Janet Jackson's Breast

According to MTV on Jan. 28:

"I don't think the Super Bowl has ever seen a performance like this," Duldulao added. "The dancing is great. She's more stylized, she's more feminine, she's more a woman as she dances this time around. There are some shocking moments in there too. It's a lot of pressure, there's so many creative people and creative artists, you want to make sure everything is different, and I think she's going to do that. She's doing her job well."

So what kind of "shocking moments" did we get?

In case you missed it, Justin Timberlake pulled off a portion of Janets top, exposing her "medallioned" breast for all the world to see.

In my house, we probably wouldn't watch the Super Bowl, but the Boy likes football. So his Dad and I made a point of sitting down and watching the game with him.

THIS IS WHAT PARENTS CAN EXPECT FROM THE HALF TIME SHOW????

WE SIT DOWN TO WATCH A FOOTBALL GAME WITH OUR MIDDLE SCHOOL SON AND WE GET AN EXPOSED BREAST???

Once again I am totally justified in locking out all the broadcast channels on our DISH system.

The Spin has already begun according to Drudge:

Top CBS executives approved a musical skit where Janet Jackson would expose her breast during the MTV-produced Super Bowl half-time concert, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The decision to go forward went to the very top of the network," a well-placed source explained from New York.

After the switchboard lit up with outraged parents it was a different story:

Officially, CBS drew distance from the show: "CBS deeply regrets the incident that occurred during the Super Bowl halftime show," the network said in a release. "We attended all rehearsals throughout the week and there was no indication that any such thing would happen. The moment did not conform to CBS broadcast standards and we would like to apologize to anyone who was offended."

The NFL responds:

Statement by NFL Executive Vice President Joe Browne regarding the Super Bowl halftime show: "We were extremely disappointed by elements of the MTV-produced Halftime show. They were totally inconsistent with assurances our office was given about the show. It's unlikely that MTV will produce another Super Bowl halftime."

Justin Timberlake spins:

"I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Super Bowl," Timberlake said in a statement. "It was not intentional and is regrettable."

They promise in advance "shocking moments", then Timberlake sings:

"I'll get you naked by the end of this song,"

They rip off her shirt, with a portion of her breast conveniently decorated with a nipple medallion.

Now they want us to believe it was an accident????

Yes. I am offended that entertainers would think it justified to "push the envelope" when it's a given that American families are all gathered around the TV set.

Yes. I am offended that they then proceed to insult our intelligence by calling it "unintentional" when it had obviously been planned all along.

In fact, I'm finding the entire Jackson clan pretty offensive overall these days. Let's throw Justin Timberlake in for good measure.

This isn't entertainment, it's poor taste. I've seen both. Low. Class. Poor. Taste.

If this is all they have to show an audience, there's plenty of strip clubs looking for new talent, I'm sure.

Update Feb. 11: FCC Chairman Michael Powell testified before the Senate Commerce Committee today joined by the four other FCC commissioners, all of whom have called for tougher penalties when broadcasters violate indecency laws.

Many bloggers, (I'm too lazy to link them), and some commentors here, (notably many from Australia or Europe), have stated the opinion that the U.S. public overreacted. In fact, they believe we are being very silly to object as we have.

I wrote the post above right after the incident. I'm going to take this opportunity to explain the reasons for my objection.

First, don't assume I'm a prude. It's not that I'm offended by the human anatomy or that I think it hurt my son in some way. In fact, right after he saw the incident live on TV he told his Dad something to the effect of, "that wasn't appropriate."

If you ever question that "sex sells" as they say, all you need to do is look at the Google hits Brainstorming gets on this post. There are days it's been bigger than an Instalanche. Sex does sell. If it didn't, advertisers wouldn't spend millions to show us how we're going to score if we drink this beer, be a magnet if we wear this perfume, etc.

As a result, we're bombarded with sexual suggestion from all fronts. You watch cartoons with your 4 year old and the commercial says, "I'm too sexy for my shirt. Too sexy for my shirt. So sexy it hurts."

At what point do we draw the line? How young is too young to sexualize our children? Why is it when I went to buy a bathing suit for my daughter when she was 7, they were all cut as if they were designed for a woman's body instead of a child's, for example with high cut legs to emphasize the length of the leg.......on a 7 year old???

