The Boobie Tube

For the record, I do not believe for an instant that the peek-a-boobie during the Super Bowl halftime was an accident. Do what you want with your dopey shows and productions, but don't flat out lie to me.

Comments

[Marcvs]

Hmmm, complaining about a bare breast is the same as agreeing with Saudi Arabia or OSB? Wow, laying on the hyperbole a little thick there, ain't we?

[Andy]

The reaction doesn't surprise me in the least bit. America is still a purtianical society, no matter what people in LA, SF and NYC think. Remember, they are prosecuting people down south (AL? TX? I forget) right now for selling sex toys. And the war on alcohol is being fought at a number of levels.

[Julian Sanchez]

Uh, ditto on Jennifer's comments. If the suggestion that a few seconds of tit on network TV isn't worth getting worked up over makes libertarian ideas a "laughing stock", I can't imagine what one says about the ideas of someone who compares bare nipples to gang rapes...

[crap-action-jackson]

Um, if it wasn't intended to be torn away, why was the cup held in place by snaps?

[Overlord]

I make a comment, so now I'm a prude and a religious nut. Actually, I'm an atheist and I number "The Re-Animator" amongst my favorites movies. What consenting adults want to watch on HBO and other pay mediums and on tapes or DVD's is is one thing, but here we are talking about an over the air network that comes into your home without any controls. Sure, I'll just shut off the TV so the Kids can not watch anything on TV, right.
Like I said before, it's absolutist, ideologically blinded nonsense like this that brands Libertarians as the lunatic fringe.

[John]

Liberty Lover is absolutely right. This kind of thing leads to more government regulation, not less. We should be disappointed in Ms. Jackson and those who planned the spectacle for their dishonesty, inconsistency, and immaturity.

[Jennifer]

Not to make too big a deal over this, but here's an interesting historical fact: if you look at societies that spend the MOST amount of time defending women's modesty, these are the same societies that tend to give women the least amount of rights. If I absolutely HAD to have a dictator run my country, I'd choose Larry Flynt over Jerry Falwell.

[Warren]

By the way, what about the NFL's property rights? The whole Superbowl property is owned by them and the whole broadcast is done under their liscence and under contract to them.

Let there be no confusion -- There is no way the NFL would have agreed with this. Love 'em or hate 'em (and they drive me crazy a lot) but they are a very conservative group and very protective of their trademark and the Superbowl property.

Whoever was in on this, wether it be just the performers or MTV or even CBS, they HAD to know they were doing it against the wishes and standards of the NFL, for whom all of them were working. It pains me to see this all cast into the BS decency / social conservative debate. I don't care if she wants to show her boobies to everyone, but she should not do it on the NFL's dime and trade some of the luster of their brand for her own self image.

[Jennifer]

And when I say I support Larry Flynt, bear in mind I'm a self-described feminist who thinks Hustler magazine is totally gross. But just because I don't want to see it doesn't mean you can't.

[nobody]

I've seen the pics.
I think it's Michael's tit.

[dhex]

without any controls...outside of having to buy a tv, hook it up and turn it on at the specified time.

you don't have to be a religious nut to have been influenced by the absurdist body-hatred of the western tradition. we've all been skull-fucked by it one way or another, sadly. (or happily, it's just the way it is.)

i mean, if you're worried about kids, isn't it even more worrisome that pictures of something they were fed by (or a rubber replica attached to a bottle) will somehow damage them sometime after they're done being nourised by them?

maybe it's rooted in the same sort of fear which finds societal damage in sex toys and fears marriage will be wrecked by the sodo-religious astral assault of homosexual sex magick.

[junyo]

For the morally superior here who believe this is no big deal; it's not, really. However, millions of parents tuned in with their families to watch a football game and a halftime musical event. Had there been warnings up front that "The Superbowl halftime show may contain partial nudity" those parents could've exercised their right to change the channel (I was watching and I don't remember a disclaimer or warning, please correct me if I merely missed it.). However, that's not what occured. MTV, CBS, or someone, decided that their standard of morality, body awareness, cultural elightenment or whatever was good enough for all of us, and why would anyone object to a bare breast, it's just a bare it after all, not even the pair; and so they just sent it into the nations homes. Without a time machine it was impossible to filter that content if you personally found it objectionable. Which means millions of people had something forced on them. The other way around and everybody would still be screaming about 'how dare those puritanical assholes censor content'. But it's no big deal because it has only a bare tit after all, right? And they're still assholes for complaining. Neat.

At what point does a loss of freedom actually matter to Libertarians? Who's sensibilities really matter? It's evident from the postings here that those of the people who objected to this content being piped into their homes don't matter, so I'd just like a list or a diagram of who has the right to make informed decisions about what they and their families view, or believe, or do.

[Jennifer]

Junyo writes--
At what point does a loss of freedom actually matter to Libertarians? Who's sensibilities really matter? It's evident from the postings here that those of the people who objected to this content being piped into their homes don't matter, so I'd just like a list or a diagram of who has the right to make informed decisions about what they and their families view, or believe, or do.

In other words, my freedom FROM looking at disturbing stuff is more important than your freedom TO be disturbing?

If the Super Bowl truly opposed Ms. Jackson's behavior, then in the future they'll force entertainers to sign contracts stipulating that any exposure will result in a fine, or suspension of pay.

[Mo]

I didn't think it was a big deal, but I can see why people are upset. There are a lot of kids and other people that WOULD change the channel if there was a warning. A nipple isn't a big deal (we've all got 'em), but parents have a right to be warned. I hate all the lying coming from Timberlake and Co. On the plus side, the free market works, MTV will never produce another halftime show. As a result of that, noone will try to pull a fast one on the NFL again.

Didja all hear about what they did to Vegas SB parties?

[nobody]

junyo,

I think there was a disclaimer, though it might have been for the repeated-every-15-minutes MTV ad. Regarding your concern for "the children", their parents are probably far more negligent in letting them LISTEN to the music, specifically the lyrics. CBS's and others' shock is laughable and hypocritical.

[fyodor]

Junyo,

Good points mixed with bad. No one forced you to watch the Super Bowl or Janet's tit. Okay? Now if you got something you weren't expecting, what's that? Some sort of fraud? Of course you never entered into any type of contractual agreement with CBS, so you would have to bank on the concept, once fiercely debated here, of the implied contract. But while I hesitate to think that someone who sells a bag of rocks labeled as beans hasn't committed a crime, I would say the implied contract of "family entertainment" here is rather vague to say the least. Especially when Super Bowl halftimes have been racy before. How about Aerosmith singing "Walk This Way," which is all about teenage seduction? Obviously you have rights over what goes on in your home, but whether your rights were violated by Janet's teet is far from clear.

Of course, "far from clear" is what you inevitably get from a concept like the "public airwaves."

[dhex]

the greater point here is THAT IT'S A FUCKING HUMAN BREAST.

anyone want to bring up rape right now, feel free. or maybe homosexual cannibals or sex with dogs, since those are popular jumping points from naked boobies. (or booby, in this case, which may only be equivalent to a cannibal having consensual sex with a dog)

-- speaking of this specific incident. that it still sparks anything at all other than "shoulda taped that shit up janet" is what i'm currently bemoaning.

generally speaking, if you sign up for a service with certain expectations and they don't meet those expectations, then you drop the service, right? caveat emptor and all them cool latin words which boil down to "yer on yer own bucko, so C.Y.A."

which is fine, well and good. if people are that worried about television content there are dozens of avenues which they can explore. from not watching TV (oh no!) to not owning one in the first place (gasp!)

i mean, really. you guys had the kids. it's your fucking fault for listening to your genetic imperative or not wearing a rubber or being the last man standing in a 300 person gangbang. stop blaming those of us not stupid enough to breed. (hi mom and dad!)

[Russ D]

I tune in to see NFL cheerleaders shake their T&A and be objectified, not a pop singer doing roughly the same thing. I draw the line at areolas.

Seems to me that if someone if going to be offended by a bare breast, then the broadcast contained a hell of a lot more objectionable content before that incident.

But this is NFL logic were talking about. Like the logic where Mike Ditka insisted his flaccid dick is more manly because he played football and not baseball.

[dhex]

sorry, blaming should be replaced with "punishing" or "attempting to punish" or "boring the shit out of with stories about your little future rapists of america" or "acting like a bunch of fucking liberals" (the closest thing reason has to a slur word, i think)

[Les]

Overlord, it's not that you're a prude or religious nut, it's that your analogy was terrible. You can't compare an exposed breast to murder or rape and expect to be taken seriously. Indeed, until people can demonstrate that the exposed breast is more intellectually or emotionally damaging than the sport of football itself, they ought not to get so huffy about it. It's nothing to do with libertarianism, but rather common sense.

[dhex]

your kids should be reading anyway, instead of rotting their brains via cathode tube. good classics from the 1700s, in the days before they invented cuss words or sexual situations.

[dhex]

ok, i'm all out of hyperbole now. back to work!

[nobody]

TSA, Ed Asner, Free Trade: 10 posts.
Nipplegate: 45 posts and counting.
Is this a great country or what?!

