast is such a big deal. I also don't think that seeing a penis would be that big a deal either. They are just parts of the human body... Hell the kids will see drawings and diagrams of them when they are learning about the reproductive system in school, yet I can't recall ever actually seeing photographs. I really don't understand it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 2, 2004, 7:25 pm

my wife used to show her boobs to my daughter several times a day.

i put a stop to those shenanigans!!!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 2, 2004, 7:45 pm

If it wasnt planned, i dont know how many chicks wear stickers on there tittys "just in case".

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » February 2, 2004, 7:46 pm

The biggest reason is that it should be up to the parents when their children should be taught about the reproductive cycle, parts of the body, etc. Yes, everyone has these parts of the body but there are more age appropriate times to introduce them to it. One of the things most parents try to teach their children is a sense of decency. Being clothed while in public is one of the guidelines for decency I think most people will agree on.

I have 2 daughters. I certainly don't parade around nude in front of them and make it a point that certain areas are covered around them. We talk about some differences between men and women but at the young ages they are at it usually doesn't go beyond why do women have breasts and men don't. A time will come when there will be more questions and it will be my responsibility to provide them with answers. I don't need the Super Bowl or TV showing my children something that they are not ready for, and that includes suggestive dialogue or movements. Grabbing breasts would fall into that category.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 2, 2004, 9:03 pm

So what happened to them since they weren't ready for it? I think that's the whole point. Regardless of whether you think it was stupid is irrelevant since most people can recognize an attention grabbing stunt when it shows itself. Were your daughters traumatized in any way?

What is the worst thing that could happen, they ask even more questions than normal?

Young kids don't give a shit, they don't even know any better. They won't even remember much, if anything, about it in a few years. I barely remember the '76 superbowl (7 at the time) and I sure as hell wouldn't remember the halftime show unless uptighters started to target it. Think about it, would they have any fucking clue what just happened if people didn't get themselves in a bunch over it? The only, and I really mean only, way it's going to stick with them long term is if it gets dragged out and reported on ad nauseum do to it's "inappropriatness". Fucking thing would be history and forgotten about if people didn't make a stink. Sure, a few horny folks w/ hdtv's would zoom in on the shit (not that it's a bad thing), but really, what topic of conversation does it spawn unless some other kid says something they heard from their parents in school the next day?

I'm sure your kids won't be scarred.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 2, 2004, 9:15 pm

Adelrune Argenti wrote: Yes, everyone has these parts of the body but there are more age appropriate times to introduce them to it. One of the things most parents try to teach their children is a sense of decency. Being clothed while in public is one of the guidelines for decency I think most people will agree on.

While I agree that in our country, being clothed while in public is commonplace and considered decent, I don't understand why it should be this way. I think if children grew up viewing the body as human and natural rather than a symbol of sex that our society might not be quite as fucked up as it is.

I would rather someone's actions be how their decency is determined, not their clothing or lack thereof.

Fenna · Post by **Fenna** » February 2, 2004, 9:28 pm

It didn't surprise me when I saw it, but I liked the close-up posted in the other thread. I guess I like the idea of seeing her naked (yes, it was basically naked) breast since I don't think she'll be doing any nude stuff in the future.

I don't have kids, but if I did I don't think it would piss me off. It's just a tit, no biggie.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 2, 2004, 9:49 pm

can't believe people get worked up over a publicity stunt.

Drolgin Steingrinder · February 2, 2004, 10:19 pm

I think every Super Bowl halftime should feature an all-nude number. I just might watch it then.

Yeah...Aerosmith and their 190-year old, cocaine-, heroin-, alcohol-ravaged bodies naked is just what the doctor ordered.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » February 2, 2004, 10:23 pm

I wasn't so much offended as I was disappointed that it was done. I am by no means a prude...I like to have sex with goats and did some experimenting with Shaun Cassidy in my youth...

But just because it is 2004 doesn't mean diddly squat...it doesn't mean this stuff should be passe now. Save that stuff for cable tv..not for broadcast/network tv.

Times may change...but standards must remain!

Taly · Post by **Taly** » February 2, 2004, 10:24 pm

Very disapointed. That was public TV and people had children with them. Keep that stuff on cable.