Why is it Abercromie and Fitch, a store for young people's clothing, prints a soft porn catalog to sell their merchandise?

We know sex sells. Yet, we're surprised after promoting more sexual images that are more explicit at a younger and younger age that the teenage pregnancy rate goes up?

Yes. I know nudity and sexual images are more prevalent in advertisements in other parts of the world, but no one has shown me any benefit.

So I will be proud to be "old fashioned" or whatever you want to call it. I believe that modesty still has a place in the public arena.

The "wardrobe malfunction", (insert hysterical laughter here), was planned by the performers to shock, to generate publicity, and most importantly to sell their product, which is celebrity. Unfortunately, in doing so, they chose to violate US broadcasting laws.

The FCC received over 200,000 complaints because they violated the trust of the American public who sat down with the family to watch a football game. Americans have made it clear that we don't want this line crossed during "family hour" on broadcast television.

Comments

[Steve Gigl]

On a totally self-involved level, events like that make it a lot harder to stay away from blogging! But I'm committed to keeping "quiet" (you didn't know this is quiet?) until at least Wednesday...

I thankfully missed seeing it happen live--I wouldn't be caught dead watching a Superbowl halftime lately--but it strikes me as being, all-around, kind of an ugly incident. He tears off the top, she's dressed in some ugly bondage-looking outfit and has a pointy metal "shield" on... if the aim was to be sexy, I think it missed by about a mile. Not to mention that if I had kids I'd be pissed off beyond belief.

[DC]

You can still be quiet and leave comments. We love comments!

I was at my desk. Hubby was sitting with the Boy, who saw it live. Arrgghhhh!

We literally have most of the channels, except kid channels, History, Learning channel blocked. You know better than to let your kids watch MTV. You'd think they'd have the sense to keep the Super Bowl half way decent.

The denial is even more enraging. I hate having my intelligence insulted.

[JD Mays]

The whole incident added nothing to the halftime show. It just seems kind of pathetic that this is what they do to get attention. I guess it seems easier to them than putting out quality material. As the number of people actually watching tv (especially network tv) continues to decline, you'd think they would realize that this kind of stuff does them no good.

[brett]

this is exactly why I don't have my tv hooked up to anything but the dvd player.. I've already learned that the programming execs are catering to the lowest common denominator.. and they're redrawing the 'acceptable behavior' line every day

they know that sex sells.. at least to the unwashed masses, who require nothing but a cheap thrill and a laugh track.. we're talking about the cheapest-to-produce 'entertainment' there is.. it doesn't require talent (as evident by the choice of Janet and Justin), costly effects, or creativity

if they can redefine entertainment, even over several years, their net profits will skyrocket.. besides, it's not like THEY watch their own crap

as for me, I've got my dvd player.. I kinda miss the History Channel, HGTV and a few others.. and I gave up watching sports years ago during the second baseball player strike.. but I'm happy knowing that I'm not encouraging that garbage (Mtv, Janet and Justin, that is)

[Jo]

Come on people. It was just a breast.

Your president starts a war without reason: nobody complains.
They are showing a woman's breast on television: the world is on fire.

America is one fucked up nation.

[brett]

"Your president starts a war without reason: nobody complains."

uh.. yeah... the only thing wrong with your facts is that they're entirely wrong.. this would be a good example of liberal argument.. take something completely unrelated, and distort it.. causing the opponent to defend the facts, and take the issue on a tangent that has no purpose other than to feed your idiotic rant

America is indeed not perfect.. but I don't see a whole lot of people hopping into 1959 Buicks to go to Cuba.. we also don't have skyrocketing crime rates due to gun bans.. that would be the UK and Australia.. which I'm guessing is where you are, Jo.. but let's not digress

yes, it was just a breast.. it didn't cause me any irreparable psychological harm.. but I support everyone who thinks that it was inappropriate, given the expected audience.. I'm sure the same shock would be displayed if Mr. Rogers suddenly stripped down to a speedo on his show

mostly, I'm just annoyed that Janet and Justin made their total lack of class so apparent.. even Madonna knows when to show some restraint.. at least most of the time

the fact that Janet and Justin treated their viewers like idiots by calling it an accident was just the icing on the cake

[reg]

Oh come on America, it was a breast SO what.
Kids see breasts...wow ! out cry.