[Anne]

Those of you that are saying "it's just a breast", you do know that's not the whole story, right? For example, if she'd turned around and mooned the audience, you are aware that in our culture that would have constituted a disrespectful gesture? I don't think it really adds anything to reason out from first principles about our culture's view of female buttocks why that should be; it's simply a fact that people in our culture do not display their bare buttocks to other people unless they intend to give offense.

Similarly, people do not rip off their tops on prime time network TV unless they intend to offend parents. Again, you can't reason out from first principles exactly why that should be, but that's no reason to pretend you don't know that you've been targeted for an insult.

[Overlord]

Les:

My point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that every society can and will put some limits on what can be said and shown on over the air TV.
So if you don't think that showing a female nipple during the super bowl is over the line, then where do you draw the line? Or do you really want to take the absurd position, that there should be no restrictions on over the air TV at all?
Hi, we are the Libertarians, we want to let them show "Debbie does Dallas" at Three PM on channel Two, just as your kids are getting home from school! Gee, how come you won't vote for our party? Gee, How come we can't get more that 1/2 of 1% of the vote?

[mojo jojo]

The stupid thing is ,is that it was on the live braodcast for like half a second. I saw it happen and was all "did i just see a tit?" "was that thing covered?" "crap i missed it!" It's only been today when they show it on the news and on the net that you can even see what really happened.

[mojo jojo]

The stupid thing is ,is that it was on the live braodcast for like half a second. I saw it happen and was all "did i just see a tit?" "was that thing covered?" "crap i missed it!" It's only been today when they show it on the news and on the net that you can even see what really happened.

[Jim Walsh]

My God! Whites and coloreds singing together! Who knows where this could lead?

[voice of wisdom]

Is the question here if she showed her boobies or that some guy grabbed her bare tit on national television?

I am not for censorship, but watching my six year old niece's reaction to seeing Justin's 2nd base PDA really creeped me out. We already have 12-year old girls making out (Like madonna & Britanny), giving BJs (cause its not sex - William Jefferson Clinton), etc. Do we want girls letting dudes grab their goods in public? Does it send a bad message to young men about how to treat women?

This isn't a debate about policy. It is about taste and appropiate behavior.

[Randy]

Breast place. DING!

[Les]

Overlord, the point libertarianism is that you don't need the government to force a channel not to show porno in the afternoon. The market does that. People boycotting can do that. Parents are responsible for what their children watch. If they don't trust their children to respect their wishes, then they should either quit their job to monitor their children or re-evaluate their relationship with their children.

The only way that porno would succeed in the afternoon is if there is a market for it. And besides, no one has ever demonstrated that sexual or violent imagery are inherently damaging to children. That said, I don't let my 4 year old watch violent or sexual material because he wouldn't understand it and might be upset by it (same reason I don't take him to church :)). I don't expect the government to make sure I'm thinking about what my kid is watching.

The problems with the Libertarian Party are often more complex than their positions on particular issues. I've only voted for a libertarian one time in my life.

[mojo jojo]

VOW,
If you didn't know 12 yr old girls have been making out and giving bj's before now you must be one major square.

[Jim Walsh]

On a more serious note, it's interesting that Drudge (the darling of conservatives) gave us a far more clear shot than we got on CBS. And hey Matt, how about that close-up?

[Warren]

Overlord,
My point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that every society can and will put some limits on what can be said and shown on over the air TV.
No, I did get that. You apparently seem to think that the idea that a free society should enjoy freedom of the press is just laughable. Maybe it means I'll never get elected to congress. But I still insist that seeing Janet's titty is a fundamental freedom. I don't think I go to far when I say that your insistence that we simply must have some amount of puritanical regulation upon our airwaves puts you in the same boat as the leaders of radical Islam. Combating impropriety via state regulation, is a very very B A D idea. It doesn't work, it can't work, and it is a defining characteristic of an oppressive regime.

The other Warren,
Dude, could you add a modifier to your screen name. Put it all caps or otherwise distinguish it from mine? Thanks in advance.

Warren the wise

[Les]

Anne, there are many circumstances in a variety of cultures (including our own) in which a person exposing their buttocks is not an insult. Sometimes it's slapstick comedy, sometimes an invitation or just a friendly tease.

Janet Jackson exposing her breast was an attempt at "edgy," sexual music/dance entertainment. Whether or not it succeeded is arguable. But just because you feel insulted doesn't mean that someone has insulted you.

[voice of wisdom]

mojo: Yes and I am sure women have whipped guys dicks out in public too. Does that mean it is appropiate or tasteful to do it on national TV - where we know millions are kids are watching?

[Les]

"appropriate" and "tasteful" are terribly subjective. It seems that before we decide that it's wrong to show a woman's breast on television, we should determine that it's worse than watching countless reinacted murders.

[fyodor]

Overlord,

Okay, okay, the Libertarian Party not going to win the next election, we knew that already. but being viewed as the "lunatic fringe" doesn't make us wrong. And reminding us that we're in the minority does little to address the issue. Obviously libertarians refuse to draw any line when it comes to government censorship. Yes, and if that means Divine can eat shit on national TV without those responsible for the broadcast going to jail for it, fine. Should we stop saying that no one should go to jail for such a thing because it's not the popular position at the moment? I don't think so.

[Les]

Make that "reEnact"

[Bethanie]

Fellow liberty lovers: it was stupid because it was on a network, which has special rules and an expectation. This is not a 1st amendment issue or a "oh big deal a bare boob" issue. Stupid things like this invite MORE government regulation because it was so outrageous. Even a free market man like Powell at the FCC felt compelled to act.

I couldn't agree more.

[voice of reason]

Les: I also think simulated murder at halftime would also be innapropiate and distasteful. and my problem isn't that she showed her breast, it is that a guy grabbed it.

and it is my "subjective" opinion, but so what?

[rst]

put some limits on what can be said and shown on over the air TV.

Society can limit its tolerance to whatever it likes. Society is not government. The question is whether there is the need to express that as legislation or regulation. Why add process - more inefficiency - to an already largely useless agency? And at the end of the day what are you trying to save? Your kids' eyes from a few seconds of nipple? Your kid likely spent the first year+ of his life sucking on one. The cost of pursuing this from a legal standpoint does not bring any associated benefit.

Gee, how come you won't vote for our party? Gee, How come we can't get more that 1/2 of 1% of the vote?

The average human Wechsler IQ is only about 100. I'd wager that it's far lower for the regular, partyline voters that dominate the polls. It thus does not surprise me that they have spent the past 230 years choosing back and forth between two parties that aren't worth the hanging chads that save their silly candidacies. More cerebral parties have the disadvantage of appealing to more cerebral people, leaving the rank, stupid masses to run the show. We can't euthanize them, so we're stuck with them.

[Russ D]

Part of the problem is that so many people watch the damn thing someone is bound to be offended by SOMETHING.

Would it make sense to have multiple broadcasts of something like the Super Bowl? CBS was the broadcaster, but for all intents and purposes it's CBS/Viacom showing it. Why not have the CBS "prude" version, the MTV "quasi-edgy" version, the Comedya Central "man Show" version, etc. It's not like Viacom would argue that MTV had so many viewers during those hours that they wouldn't want to alienate them. Put the Super Bowl on mutiple channels, and you can tailor the presentation to the expected audience. Another broadcast could ditch the halftime show entirely and just have game analysis. And it has the added benefit of being able to sell the same "minute" multiple times.

[Les]

voice, there were a lot of commercials for murder-related shows during the superbowl. The reason it matters that it's a subjective opinion is because laws shouldn't be based on subjective opinion. And he didn't actually grab her breast. He merely exposed it. The horror.

[rst]

laws shouldn't be based on subjective opinion.

Laws are purely subjective opinion.

[Overlord]

Warren:

I estimate that there have to be at least twenty million or so, people like myself, out there. Fiscal conservatives, who couldn't care less (within reason) what their neighbors are smoking, ingesting, reading or screwing. Who think that we have to stop the Islamic terrorists, but also think that our government is run by a bunch of "Die Hard" Cold Warriors who won't rest until they have invaded or alienated half the countries of the world. We are mighty pissed off at the Bush administration and looking for a way to show our displeasure.
So what do the Libertarians do, invite us in and try to work on some interim program, that we can all can agree on? No of course not, if you are not a 100% pure Libertarian idealist, you are the enemy.

What? you don't want to disband the Army and protect the country with fat guys with hunting rifles? - Militarist!

What, you don't want to open up the border and let a hundred million people and a couple of thousand terrorists in? - Statist! Racist!

What, you don't want to cut off all support from Israel and the the Arabs have their way with them? - Racist! Zionist!

What, no hardcore TV porn for the Kid's? - Censor!

What, you don't want to close the Veteran hospitals and throw all of the war wounded Vets out in the street? - Statist!

So go ahead, play kissy face with the Deanists and other lefties and miss a golden opportunity to be a real political movement. Hope that you enjoy your 1/2 of 1% of the vote this year.

[voice of wisdom]

Les:
1) they didn't show the act of murder

2) I SAID THIS ISN'T A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE, SO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LAWS! Holy christ, read will ya!

3) he grabbed her boob and exposed it. you don't think that could be misinterpred by men who start (assalting) ladies trying to be like Justin? Or women who let themselves be assalted?

