VeeshanVault

funny thing about breasts is, they arent obscured at all in our society.

i see professional women daily with sheer tops on that you can clearly make out their nipples if they erect. and god bless them for it too.

it was a pretty blatant publicity stunt, and everybody who is opposed to such stunts is absolutely promoting it by making an uproar about it.

this is what people mean when they say "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

this will directly boost Jackson's record sales. Conservative white middle americans weren't going to buy this record before, so why would her 'people' worry about alienating them. And Justin Timberlake is way too popular to be brought down by something so minor.

it is absurd how many times i saw that pixelated boob on TV yesterday

That's what gets me, Voro, is the pixellated boob. Most of the people who have been anti-boob in this thread have mentioned stuff about the children asking questions and all that. I would think they'd ask more questions about why something is obscured than if it weren't, and then it gets into a more slippery slope as you have to explain the inherent "badness" of nudity. If it weren't bad, it wouldn't be pixellated... but if it weren't pixellated in the first place, it'd cease to be bad.

I think Jon Stewart on the daily show said it best last night... the NFL and CBS are most upset about it because of the three different erectile dysfunction drugs who sponsored the Superbowl, while Janet Jackson was on stage giving old men erections. It's copyright infringement.

i don't see the big deal, it was a boob grow up and whine about something else thats more important then a lump of body fat and skin

Sylvus wrote:That's what gets me, Voro, is the pixellated boob. Most of the people who have been anti-boob in this thread have mentioned stuff about the children asking questions and all that. I would think they'd ask more questions about why something is obscured than if it weren't, and then it gets into a more slippery slope as you have to explain the inherent "badness" of nudity. If it weren't bad, it wouldn't be pixellated... but if it weren't pixellated in the first place, it'd cease to be bad.

I think Jon Stewart on the daily show said it best last night... the NFL and CBS are most upset about it because of the three different erectile dysfunction drugs who sponsored the Superbowl, while Janet Jackson was on stage giving old men erections. It's copyright infringement.

Daily Show last night was gold.

As much as I love naked boobies, I don't like the idea of nudity on non-cable channels. If they did not levy fines for this, it would set a precedent for many bad things to come.

I, for one, shudder to think that this might open the door for another washed up singer....think Liza Minelli or Babs Streisand.... to come onstage and flash boobage. Keep em covered. If I want to see them naked I will look them up on the internet.

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:

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.

You Swedes sure know how to talk dirty! I r so titillated now!

they both gave me a boner. werd..

The bounds of taste and decency will alwyas be tested no matter where they lie. At some point limits do have to be put in place for the good of society as a whole. You can argue where those limits may be, but they must exist.

To forgive and forget would be to invite it to become common place. This is the reason that the FCC is involved and making a big deal of it, because they wish to stop reocurances.