Drolgin Steingrinder · February 2, 2004, 11:07 pm

yeah because seeing a semi-exposed breast is going to turn our children into mass-murderers, exploiters of women, serial rapists, or socialists!

Out of sight out of mind? Please.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 2, 2004, 11:15 pm

What can I say. The American public, as a generalization, are pussies.

Asheran Mojomaster · February 2, 2004, 11:31 pm

I missed it, I happened to look away right as it happened

. Personally I am just waiting on some Actress \ Singer to come to some awards show with only pasties and a thong.

Iedok65 · Post by **Iedok65** » February 2, 2004, 11:32 pm

i didnt get to see it ... thought it was going to be boring so i went down to the store really quick

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 3, 2004, 12:22 am

Taly wrote:Very disapointed. That was public TV and people had children with them. Keep that stuff on cable.

I pose my earlier question to you as well then, what the heck does children seeing a part of the human anatomy do to a child? Aside from seeing and picking up on god-fearing folks that obviously fear their very own bodies, do you really think a child gives a shit or will remember for that matter?

The children will be fine dear, it's the adults like yourself who should be worrying because if it wasn't for you, this wouldn't be a "major" story, it wouldn't be all over the internet, and wouldn't have done anything but cause a bunch of folks to raise their shoulder's up saying, "ehh, not bad I guess"

Jugata · Post by **Jugata** » February 3, 2004, 1:26 am

Tits and beer should flow freely.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 3, 2004, 1:30 am

the fcc goes by a stupid double standard. for them to rule a nip slip (that was pretty much covered up at the angle) to be next to the devil rising is stupid, when the 9/11 coverage was more than needed. they to say that a bare breast is wrong and this and that, but overload the airwaves with people jumping out of 110 story buildings while planes slam into the side of them. as far as decency is concerned, ill take a bare breast over mass death any day of the week. its not like kids aren't aware of what was being done. they should be more pissed at the songs played (hot in herre and rock your body) than the slip.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 3, 2004, 1:48 am

If it was anyone else, I may have been indifferent. But, I think America's children have seen quite enough of the Jackson family's nudity... /creepy.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 3, 2004, 4:50 am

I am more offended that there is so much discussion going on about what was clearly a banal and uninspired publicity stunt to try and re-vitalize some has-been's career. I thought madonna and britney "kissing" on TV was pedantic and stupid, but this stunt makes it looks like michealangelo painting the sistine chapel.

Next I expect to see Don Henley and Sting bare back butt fucking on On Air With Ryan Seacrest to see if they can scare up any playtime on entertainment tonight.

I blame Paris Hilton for starting this trend.

Badpassion Seelentrinker · February 3, 2004, 5:12 am

I cant believe the comments I'm hearing.
Has things gotten so bad in the states in the last 5 years (I've been in here in Europe). Gezz
Go to any public beach/swimming pool here in Europe you wont just see 1 tittie you will see dozens. And all the kids and men here aren't over sex'd like in the states.. Hummm
Makes you wonder Why!
Hide nudity from people when Its completely natural; you get teenage pregnancy, daterapes etc. These things arent much of a problem here in Europe like in the states.
do the figures.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » February 3, 2004, 8:02 am

I could care less about the boob (JJ) showing off her tit. I do find it appalling that she felt it necessary to do something like that to sell a few more albums though. I always thought she was a bit classier than that.

Though I personally wasn't offended I can understand how some people might be upset. Speaking as an ex-teacher, I know first hand that kids are impressionable and can pretty much guarentee that quite a number of kids that caught that will be trying something of that nature at school within the next few days (ripping people's shirts off to expose the boobs).

Having said that, if I had kids, the chances are fairly low that they would've been watching the Superbowl in the first place. I'm a firm believer that censorship should be the parents' responsibility and artists should be left to express themselves freely and if that means that yet another Jackson is making a mockey of themselves, so be it.

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » February 3, 2004, 8:11 am

The Human Body is a natural thing!

We were all nekkid once!

I think its good for children to start asking questions!

What was that thingy on Janet Jackson?

Superbowl Nudity

Janet and Streaker-guy being naked made me feel...

Superbowl Nudity