Holy fuck. Nobody here execept for one wacko is talking censorship. BUt apparently unless you cheer on a tit-grab on national tv as tasteful and appropiate, you are a "neo-fascist." No wonder libertarians are seen as re-treds.

[SM]

Justin Timberlake claims that it was a "wardrobe malfunction". Are you cynical folks questioning the word of a BackStreet boy ?

[Les]

voice, try to stay calm. Glad to hear you're not talking about laws.

Could it be misinterpreted? Of course, it could. Anything could. If it had been a wild west motif with Timberlake as sherrif shooting the bad guy dancers, no one would be "outraged." Stupid people misinterpret things all the time. It's not up to artists or broadcasters to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. If it were, we'd not be watching much more than tele-tubbies.

Who here is "cheering on a tit-grab on national tv as tasteful and appropiate?" Anybody? We're commenting on the "outrage" felt by people based on a rather simple act that was meant to shock and succeeded hilariously.

[mojoj jojo]

RST,
only bad laws are based on sub. opinion. GOOD laws are based on objective standards. those are everything is allowed as long as it does not involve the initiatory use of force, fraud or coercion.
VOw,
i do think is was innapropriate, but not tasteless, and everyone involved is going to pay the price for it. i dug it, but i'm a single childless adult white heterosexual male so what do i know, right? oh wait, that's who the superbowl was MADE for!

[Les]

"Laws are purely subjective opinion."

That theft and murder are detrimental to society is not a subjective opinion, so the laws prohibiting them aren't. That pornography and recreational drug use are detrimental to society is a subjective opinion, so the laws prohibiting them are.

Maybe I'm screwed up semantically, but hopefully my basic point is not too terribly muddled.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Is Janet still a Jehovah's Witness?

[thoreau]

Well, whatever we think of it, the NFL, which runs this show, has made it clear that it won't happen again. They've decided that they don't want to put on a show where bare breasts are exposed. Seems to me like the matter has happened, been over-reacted to, and is finished.

Now, if the FCC decides to investigate, it can mean only one thing: The gov't is cracking down on porn on office computers, so some desperate FCC employees will tell the boss "Oh, no, those pictures of an exposed breast are part of an investigation."

So, the NFL will be stricter next time, some government employees found a new excuse to view bare breasts while at work, cultural conservatives have something to yammer about, and cultural libertarians have yet another item in their arsenal of "things that conservatives are stupid about." Seems like everybody got something out of this.

[dhex]

if people watch an act on tv and decide to emulate it there's not a whole lot we can do except start a privately-funded campaign to encourage a national "think before you breed" program.

people are going to have to learn how to raise media-saavy children, just as farmers had to raise farm-saavy children or starve. similar principle, but probably without much of the starvation (and more boobs!)

[thoreau]

P.S. My wife took one look at the metal thing on Janet's nipple and said "Yep, she planned it. Who cares?" Now my wife is back to reading a Vanity Fair article on NYPD fining people for sitting on milk crates.

[dhex]

les - not be a royal pain in the ass, but certain forms of theft (taxes) and murder (capital punishment) are perfectly acceptable and considered justifiable by many.

[Warren]

Overlord,
I estimate that there have to be at least twenty million or so, people like myself, out there. Fiscal conservatives, who couldn't care less (within reason) what their neighbors are smoking, ingesting, reading or screwing. Who think that we have to stop the Islamic terrorists, but also think that our government is run by a bunch of "Die Hard" Cold Warriors who won't rest until they have invaded or alienated half the countries of the world. We are mighty pissed off at the Bush administration and looking for a way to show our displeasure.

Well it warms my freedom fanatic heart to hear you say so. You really think there's 20x10^6 others?

So how will you be voting?
Holding your nose for Bush?

By the way how does it feel when you find out your vote wasn't 'wasted' and you did your part to help some corrupt son of a bitch get his hands on power?

[junyo]

In other words, my freedom FROM looking at disturbing stuff is more important than your freedom TO be disturbing?

If I understand that sentence, no. However, it's clear that simply showing something without warning deprives me (for example and to make the sentence grammatically easier to write) of a certain amount of choice. But demonstrate to me how informing people of the content up front deprives you (assuming you didn't object to the content) of anything.

Personnaly I like disclaimers, since I then know I won't be wasting my time on something that doesn't contain graphic sex or violence.

...their parents are probably far more negligent in letting them LISTEN to the music, specifically the lyrics.
...in the moral judgement of someone who finds the lyrics to be more offensive than the sight of bare tit. In that, you substitute your moral judgement for mine and the rest America. If, for example, I spoke only Spanish, all the English lyrics in the world won't influence my family one iota, but (in my judgement) a bare breast will. Am I not free to act in accord with my non-Anglo perogatives as long as I force no action on you?

No one forced you to watch the Super Bowl or Janet's tit. Okay? Now if you got something you weren't expecting, what's that? Some sort of fraud?
Well, I'd say that in thirty years of watching the Superbowl it was mostly large men running into one another, the occasional marching band, and some mild cheesecake via the cheerleaders. Nowhere in that thirty years was I given any indication that nudity was to be expected. The Superbowl is pitched as wholesome family entertainment and throwing in nudity and saying 'we never told you we wouldn't' is kinda like doing a porn episode of the Sesame Street. 'We never said we wouldn't.'

Further, they kinda did. TV networks don't show racy content before 9PM. This showed earlier than that on the West Coast. TV networks agreed to a rating system a few years back to address just these concerns, and to stave off the threat of government interference (wanna bet that idea's shot to hell now?). They didn't label this broadcast.

Everybody's saying if you don't like it, throw away your TV. That's a bit disingenuous. It's the precise logic of mob rule. 'Most of us like it/want it/voted for it so your particular group is fucked. Well, tax dollars fund the FCC which indirectly controlled what got beamed into homes. Therefore all taxpayers have a right to have a say in what content will be delivered by the system they subsidize. The NFL, through taxpayer funded construction and civic sports commitees gave the electorate a say in their operations too (what, around 700 mil to build/improve the three big sports facilities in Houston, plus about 10 mil to get and help host the Superbowl?). You want to demolish the FCC and restrict pro sports to private funds; great idea, I'm with you. That would enhance choice and make more people happy in the long run. But in the here and now, I'd be mad as hell that a bunch of people who supposedly believe in individual rights are all in favor of using my money to beam content I find inappropriate into my living room. As long as they're not inconvenienced. And I'd be pissed that you're telling me that because you weren't offended, then I shouldn't be either, which is the crux of most of the posts here. I've yet to see an concrete argument of objective good that seeing this causes, versus all the subjective BS. And all subjective BS is equal.

[Anne]

Les,

"Janet Jackson exposing her breast was an attempt at "edgy," sexual music/dance entertainment. Whether or not it succeeded is arguable. But just because you feel insulted doesn't mean that someone has insulted you."

While there may be other cultures and other contexts in our own culture in which displaying one's breast is sexy fun (maybe Mardi Gras?) you, I, and Janet Jackson all know that prime time network TV is not one of them. I find it hard to believe that you really think Jackson was trying to entertain, rather than trying to get herself talked about by offending people.

Just because you refuse to feel insulted doesn't mean someone hasn't tried to insult you. 🙂

[Les]

dhex, Christ, you are one ROYAL pain in the ASS!!

Especially because those are good points I hadn't considered.

ROYAL, I tell ya!!

[Les]

Anne,

"I find it hard to believe that you really think Jackson was trying to entertain, rather than trying to get herself talked about by offending people."

I don't know what she was trying to do (only she does). It's possible that she was trying to offend people to get talked about. But then that requires people who could actually be offended at the sight of a breast. And isn't it weird that this country is full of such folks? If it was her intention, she succeeded wildly.

"Just because you refuse to feel insulted doesn't mean someone hasn't tried to insult you."

Can't argue with that. But I much prefer it to feeling insulted. Life's too short to let others dictate how I feel. 😉

[Gadfly]

The Texas Penile Code (section 21.07 for you wonks) has some things to say about either a)Justin Timberlake's assault on JJ's boob or b)Janet Jackson's flaunting of said boob.

Houston prosecutor's are famous for their lack of a sense of humor. Watch for more on this.

[nobody]

By the way, JJ is black. There has been a special exemption for black boobs on TV for some time, though usually reserved for "primitive" peoples found on PBS and Discovery Channel documentaries. (No whites allowed.)

The dancing and music featured at the 38th Annual Super Bowl Halftime Extravagaza and Burlesque was certainly primitive. So the boob was appropriate for the situation.

Wasn't it?

[BrianinCT]

overlord
"What, you don't want to cut off all support from Israel and the the Arabs have their way with them? - Racist! Zionist!"

There is not a country on the face of this earth that receives support from Isreal.

[fyodor]

Overlord,

Sounds like a case of Freudian projection you got going there. Who's rejecting whom?

Of course politics involves forming coalitions with those who don't agree with you 100%, since of course none of us agrees 100% with anyone else on anything. But who here said the things you're accusing them of? (Insert obligatory "strawman" thing, blah blah blah...)

Maybe if you singled out someone's specific comments for criticism rather than just spew general rage at everyone for not buying your "drawing the line somewhere" argument or sharing your breast angst, you might make more sense and possibly even find a sympathetic ear.

