« fool me once shame on you... | Main | A hawk in dove's clothing »

February 1, 2004

bared super breast bowl

Janet showed during family dinner hour what many infants see up close and personal every meal-time. So what? Get over it. I can't believe this is news. That news brings up my all time favorite inequity between the sexes... Why has the female breast become so taboo on television in America? No one blinks an eye when a man with huge pecks is shown "topless" during family teevee time. It's a teat, folks. Young children see them all the time. Maybe if we didn't make it seem like such a secretive and private thing, we wouldn't have so many breast-centric men out there. Besides, we freely show the bovine, feline and canine varieties on teevee. Let's just let go of this this bizarre hang up once and for all.

Posted by Moxie at February 1, 2004 11:14 PM |icon_su.gifStumble It! |85x10-digg-link.gif | del.icio.us

Comments

Ugh, America and sex. A breast is a breast.

Posted by: Tiffany Stone at February 2, 2004 1:33 AM

I was raised on a bottle. Maybe that's why I'm so bitter.

Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at February 2, 2004 2:40 AM

I've heard theories about that Paul!

Posted by: Moxie at February 2, 2004 2:44 AM

Supposedly, according to Justin, it was a "wardrobe malfunction" and was "not intentional and is regrettable."

And according to MTV, it was "unrehearsed, unplanned, completely unintentional and was inconsistent with assurances we had about the content of the performance."

Sure. And Janet always wears pasties. Uh-huh. Tell me another one, Justin, CBS and MTV.

What really offended me? That MTV/CBS would think I'd be dumb enough to believe that excuse. C'mon. We all know Janet sorely needed some exposure. Just didn't think they meant the Playboy kind...

Posted by: greg at February 2, 2004 6:05 AM

Breast-centric men?

No woman -- I have yet ever to meet one -- understands male sexuality.

No matter how much tittie-exposure men (MEN, not little boys/toddlers) are subjected to, no matter how innured they thus may become toward bewitching charms of tittie-ness, hetero men always, always, inevitably "rebound" . . . oh, about four or five hours after having spent a day (or several days) of bare-breast saturation at South Beach, or whatever European strand (any you care to name).

I've spent enough time at European beaches (Denmark and Germany) to know that European men, who see more tit action than one could imagine, are, oddly enough -- miraculously! -- just as enamored, solicitous, and eye-gazing of women's physiques -- yes, even, especially, of their boobies -- as any red-blooded American lad. Evidence thereof is prominently available (I'm talking especially of the various banter and guy talk about "so and so" out on the dance-floor, "so and so" over at the bar, etc.).

Face it. Men are horny goats.

The incontrovertible fact is men just plain think about "it" more often, they are variety oriented {i.e. spread their DNA/semen} in a way womean simply aren't {the perfect "control" for understanding this: why are gays so promiscuous, and yet lesbians so incredibly monogamous??}, and men's sexuality is visually oriented while women's sexuality is, well, who knows??? . . . . vastly complex. I suppose I'd say "atmospherically" oriented . . . which . . . . has all kinds of numinous welter of subterraneous, esoteric, mercurial meanings and connotations. That's part of what great poets (say, Shakespeare) are for; a special sort of diver to fathom these.

Posted by: Robert at February 2, 2004 7:35 AM

I'm far more offended at the fashion models posing as musicians during last night's "entertainment"...

Posted by: EcoDude at February 2, 2004 8:16 AM

Actually, I found it to be an annoyingly scripted plea for attention.

And FYI, that's not a pasty.

Posted by: ErikZ at February 2, 2004 8:55 AM

They didn't know about it....sure. That's why they had an OFFICIAL statement online in under two minutes.

Posted by: Da Goddess at February 2, 2004 9:55 AM

horny as goats. mmmm, yep. that pretty much sums us up. bleat bleat.

on that note, i am all for womens breasts being uninhibited as much as possible. in fact, i think there should be a new federal department of breast equality. i, of course, will sacrifice my career to insure this department receives due attention. i could issue liscenses for people to expose the twins in public. i would of course have to conduct aperiodic inspections. no MEN, we receive entirely too much attention already. and for the ladies who i find lacking, i could authorize federally funded corrective surgery. in the interests of erradicating inequity of course.

yes mox, i was a bottle baby as well. does it show? i've also lived in europe for almost 9 years. nude beaches and all. i am still infatuated with womens bodies. i still agree with you.

bleat bleat.

horny as goats ... that was just such a great line.....

Posted by: mlah at February 2, 2004 10:03 AM

Hum.... I thought about getting over this law and taboo of not allowing woman to be topless in public. Then I thouhgt about the people that may take advantage of it. (The 'no war' nude pics come to mind.) There are some people whose face, let alone their boobys, I do not want to see. That and the long term affects to woman being topless/braless.... Keep in mind that I am more of a leg guy myself.