People getting bombed because your President decides he doesn't like a country ;that's OK !

Your moral stances and judgements are laughable.

[Albert van Veen]

This incident just confirms USA status as a collection of hippocrits. A (nearly) bare breast: wow! big deal! Better do something about those violent tv movies.

[TD]

Hi DC. Just thought you might like to know-- "ecclectic" is spelled wrong on your 'about me' page. It's 'eclectic.'

Just a stickler, is all. Which is nothing more than a tickler hiding behind an 's'.

[Fred]

Anyone who has seen close up and detailed pictures of the construction of the costume can
answer for themselves definitively that either both the black and red parts were made to snap off together or no attempt was made to retain the red part in the incident. A red bra which hooked in the back would have taken care of the problem if Janet had wanted to retain some cover.
The incident was planned and the apologies which followed were lies plain and simple. But, is any common mammary gland worth this much commotion. All ages would have accepted this as no big event and would not have been scarred for life! Let's move on. You may want to try some country music, some of the more controlled pop music or even contemporary christian or southern gospel. I'm not a religious fanatic, but I do enjoy that music more than what the "punks" are serving up.

[amanda]

Janet dont be sorry ok.it's not a bad thing.it's just a nipple guys.she did show a whole body and if she does,is it wrong?the fault shldn't be all hers.it's dat punk guy called himself Justin.Janet take it easy,i know it gonna be a hard situation but thinks will work out.

[Spencer]

LOOK OUT... A BREAST! Have you ever noticed the only people that complain regarding incidents like Janet and Justin are the "sizeable, intimidated" ones. Nice work Janet and Justin! How about parents start spending more time with their children. Maybe we will have less shootings and robbings throughout the world..

[Beth Donovan]

geeze, where are these people coming from? If the SuperBowl notified viewers beforehand that partial nudity was a part of the show, I would not complain - but that's not the way it happened, it was not just a boob - it was a pierced boob and shown in a strictly sexual manner - not as just a boob.
It was tasteless, wrong and illegal.

[Tim]

You guys need to relax. What's so outrageuos? Janet Jackson's brief boob shot, or the thousands of nude, lewd, and real sex photos available from any computer with an internet connection in the world? Really, grow up. You're kids have a lot worse things to look at. It was a live television blooper. And screw the upset politicians. They are only getting all huffed up because they want to expose themselves as well, so to speak. I could care less if my child saw Janet Jackson's boob. It's something to laugh at, not get all upset about. Lighten up. And you silly folks who decide to ban your child from watching the superbowl . . . that's up to you. The rest of the world couldn't care less. In fact, the rest of the world outside the states doesn't give a hoot about Amercian football anyway.

[The King, Toronto, Canada]

Brett,

I have to agree with Jo. Speaking of the American President going to war vs. showing a breast on national television is a poor excuse of liberal propaganda.

Even if you think America's war was unjust, why does it make Janet Jackson exposing her left breast any better?

These are two totally different events that have no relation whatsover. Furthermore, I want to say that I am a Canadian who sick and tired of seeing left-wing liberals spewing irrelevant arguments.

Hey, I love to see a good breast, however, let's call a spade a spade here. What she did was inappropriate, and done in poor taste -- to get publicity. And we all know what PT Barnum said -- Any publicity is good publicity.

Brett -- if you're going to make a case for your position, relate it to something relevant, and stop reaching for mindless left-wing propaganda.

By the way, in case you didn't know -- Saddam Hussein killed over a million Iranians, and hundreds of thousands of his people. Furthermore, he was paying $20,000 per homicidal bomber in Israel. If those aren't good cases for war, I don't know what is?

[Neo-Pagan Warrior]

I just feel like giving up when I see this. Whether it was an accident or not, is this such a big deal? Ok, so kids can see it. Ok, so it's pierced. Well - does it destroy them in any way? And do this actually come under pornography?

I bet MY two sons have seen something pornographic in their lives, but even teachers say they're not any more sexualized than other boys at their age (12 and 14). I live in Norway (it's in Europe, for the rednecks out there), so I guess the reason for my liberal opinion is that I'm what you people call EuroTrash.