[rst]

Overlord - there is a stark difference between what we want to watch on television and what we'll accept our government spending our money to go after on television. There is no return on an investment made in enforcing policy for moral reasons, except to protect the senses of the weak-minded who "need" that reinforcement.

The NFL, CBS, and MTV will do more to rectify the situation on their own in the span of 48-72 hours than the government could after wasting $X on an investigation, $Y on Senate hearings, and $Z on prosecution, if any. It's not that any of us want to find porn on our televisions at 3pm, but rather, we don't want the mechanism responsible for preventing that to be the government. If your child cannot carry a certain box, but you'd like him to be the helpful sort anyway, would you put more items in the box, or would you remove items from the box? The government is not capable of doing their proscribed tasks to any satisfactory degree, so obviously I vehemently oppose giving them more to do.

[Jean Bart]

Ha ha ha ha. Oh no, tits on TV. I suspect German or French or Dutch or UK TV would give Americans heart attacks (Benny Hill - I know they play that on syndication in the U.S.); tits on TV are common.

[fyodor]

Junyo,

I think you're really barking up the wrong tree if you think this crowd is saying we voted for it so you're fucked. We believe in rights, i.e, the rights of all. But you still haven't made clear how your rights were violated. Even if you're correct that there was never any hint of adult entertainment in previous half-time shows (which there was, as I pointed out and which you sidestepped*), are you claiming fraud? Are you really going to go to the mat with that? Or are you taking the easy way out to complain about something you didn't like without considering that it didn't really violate your rights?

*Say, in lieu of throwing out your TV, perhaps you could have simply turned off the broadcast for the half-time show, since half-time shows have long been racier than marching bands?

Well, maybe you'll know to do that next year, and the magic of the market will strike once again! 🙂

[fyodor]

Jean Bart,

I saw my first televised breast on Benny Hill!! 🙂

[Overlord]

Warren:

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush. Here's my voting record if you are interested:

1964 - would have happily voted for Barry Goldwater if I had been old enough.
1968 - voted for Nixon (I'll take the blame for that)
1972 - cast a write-in vote for John Hospers (believe it or not)
1976 - voted Libertarian (Roger McBride)
1980 - voted for Reagan (Hopeful)
1984 - voted for Reagan (Not so hopeful)
1988 - voted Libertarian (Ron Paul)
1992 - voted Libertarian (Andre(?) Marrou)
1996 - voted Libertarian (Harry Browne)
2000 - voted Libertarian (Harry Browne)

[Russ]

I'm glad to hear Jean Bart's opinion on this one.

I find it pretty hilarious that a 2-second glimpse of a breast (that was still strategically covered) has sent the self-proclaimed "most advanced nation in the world" into hysteria.

I wish Americans could see just how truly asinine they look to the rest of the civilized world.

[rst]

I wish Americans could see just how truly asinine they look to the rest of the civilized world.

The rest of the world is no more civilized, nor any less asinine, than the Americans. It's merely who is calling the shots and who is making the noise that gets the news. This shit sells to stupid people the world over.

[WarrenM]

Trust boobs to drive the comments up to 100. I just figured out there are 2 warren's on the thread - could not figure out why some of the comments to me did not have anything to do with what I said. Changed me to WarrenM

I posted above that whatever you think about whether America is overly uptight or legitimately concerned, MTV is in the wrong not for their morality but for their very clear violation of their employer's trust. They HAD to know they were doing something the NFL would not approve of - hyping themselves and the artists at the expense of their employer (the NFL) who was paying them.

Now, it appears MTV is also gutless. Again, much like the teenage prankster, they are vehemently denying they did anything wrong. Even to the point of removing the post of their website that promised "shocking moments" in advance of Ms. Jacksons act. Drudge has the link to the cached page next to the lame and gutless denial. Also to Timberlakes really lame denial - uh, it was a costume malfunction - oh yeah, all normal dressess have a velcro'd square over the breast.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Personally I found the Jackson backup dancers doing the bump & grind in the leather S&M gear to be more offensive than her flashing.

I'm a little saddened by what I see here. This site is really descending into juvenalia since Virginia Postrel left.

Apparently, being a libertarian now means not only do you have the right to enjoy sex and nudity, but you have the unencumbered right to wave your ass in everyone else?s face, and everybody else?s kid?s face. And if anybody disagrees with you, they?re just a fascist prude.

I know that one guy got flamed above by talking about the slippery slope, but in all seriousness, where does it actually end?

Does anybody have the right to get together with others and determine what type of community they want to live in? Or is the right to organize a community and government along democratically chosen lines, to implement policies ratified by the people, not really a libertarian value? Ordered liberty contra libertarianism?

Honestly, we?re pro drug, pro sex show, pro assisted suicide - what about people who are pro traditional values? Do they somehow have less of a right to choose how they?d like to live? Why isn?t it that you could purchase the Lingerie Bowl II? Why were the rest of us forced to eat a free sample? And when FCC policy over time, through liberal and conservative administrations, is to partition the airwaves and cable into kid-safe (or cultural conservative-safe) areas, you might conclude that there?s a pretty broad consensus about at least one traditional value ? the traditional value of not wanting to expose the kids to the Jackson family?s warped ideas about sex. You think the prudes got problems with body image?

Sure, people could have tuned out. Let the market sort it out. But people didn?t exactly have fair warning. There was no rating, no nothing. If they were of the mindset to do so, they could have shielded their kids if there had been a rating ? but there wasn?t a warning. The market served up one dish, and nobody really had a choice. Guess they?d better buy Tivo if they want to watch football games and actually have a choice. Or just not watch at all. ?Turn of the TV? and ?monitor what your kids watch? is a great solution, until MTV and CBS decide to thrust Janet Jackson?s tits in your face, like it or not.

Yeah, it?s a small thing. And yes, we?ve got a lot of prudes in this country. But if libertarians can?t come to grips with the fact that most people would rather not deal with a lot of messes with nasty externalities ? like street corner drug dealers flogging crack to 10 year olds, or a steady stream of soft core porn targeted at kids through the music channel, pop culture generally and now apparently football halftime shows ? then libertarians are patently unsuited to governance.

It?s not a shock that so few libertarians hold public office in the U.S. ?My rights are absolute? is a pretty good governing philosophy if you?re holding court in a Vegas strip club and you?ve got a roll of hundreds in your pocket; or if you?re smoking dope with your dorm room buddies. It doesn?t work too well where most of the rest of us live, where shouting ?get over it you prude? is a pretty piss poor solution to actual problems, and in effect just another way of telling people that they have to live the way you want them to live.

[rst]

what about people who are pro traditional values?

Be pro traditional values if you like...you're confusing anarchy with libertarianism. Most people are not particular to tits and ass flying everywhere. It's nice, but inappropriate. To some perhaps, having the government step in and do something is a waste of money because the government has not throughout its history demonstrated that it is particularly good at doing things, just saying things. Why spend money on chasing morality? That's casting pearls before swine...it doesn't fix anything, it just buys the pervasion of a specific moral notion to a wider audience. In the hopes of what? Kids will be protected from seeing a few seconds of tit? Putting sunblock on your child protects them. Making sure they don't see tits...why should we foot the bill to support values we have no use for?

Do they somehow have less of a right to choose how they?d like to live?

How you'd like to live is not at question. The Super Bowl is not necessary to your life or happiness. If it's too racy, complain to the people who make the Super Bowl. Don't expect some government to protect you from it, because they won't actually do anything. And it will still cost us money.

[Slippery Pete]

I'm not saying the FCC should levy any huge fines against CBS, but the tit-flashing was definitely inappropriate. Use common sense...it's 8 o'clock. About 20 million parents are watching the game with their kids. They have no idea somebody's pierced nipple is going to take center stage.

Right now, anybody with satellite or digital cable TV can order up "Barely Legal 73" by remote, and it will be beamed in for you wanking pleasure by GM's Hughes operating unit. Every decent hotel in the country has buggery-on-demand (albeit at high prices). Walk into a Quickie Mart, buy a Penthouse. Or watch Skinemax or HBO, or Showtime's new lesbo show. Or Tivo all of it, order delivery pizza, and never leave the couch.

All this talk about America being prudish is absurd. We're porn fiends. But we like it segrated, and not in front of the kiddies, please.

Is it too difficult for you fundamentalist libertarians to understand political reality? "If you don't like it, don't watch it," is supremely ignorant. It applies to Four Finger Honeys on Spice TV because we know what we're getting. It doesn't apply to Janet Jackson's pierced tit in the middle of the freaking Super Bowl.

I, personally, like breasts, and wish to see more of them, pierced or otherwise. But if my 4-year-old daughter were watching, I'd be a little bit pissed off about it. I know this is in complete violation of Subsection T of the Libertarian Rulebook, but it's reality.

[Mark S.]

"what about people who are pro traditional values?"

What about the fact that those "traditional values" are pure bullshit based on bigotry, superstition (i.e. religion), and knuckle-dragging stupidity? Better to be a "libertine" and have a rational attitude toward these things, than an anal retentive bible-thumper.