Posted by: Dark_Indy at February 2, 2004 11:04 AM

so, like, am i the only one with his mind in the gutter who's surprised that the really obvious creepy moxie-stalker comment hasn't been posted yet?. . .

Posted by: bloopy at February 2, 2004 12:13 PM

maybe everybody here has a little too much self pride to be the idiot to post it. or nobody wants to post it out of respect to mox?

and really she is right. bfd. i was shocked janet did it. i was shocked it was on the superbowl. i was shocked at the questions which started pouring from the little kids. but really, bfd.

Posted by: mlah at February 2, 2004 12:50 PM

Definitely not a pastie. That's a nipple shield held in place by a nipple piercing.

Drudge had the closeup showing how it all worked, don't know if it's still there.

Posted by: Kevin at February 2, 2004 12:50 PM

I'm sure it was just an accident sweetie, but doesn't it make you wonder how Jacko's new Muslim friends might have reacted to seeing his sisters "curves"? We must have a probe into this matter immediately.

Posted by: d-rod at February 2, 2004 12:53 PM

Ummm, what creepy moxie-stalker comment??
As DaGoddess says, if you are going to stalk me, do it properly.

Posted by: Moxie at February 2, 2004 2:14 PM

Moxie: This is a first for us...I agree with you...get over it media go sell time for something useful. The entire half time show was in bad taste

That flag rag on Kid Rock was a real tastful statement. But that flag...hell I just swelled with nationalist pride when I saw that. It made me wanted to nuke some children in another country.

Oh and who could forget (or remember) that the backup dancers for Janet were dressed from Clockwork Orange...original.

PS: Everything is scripted (i.e. WMD, Janet, AOL, MTV, etc.) one big script an spin to an empty headed America. An easy target...but what to I know.

Posted by: Mark at February 2, 2004 4:49 PM

the creepy moxie-stalker comment is the one where someone would talk about their creepy-crawly halloween costume made up of celery stalks that spell out "moxie's gonna get ya!". . .

or it could be the one where someone points out that there's this one mega-popular a-list female blogger who, y'know, could maybe start a meme by actually *demonstrating* that teats shouldn't be such a secretive and private thing. . .

i'd name names but from what i've heard she wields so much power among the blogosphere elite that she could have my my sad little excuse for a blog crushed with a flick of her wrist and have me castrated with an arch of her right eyebrow. . .

apparently arching her left eyebrow means "get me a martini" so bartenders tend to get nervous when she sultrily enters their domain 'cuz there can be a bit of confusion as to whether it's *her* left or *their* left. . .

and when she flares her nostrils?. . . hoo boy, you don't *even* wanna know what *that* means. . .

Posted by: bloopy at February 2, 2004 6:29 PM

Maybe I'm just a little naive, but I think a bigger story is why all the entertainers were playing old songs, some of them very poorly. You had Nelly and P WhateverHisNameIsThisWeek lip synching, once again poorly, to a song that is two years old. Shit, even Ray Charles could see that those two were lip synching their songs. I wonder if they do that in concert, I suspect not, so why lip synch when 100 million people will be laughing at you for doing so? Then on comes Kid Rock, who was at least live without a net, playing a song that goes back to '99.

Then the show topper, Janet Jackson gets on stage and plays Rythym Nation, a song that was big 14 fucking years ago. Shit that song was hot when
I was in college.

This is the best that MTV could come up with? Some entertainers playing old songs and then to add some flair a titty shot to get the beer and pretzel guys to beat their meat at the end of the show.

This is proof positive that M-TV is totally irrelevent these days and definately has their thumb on the pulse of America.

For the record I thought Kid Rock bit kicked ass, at least he took and old song and made it new.

ds

Posted by: Dimitrios at February 2, 2004 8:15 PM

If you ask me, it's just a tempest in a D cup. (Ducks and runs for cover)

Posted by: Jonathan at February 6, 2004 9:06 PM

I disagree. Janet's nipple exposure was in extremely poor taste, and should not have occurred on Network TV. Let her expose herself on cable, where people expect it.
It's not like parents were warned that partial nudity could be expected during the Super Bowl half time and had the opportunity to change the channel.
And, no offense, but Janet Jackson showing her breast with a sheriff's shaped nipple ring has nothing at all to do with the acceptance of breast feeding in public, which I am all for. I breastfed my son until he was 19 months old - way back in the middle 80's.

It is a BFD for many families, and their morality should be respected.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at February 8, 2004 6:44 PM