To all those who whine and complain about "I don't want my children to see this," I say: Do you HONESTLY believe that a few second shot of a breast is going to turn your children in rapists and deviants? If you do,

Besides, it better that they develop a healthy, positive pro-sex attitude rather then load them down with the psychological baggage that the advocates of "traditional values" want to foist on society. Better for them to see Janet Jackson's boob, than the Drug War propaganda of a boob (i.e. Dubbya) that was televised during the same event.

What about people who are pro rational values? Fuck them.

[Dan]

Ok, hypothetical scenario:

An elementary school invites, say, JK Rowling to speak to its third-graders. Ms Rowling says, as part of her speech, "One day your parents will die, and you'll have to bury them. Unless you die before they do."

Now, such a speech would be unobjectionable, if directed at *adults*. It's also factually correct, and deals with real and natural parts of human life. Nevertheless, a lot of parents would be REALLY PISSED OFF at Ms. Rowling for giving such a speech, because (a) it wasn't what they were expecting and (b) *they* want to be the ones who introduce their kids to these concepts.

There's a lot of ignorant ranting about western "body hatred", about how it's "just a breast", etc. Whatever. Every single culture on the face of the earth has sexual taboos. There is no rational objection to showing hardcore pornography to young children that does not also apply to showing naked breasts -- despite that, no culture on Earth condones the former. Very few parents, *anywhere* on Earth, appreciate other people breaking sexual taboos in the presence of their children. Even most of us who are vehemently "pro-boobs" would probably be shocked and dismayed if we discovered our kids' third-grade teacher was flashing the students for her own amusement.

Personally I think the real issue here is the severe damage that was caused to the collective male libido of the United States when tens of millions of men were suddenly exposed to the naked breast of a woman best described as "Michael Jackson, if he had tits".

[Mark S.]

Whoops! Spell checker got the better of me. The last line should read:

What about people who are pro traditional values? Fuck them.

Reason really ought to look into a way for H&R members to edit their posts.

[fyodor]

There's so many generalities and cross-purposes being slopped around on this thread, it's hard to say who's arguing what with whom.

Okay, as silly as it seems to me, maybe MTV wasn't being nice to CBS or its viewing audience by allowing such a thing. But I dunno, seems to me that the way previous half-time shows have gone, anyone particularly concerned about good taste should have known to turn off the half-time show based on the racy nature of previous half-time shows. Maybe you're blaming others for your own lack of diligence on the matter? But still, yes, it's a mainstream audience watching, and in fact this was not the first time I was rather surprised at what they had on there. As I mentioned before, Aerosmith sang Walk This Way which is blatantly about teenage sex. Maybe you shouldn't be so surprised by something "inappropriate" after that (and I'm sure there's been other examples, that's just one that sticks out to me), but the general trend has always surprised me, it's true. Oh well.

Okay, what else. Look, thinking it's silly to let something like this upset you is just an entirely different issue than what the government should do about it. What I'm saying is that it has nothing directly to even do with libertarianism. I've never seen anyting say around here that every opinion expressed must directly address libertarianism, either pro or con. Sometimes people say things here that have nothing to do with that! So please can the "oh I guess I'm not a real libertarian anymore if I don't think everything is okay everywhere" sob story. On the average, I bet libertarianism attracts relatively libertine type folks, but they are not one and the same thing and I don't think I've seen anyone claim they are. One of the most adamant comments here expressing dismay with the negative reaction to Jackson came from Liberal Joe, so obviously he was not trying to express a libertarian POV. But hey, some people think caring about an exposed breast on national TV is silly and ridiculous, and so they say so. Now you have a right to feel differently, and I didn't notice anyone saying you didn't. Now if you want to argue about those differeing POV's, well instead of milking the victim and outcast card, why not try telling us WHY the breast is so bad. And if all you can tell us is it's your own subjective opinion, tell us why it's a good opinion to have. Otherwise, why should your rights prevail over those who LIKE to see an exposed breast on TV?

Or else, how about this. Discuss the issue in terms of property rights. What turns this whole thing into a flame war is the ambiguous nature of property rights in an institution governed by the concept of public rights, i.e., the "public airwaves," will create ambiguities and forces things to be hashed out politically rather than through contractual agreements.

Why don't we discuss THIS?

[NoStar]

I am so disappointed in Justin Timberlake. I thought he would know better to do that. That late in the game, a real player would have gone for the two points and not be satisfied with just one.

[O' Sama]

"Not to make too big a deal over this, but here's an interesting historical fact: if you look at societies that spend the MOST amount of time defending women's modesty, these are the same societies that tend to give women the least amount of rights. If I absolutely HAD to have a dictator run my country, I'd choose Larry Flynt over Jerry Falwell."

Pagan Rome spent very little time defending female modesty. They had statues of naked men and women all over the place. By your logic, pagan Rome would be friendly to woman's rights, but actually, their laws recognized the male head of household as having near-total power.

[Mark S.]

Let me elaborate the whys and wherefores regarding my attitude toward this issue:

I grew up in a VERY conservative, VERY Catholic household. My father made us go to every Sunday Mass as well as the so-called "Holy Days of Obligation." He made me attend CCD (Dad was too cheap to send me to Catholic school--thank goodness) where I was told that I was going to Hell if I wasn't Confirmed. When I hit puberty, my parents would often come into my room at night to make sure I wasn't masturbating.

The revolting thing is that for the longest time, I ACTUALLY BELIEVED the crap my parents exposed me too. I called a female classmate a slut during a health class when she implied that she had performed a sex act with her boyfriend. I was gave a report on AIDS where I stated that condoms don't actually work at all and that fornication should be made a felony. Of course, this didn't make me too popular with my class mates, but at least I was going to Heaven, right?

When I went to college, things started to change. After I had actually met a few gay people, I discovered that homosexuals were not the sex-hungry rapists and pedophiles my parents, my priests, and my culturally conservative colleagues made them out to be. I started dating, and through my initial sexual encounters found that I didn't burst into flame, or have my genitals rot off from a STDs, or knock my girlfriend up--Those condom things ACTUALLY work! In my philosophy classes I was exposed to other viewpoints toward reality and I began to question the existence of "God" altogether. In the end, I eventually became an atheist.

I was faced with the reality that the "morals" and "values" that I was brought up with were not just nonsensical, but downright oppressive. I look back at my life and I see just what a stuck up prudish asshole I was, and that the culture that imparted these attitudes to me was stagnant and backward. I now understand that sex, drugs, rock and roll, and pleasure in general are not BAD things and that we are nation of puritans and bluenoses. Such a culture can not survive without becoming theocratic hell ala Iran. Society as a whole needs to lighten up or face the prospect of taking orders from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell.

Therefore, anything that pushes the boundaries and erodes the "moral fabric of our nation" is something that I wholeheartedly endorse. (Provided it doesn't involve coercion or fraud.) Every gay couple who wants to get married is a blow for equality. Every stupid "blue book" law regarding "obscenity" that's struck down is a victory for freedom. Every boob "accidentally" flashed during the Super Bowl Half-time show is a well deserved smack in the face to busybodies and prudes whom I used to worship.

[A_Real_American]

"Ha ha ha ha. Oh no, tits on TV. I suspect German or French or Dutch or UK TV would give Americans heart attacks (Benny Hill - I know they play that on syndication in the U.S.); tits on TV are common."

The BBC is taxpayer-subsidized and the French government, I believe, has an official culture policy to protect themselves from supposedly inferior American programs. If you want British and French TV to be filthy, why not let the free market do the job, instead of having the government make it filthy?

[rst]

Fyodor the point you make is lost on the moralists - to them, it is the government's responsibility to protect them from things that upset them. If the government does not protect them, then all the things that upset them will be forced onto them, because private endeavors are evil and government is good. The weak become addicted to the notion of government, because it "empowers" them. Much like crack.

[Erasmus]

A gallimaufry of nonsensical opinions and daffy, juvenile schtick is the only (only!) way to describe this thread. Politically, it boils down to this: the government should not have the right to enact legislation that would proscribe so-called "indecent" or "obscene" content from airing on national television at certain times of day. The regulatory agencies of the government shouldn't be permitted by the people of the United States to "undertake a thorough investigation" of the Super Bowl halftime show because their participation is unnecessary and a waste of tax payer dollars. It's a contractual issue between CBS/Viacom and MTV, plain and simple. Cast your vote with your TV remote and move on.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Mark, en toto, yours are the funniest collection of rants that I've seen stitched together in one thread.

What about people who are pro rational values

There's no such thing as values. If you're "pro rational values" as you phrase it, and by that I believe you mean you are a post-enlightenment humanist, you don't believe in truth per se. You believe in what scientifically proven facts you know, right now, and if those facts can't be falsified, you don't believe in them. How can you possibly have values, if all you believe in is facts?

Therefore, anything that pushes the boundaries and erodes the "moral fabric of our nation" is something that I wholeheartedly endorse.

That makes you a Marcusian, or a Gramscian. They were rabid marxist revolutionaries, by the way. That makes you not a libertarian, but a leftist / anarchist, at least at this stage. Marcuse and Gramsci believed that once the oppressive social structures - like churches, traditional values, jails and governments - were destroyed, then we could get to building the radical egalitarian leftist wonderland that Marx dreamt of. You're in great company there, pal.

I was faced with the reality that the "morals" and "values" that I was brought up with were not just nonsensical, but downright oppressive.

Yeah, that golden rule thing, about treating others decently... what a crock of shite that was. And the not sleeping with your neighbor's wife. Fuck that. Er, her, I mean. And not stealing. Or lying. I much prefer my neighborhood, where we steal each other's power tools, lie about it, shoot at each other and try to sleep with each other's wives. Much better recipe for the good life, that... If you can't take it, fuck you, we're rational men in this part of town. Screw traditional values. And your neighbor...

Every boob "accidentally" flashed during the Super Bowl Half-time show is a well deserved smack in the face to busybodies and prudes whom I used to worship.

Mark, I'd submit to you that if you were worshiping prudes and busybodies, you were probably missing the whole point of your religion. It kind of makes me wonder about the quality of your rational values there...

[dhex]

if nothing else, this entire thread is a testament to the power of repression to create controversy in something most people recieved their most basic nutrition and comfort from.

that's a lot more interesting than political extrapolations. tits have a very real power in american culture and its interesting to see how that power is overemphasized by some and degraded by others.

i don't know which category i fall into yet.

while i don't think the super bowl is a inalieable right or anything, i could see how someone watching with their kid would be pissed. but at the same time, your situation shouldn't be more of a factor than someone else's when you're dealing with an entirely voluntary medium.

anyone who decides to live contrary to what's largely assumed to be american "culture" (which i think includes everyone anywhere in some way) is going to have hard spots here and there. it's part of the territory of being alive.

[JSM]

Anybody notice how sucky the football annoucers were? I hope the NFL won't allow another halftime show like that by moving the big game over to Fox or ABC/ESPN. Disney halftime show anyone? Maybe the little mermaid will flash some tuna!

[MJ]

"I look back at my life and I see just what a stuck up prudish asshole I was..."-Mark S.

And now you're a stuck up libertine..., I am trying to figure out how this is an improvement.

Swinging from being a fanatic on one end to a fanatic on the other leads to believing such nonsense as "Such a culture can not survive without becoming theocratic hell ala Iran". Please, our culture has been much more "prudish" than it is today and it did not lead to theocracy, and the drift away from moral standards has been, at best, a decidely mixed bag. The move away from stable marriages and families has not been a good development in our culture. Mindlessly overturning cultural norms in favor of an "anything goes" amoral ethic is incredibly foolish.

[dj of raleigh]

The act was a violation of trust.
The fact that there is an uproar means that,
that no one watched expecting to see such,
and as they say,
fool me once, shame on you,
fool me twice, shame on me.

Now when Justin and Janet are on the Grammy Show,
plus Madonna and Britanny, who isn't going to think,
that something outrageous is going to happen,
but not unexpected, and this time, CBS can't excuse themselves.
I expect that Justin and Janet, if they were scheduled,
won't be on the grammies, NOT live at least.
This half-ass show sure set up the viewers for Grammy night,
and it set up Janet for the release of her new CD.

Maybe we are all pawns and puppets of the media.

[SteveInClearwater]

Breast?

My favorite moment of the halftime show was seeing former Chicago Bear great William Refrigerator Perry back in action...playing drums for Kid Rock...

🙂

[Mark S.]

"Swinging from being a fanatic on one end to a fanatic on the other leads to believing such nonsense as "Such a culture can not survive without becoming theocratic hell ala Iran"."

This from the side of the political spectrum that gave us "Extremism in the defense of liberty..."

"Please, our culture has been much more "prudish" than it is today and it did not lead to theocracy, and the drift away from moral standards has been, at best, a decidely mixed bag."

I don't know, but every time I hear some pronouncement from Pat, Jerry, or Rush, about how everyone SHOULD be acting and what the government SHOULD do to enforce that view, I'm VERY happy I'm a gun owner. I'm surprised that more conservatives aren't anti-gun.

"The move away from stable marriages and families has not been a good development in our culture."

I'm sure every spouse who has lived with domestic abuse and every child molested by a parent would disagree with you on that.

"Mindlessly overturning cultural norms in favor of an "anything goes" amoral ethic is incredibly foolish."

Excuse me, but at what point did I saw that I was amoral? I do have a belief in right and wrong. It's just my moral code is based on a rational, secular view of humanity and not a load of mythological mumbo-jumbo (i.e. religion).

[Jean Bart]

A Real Stupid American,

So Americans are afraid of tits, eh? 🙂

I'm sorry, but this entire bruhaha only reinforces ideas about Americans being prudes. Is this why women who breast-feed in malls are verbally attacked in America?

[MALAK]

Careful son, these things usually travel in pairs.

[Mark S.]

Stephen:

"There's no such thing as values. If you're "pro rational values" as you phrase it..."

Actually, if you had bothered to read a few posts down, you know that this was a typo and I posted a correction.

"That makes you a Marcusian, or a Gramscian. They were rabid marxist revolutionaries, by the way. That makes you not a libertarian, but a leftist / anarchist..."

Wow! I thought red baiting had gone out with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I don't disagree that a civilization doesn't need a set a standards that all (if not, then most) people need to subscribe to. I just don't agree with what the cultural right thinks they should be. I want rules that make sense, not based on a pile of religious mumbo-jumbo. I want rules that maximize and protect individual liberty of all people and punishes those who violate that freedom. I don't want a list of "thou shalt nots" that toss people in jail for having sex in a way that the high priests and Pharisees don't approve of. If that is case, and you have a society based on that, then for the good of all that society needs to be changed or brought down.

How does that make me a communist? You aren't going to meet a lot of commies who want to privatize social security, support free trade and property rights, and abolish income taxation.

"Yeah, that golden rule thing, about treating others decently... what a crock of shite that was. And the not sleeping with your neighbor's wife. Fuck that. Er, her, I mean. And not stealing. Or lying. I much prefer my neighborhood, where we steal each other's power tools, lie about it, shoot at each other and try to sleep with each other's wives. Much better recipe for the good life, that... If you can't take it, fuck you, we're rational men in this part of town. Screw traditional values. And your neighbor..."

Excuse me, but you don't need to believe in some nonexistent sky-tyrant to be a good person or to have order in society. There are secular reasons against theft, murder. and rape. Everything else you stated is no bodies busy but their own.

If the "traditional values" you supported didn't lead to Texas women being thrown in jail for selling vibrators, or mounds of Harry Potter books being burned, or gay night clubs being bombed and gynecologists being murdered in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, then I wouldn't have a problem with them. However, since they have, then indeed, "screw traditional values."

[Mark S.]

Whoops, another error: Everything else you stated is no bodies busy but their own.

CORRECTION: Everything else you stated is no one business but their own.

Sometimes, I'm my own worst enemey.

[Mark S.]

GAH! I'm so hacked off I need corrections for my corrections:

Everything else you stated is no one's business but their own.

[Tripp]

If it was "accidental," why bother wearing the nipple-concealing, decorative stick-on? I'm fairly certain that glittery pasties aren't high-fashion under-accessories ...

[Warren]

Yeah, I think its becoming clear this morning that it was planned, but there is no way the NFL knew - never, never would that organization have approved.

My whole reaction is to view the event as pathetic - is this really what passes for edgy? The whole thing feels more like a silly adolescent prank, and a lame one at that. The funniest image I have is of a bunch of CBS and MTV suits planning the event while laughing like Beavis and Butthead.

[Gino]

Look at the close-ups on the Drudge Report. It looks like a piercing to me.

[Mark S.]

OOOOOOH MY GOD! It's a bare human breast! There will be rapine and murder in the streets, civilization will crumble, and the children... WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?

Whether or not it was intentional, why is this even an issue. I just heard on the radio that the morality-mongers at the FCC intend to launch a "full investigation." WHY? Can someone please tell me what possible harm (real harm please, no religious, anti-sex bull shit) does partial nudity (or full, for that matter) inflict on society?

Hell, it wasn't even a good looking breast.

[rich]

It wasn't exactly a pastie -- janet's nipple can be clearly seen through the center of the ring. photographic evidence available here:

http://www.dazereader.com/24000035.htm

[joe]

"CBS's main New York switchboard was immediately bombarded with complaints about the stunt, network sources said late Sunday."

Immediately? Get a f***ing life, people! "My goodness, I have to pick up the phone right this minute!"

[Franklin Harris]

If you're willing to let your kids watch Kid Rock, you have no business complaining about one briefly exoposed boobie.

[Shady O'Grady]

I hear officials in Afghanistan are starting an investigation over the showing of Jessica Simpson's face and hair before 10 PM.

[Warren]

"Hell, it wasn't even a good looking breast."

huh? Looks good to me, but what do I know, I'm just an overweight middle-aged geek. I hate implants though (don't get me started). I thought Miss Jackson's boobs were all god given. Anyone know the story on Janet's Jugs? I'll say this for her, if she's been under the knife she's got a much better cutter than the one her brother uses, yeeesh!

[Overlord]

Dear Mark S.

Every society has to draw the line someplace.
We can debate where the line should be drawn, but it has to be drawn. If not, then how about having the German cannibal castrate his "Lover" at the next super bowl. Or about gang-raping a five year old, or bestiality, or crap eating on stage. Or why not go whole hog and have gladiator fights and slave girls being raped to death by trained animals.
Remember too, that the Super bowl is watched around the World, this makes great publicity for America in conservative cultures like the Middle East. If they thought we were the "Great Satan" and a threat to their culture before, what do they think now?
It's nonsense ideas like your's that make Libertarianism into a laughing stock.

[Lakeside104]

Definitely a stunt, just like the Brittany/Madonna kiss, and whatever tittilation will come to the infantile minds of today on the upcoming Grammys. Come on, Janet Jackson??? Nothing like a little bare silicone to pump up her dismal career... then she lipsynchs two fifteen year old songs. Sex for the sheeple.

The bathroom fodder advertising was just a tick below that boobilonics... with the exception of the classy Cadillac ads, the well shot Ford GT40 ads, and the AOL clips, the ads where crude enough that even Beavis & Buttball would probably groan.

Lakeside104

[Mark S.]

"huh? Looks good to me, but what do I know, I'm just an overweight middle-aged geek. I hate implants though (don't get me started). I thought Miss Jackson?s boobs were all god given."

Hmmmmmm... let me look again... Well, it could be the bodice Jackson is wearing has it crammed in such a way that it looks unflattering. That, and I can't say I'm turned on by body pericings (they look PAINFUL).

On the other hand, we can certainly agree that I'd rather see Janet naked than Jacko (shudder).

[Russ D]

You'd think the CBS switchboard would be flooded with calls complaining about what a terrible play-by-play announcer Greg Gumbel is. He tried to guess the outcome of damn near every play, and guessed wrong most of the time.

[mak_nas]

We can debate where the line should be drawn, but it has to be drawn.

it does?

for me, the whole event represented one more step toward the ultimate destination: triple-x porn and gladiatorial combat on prime-time network tv.

don't pretend you don't want it, people.

[Liberty Lover]

Not an accident. It was choreographed to match the words of the song: "I'll get you naked by the end of this song." sang Justin Timberlake.

Fellow liberty lovers: it was stupid because it was on a network, which has special rules and an expectation. This is not a 1st amendment issue or a "oh big deal a bare boob" issue. Stupid things like this invite MORE government regulation because it was so outrageous. Even a free market man like Powell at the FCC felt compelled to act.
So, how was the football game?

[dhex]

people who can mention a bare breast and anything to do with murder or bodily harm are living examples of why the western religious tradition is such a drag.

you gotta give it to a control system which has convinced people their own bodies are bad. that's fucking smooth.

[rst]

What with the integration of Victoria's Secret into the Super Bowl festivities, I'm not sure how warranted is the furor over Jackson's bare titties. Like a 3 mil shred of fabric really makes that much of a difference in the old folks moral playground? Nigga please.

I fervently hope this does not lead to some silly rep drumming up support for some kind of FCC regulatory overhaul.

All that aside, the Super Bowl is supposedly a family show...

[TWC]

Warren....

Dude I wouldn't do Janet Jackson with your wee-knee......much less my own. You can have all my share of Janet's boobies and her suck music as well.--VBG

[asdf]

I for one welcome our new troll Overlord

[Warren]

Overlord,
It's neo-fascists like you that make my drug use a mental health necessity instead of the recreational luxury it should be.
"how about having the German cannibal castrate his "Lover" at the next super bowl. Or about gang-raping a five-year old, or bestiality, or crap eating on stage. Or why not go whole hog and have gladiator fights and slave girls being raped to death by trained animals."

OK how about it? Why not? You don't like it, don't watch it. You think that's so revolting that it would disgust everyone with a modicum of propriety? You're probably right, and that's enough to keep it from ever being shown. The fact that it is so repulsive is it's own censor, the only one that's ever needed.

You want to exercise you freedom of speech complaining to network execs and organizing protests, knock yourself out. If you think that makes you a superior human being, that's just pathetic. You want to "draw the line" by codifying your pinhead sensibilities into law, move to Saudi Arabia. You and OSB sound like soul mates.

[Jennifer]

Overlord--
Are you seriously saying that you can't see the difference between an exposed breast and televised showings of real-life rape? Wow.

Is there really anybody out there who had their innocence shattered, in that they had no idea what a nipple looked like until Janet forced a rude awakening? It's like those people who write "f*ck you, b*tch" instead of "fuck you, bitch;" who exactly do they think they're fooling here?

[Mark S.]

Heh heh... Yeah, a stroke would be inconvenient, wouldn't it? What can I say? It's not easy being an amoral libertine.

[MALAK]

It's not the stroke, so much as the spasms afterwards.

[JD]

One quick observation about the various Canadians, Europeans, whatevers, laughing about how prudish Americans are - there are approximately 260 million Americans who _didn't_ get wigged out over Janet's tit, we just laughed or grumbled, and moved on. Don't paint all of us as prudes just because there are some busybodies among us. When you have 265 million people exposed to the same culture, some of them are going to be intolerant loudmouths, and that still adds up to a lot of people, and unfortunately it's the loudmouths (on any issue) who usually get things their way.

And hey, if you think we look silly...now you know how we feel about you every day. ;^)

[dhex]

i disagree JD. if that were the case certain classes of laws would not only have fallen apart a while ago, those public moralists would have been laughed out of the public square by now.

earlier someone had mentioned that privately, americans dig smut and only publicly cluck their tongues. i think that might be close to what actually happens

[Dan]

also, one has to wonder what sort of moron sits in their couch and not only watches programming they don't like and/or find offensive, but then mentally catalog what they didn't enjoy.

That would be a valid complaint if it was called "The Tit Bowl". It's a football game; you don't tune into a football game expecting to see nudity.

Which is too bad; if I thought the cheerleaders might actually get naked at some point, I'd watch a lot more football. 🙂

[dhex]

yeah, but anyone who'd seen a promo for the superbowl halftime show knew there was gonna be plenty of kid rock and other 'orrible assaults upon the ears, eyes and community standards.

froz actually chronicled the entire halftime show, even though it was offensive to him.

that just don'ta make no sense.

[Stephen Fetchet]

So anon, what you are saying is that setting any standard re: decency (or for that matter having sex in public) is identical to crushing gays under walls, and forcing women into burkas under pain of death?

Honestly - your argument works great in a lot of contexts.

"What's the difference between banning the shooting of your neighbors, and banning the shooting of guns entirely?" The slippery slope argument is useful sometimes, but your equating the slope to a cliff, where one is either on or off, doesn't work.

And Mark, who said I'm calling you a communist? I'm not. Nor am I redbaiting. I'm saying that your statements put you in league with the neo-marxists Gramsci and Marcuse, who were really left wing anarchists as much as anything. To review, they thought it was really important to shame moralists, to break down all social conventions, to get rid of silly laws locking people up for crimes, to get rid of all the squares, generally. Then, once society was turned completely upside down, we'd be living in a radically egalitarian utopia, where everybody could do his own thing, man, and it'd be just like a big groovy commune.

It's the philosophy that underlies the odious Port Huron Statement, and many of the ridiculously bad left wing ideas now flogged in liberal arts colleges around the country. Though, to their credit, the liberal arts schools have done a pretty good job of hiring old line communists too. So they do have some intellectual diversity. I'd reccommend that you go read some Marcuse, and then read some Hayek on the importance of evolved social institutions and customs, and see whether you agree with the libertarian or the revolutionary more.

[JD]

dhex: Exactly what are you disagreeing with? My point is that out of the millions of people who watched the Super Bowl, how many actually called or wrote to complain? When you have 100 million viewers, or whatever figure they're claiming, you're definitely going to have some people who complain about any even slightly offensive stunt, and with millions of viewers, even 1/10 of 1% responding means thousands of phone calls and letters. As for the commentators, NFL officials, etc., I think that they have to play along or risk becoming the new primary target of the Boobie Brigade. I don't deny that there's this strain of thought in American culture; indeed, that's the wellspring of the bluenoses. What I do deny is that they're the mainstream of American culture. (Besides, how many people are actually going to bother to write a letter saying "Oh, lay off, it's not that big a deal"? The other side's got little incentive to speak up here.) The angry nutcase brigade always gets ink all out of proportion to their size.

[Dan]

I'm sorry, but this entire bruhaha only reinforces ideas about Americans being prudes.

That's why we keep Canada around; they're the fussy neighbor that makes us look sexy and cool. 🙂

Anyway, there's plenty of nakedness on TV; it's just segregated to the cable channels. Broadcast TV is "family" TV; the good stuff's on HBO.

[crimethink]

What ever happened to the six-second delay, and the "panic button" used by broadcasters to momentarily cut off transmission of unpredictable "naughty" moments?

It woulda come in handy in this case.

[Phil]

Is this why women who breast-feed in malls are verbally attacked in America?

Yes, yes it is. In fact, I'm confident that it happens often enough for you to use it to make a nasty generalization about Americans.

[froz]

I'm not much of a prude, but when I look at the these elements of the broadcast, in the context of watching a Super Bowl, I get pretty offended:
The Lyrics of most of the "songs"
Kid Rock in a flag poncho (seeing and hearing him always makes me feel like he needs a good beating).
Nelly grabbing his crotch repeatedly (what's the matter little boy?)
JJ's snap off bra cup and "ooh that's gotta hurt" nipple piercing
Justin Timberlake (another one in need of bodily harm, especially in light of his lame "costume malfunction" alibi).

I see all the comments here that say, "what's the big deal?" "Who cares?" Well you don't care, you are probably a survivor|bachelor|joe millionaire|bachelorette|big brother|insert lame reality show here watching bovine.

If I choose to watch the Stupor Bowl, I want to see football (and maybe some better than average commercials), but what did I get this year? Many patently offensive advertisements, advocacy ads (despite CBS's laughable claims to the contrary) and the worst half-time show in history. It lasted all of 12 minutes of a 35 minute break (probably for the best, given its contents).

Those of you who seem to think this is acceptable are forgetting that we have public airwaves. The networks are obligated by law to serve the public interest. But, then again, a strict interpretation of the rules would preclude the NFL from copyrighting any aspect of a sporting event, or showing me JJ's tit whether I wanted to see it or not. They can all feign ignorance, but MTV made it clear both before and after the show that they knew what was happening, before and after the fact. It was only after the complaints started that CBS shed crocodile tears, the NFL fingered MTV, and MTV got amnesia.

Currently, how anything about network television serves the public interest escapes me. I say, kill your television.

[Steve in CO]

Hey, Mark S. I think I dated your sister! 😀

Catholic girls... mmmm. Just kidding of course, if you actually have a sister.

Seriously though, I did date a Catholic school girl for several years, it was so sad sometimes to see the hang ups she was forced to believe (or profess) cause her so much psychic pain. Probably the worst thing her parents did to her, besides expose her to spousal abuse, was insisting she use one wash cloth for her face and body, and another for her "area."

:-/

[Isaac Bartram]

Steve in CO

Geez and I thought Mormon girls had it bad.:)
I married (and divorced) one.:(

[dhex]

jd - i guess what i'm saying is there are a whole lot of moralists, but most of them are lazy and pretending they're not moralists.

i.e. i've met plenty of ex-catholics who were royally fucked in the head but in complete denial of their catholobotomization.

which is a pretty righteous word, ya gotta admit.

[Isaac Bartram]

Actually on NPR tonite I heard some bozo at the FCC saying they had "tens of thousands of calls".

Whoa, "tens of thousands" out of how many million viewers? Remember self righteous busy-bodies are noisy and active in ways that appear to make their numbers look greater. Maybe "we" aren't as upset about this as everyone thought.

[dhex]

"Well you don't care, you are probably a survivor|bachelor|joe millionaire|bachelorette|big brother|insert lame reality show here watching bovine."

or, one just doesn't care about tv because they don't watch it very much, if at all.

or, one is amused that a booby has created such uproar.

or, one is confused as to how that one second of booby could be considered damaging or even offensive to anyone, young or old.

or, one is disturbed that anyone would advocate murder against household appliances, being both inert and, well, not alive.

or, one wonders why anyone would watch the halftime show in the first place. this may be the most murky mystery of this sordid affair.

[dhex]

also, one has to wonder what sort of moron sits in their couch and not only watches programming they don't like and/or find offensive, but then mentally catalog what they didn't enjoy.

judging from public and governmental reaction, such morons make up the bulk of this fair (if feeble-minded) country.

[Timon]

What's the Super Bowl?

[anon]

Stephen Fetchet:

"Does anybody have the right to get together with others and determine what type of community they want to live in?"

Then, why do you get bent out of shape when some communities decide that women should be covered from head to toe when they are in public?

I say bring in the Commission for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. This threat to the moral fibre of our society must be stopped at once.

[MJ]

"This from the side of the political spectrum that gave us "Extremism in the defense of liberty..."-Mark S.

Yes, your point is? You're not defending liberty, you're simply being hateful towards people who disagree with your anti-religion viewpoint.

"I'm sure every spouse who has lived with domestic abuse and every child molested by a parent would disagree with you on that."

Are you seriously saying that all the kids who had to go through the pain of growing up in single parent households due to divorce or the sexual irresponsibility of their parents is justified by the small minority of kids who have been abused by a parent? Furthermore, I think it has conclusively proven that it is far more likely for a child to be abused in a broken home situation than it is for one who has married biological parents. So, you're just wrong here.

"Excuse me, but at what point did I saw that I was amoral?"

Well, how about here? "Therefore, anything that pushes the boundaries and erodes the "moral fabric of our nation" is something that I wholeheartedly endorse."

Though "amoral" in this case may be a bit generous, you actually appear to be calling for an outright immoral ethic.

"It's just my moral code is based on a rational, secular view of humanity and not a load of mythological mumbo-jumbo (i.e. religion)."

What's passing for a "moral code" in your case seems to be based on an overwhelming hatred of everything you raised to believe in. Fine, that's your choice, but you've gone from a strict Catholic to a fundamentalist atheist, which is even a more annoyingly self-righteous philosophical breed than your most virulent Southern Baptist. At least when they come at you, they're polite about it. Hell, Larry Flynt considers Falwell a friend now.

Look, I grew up Catholic as well, and while I am not a particularly religious man, I have respect for those whose faith is deeper, and I think the Catholic moral code taken as a whole satifies a rational way of dealing with the world. So, to put it in a nutshell, I just don't buy your BS, Mark.

[fyodor]

Good point, anon. Basically, the right answer to that question is that it depends on what you really mean by that. As long as everyone in that "community" is voluntarily participating in whatever rules are constructed to make it whatever "type" of community it's being "determined" to be, well then yeah, sure, fine, go for it. As soon as coercion enters the picture (besides as a response to violations of rights), then the answer becomes no. Got it?

Y'know, looking at the pictures in the paper again today it's occurred to me that the worst thing about the incident is that Janet & Justin have such serious looks on their faces that it doesn't look like they're having any fun. I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I smile big-time during sex. And I like to think that's the way it oughtter be!

[rst]

we have public airwaves.

We have no such thing. Don't confuse our republic with a democracy, nor the things that the republic holds "in trust" with any tokens of popular sovereignty. You get to vote, and that's it.

or, one is confused as to how that one second of booby could be considered damaging or even offensive to anyone, young or old.

This is the crux of the issue I think. The government cannot improve on anything by getting involved at this point. What are they going to do? Fine somebody? Like getting a few thousand from some millionaires is going to make them think twice about publicity stunts and/or improving the costuming process? The publicity buzz this has generated for MTV - the people who appreciate the tit - is worth more than anything the FCC could legally levy. And yet half of the country is poised to spend loot we don't have chasing down two seconds of tit.

[sam]

"I say bring in the Commission for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. This threat to the moral fibre of our society must be stopped at once."

The commish has already been corrupted by scandalous betting on the superbowl. Everyone is perceived dirty by those looking to take their place.

[mojo jojo]

I just love the fact that this was the most Tivo'd event ever in the history of Tivo! It seems Tivo owners are not as prudish as the average american.

[dj of raleigh]

> what sort of moron sits in their couch and not only watches programming they don't like and/or find offensive, but then mentally catalog what they didn't enjoy.

[rst]

It seems Tivo owners are not as prudish as the average american.

Deeper than that, it indicates that Americans in general put on a publicly prudish face while privately having less of a problem with the minor godless vices which assail their fragile senses. If you are letting your child watch 22 grown men pound the shit out of each other, bracketed by lingerie models, cheerleaders wearing only slightly more than Janet's exposed breast, Kid Rock, P Diddy, odes to flatulence in the ads, and Panthers defensive coordinator's "that's a fucking bullshit spot!" over and over again, but you can't take a necessary 15 seconds to explain to your kid, "that's inappropriate, and they (NFL, etc.) shouldn't have done that," then your lack of parenting skills are far more of a problem to this country than 2 seconds of some idiot's tit on a tube. Some of us are concerned about actual problems that cause actual difficulty in actual lives for actual people. Whether in the long run you're having a hard time reconciling your society with your god or buddha is not something the rest of us should have to be concerned about, and certainly not an effort we should be spending our time and money on. This is of even less priority to necessary function than gay marriage.

[MALAK]

Mark S. Try decaf, friend. I'm picturing a vein on the side of your head about ready to 'pop'. And we all know what happens when things inadvertantly 'pop' don't we?

[dhex]

touche.

i just realized i have no idea who won the superbowl.

yaaaaaaaaaayyyyy booooobs!

[dhex]

"Fine, that's your choice, but you've gone from a strict Catholic to a fundamentalist atheist, which is even a more annoyingly self-righteous philosophical breed than your most virulent Southern Baptist."

i dunno man...that's pretty close to a tie.

the atheists internation or american atheist groups tend to the stupid (i'd put some of the skeptical enquirer crowd in there as well)

at the same time, i think back to stories friends who went to catholic grammar and high schools being given the "masturbation makes god cry" presentation.

what i've never understood is how that could induce anything but the most absurd degrees of hubris and megalomania in a 12-year-old boy. something at that age you do every 15 minutes if you have the chance causes injury and affront to the cause of all things? shit. a literal loaded weapon in yer pants.

obviously, i don't factor in the shame and guilt stuff, but i didn't get it back then and i still don't really understand it now.