• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Tit Seen Round the World

Philo T said:
With all the furor over the breast baring, it seems that everyone has ignored the jewlery aspect. I think it's some sort of illuminati symbol.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's her Girl Guide's Firelighter's badge . . .

Carole
 
Something for the Ladies

So great is the fuss made over the errant teat that the other errant wardrobe malfunction of the Superbowl hardly got any notice, namely Mark Roberts, professional (well, more than amateur) streaker.

Brings a little local British colour to the Super Breast story.

Here is some background material on Boob II:

Mark Roberts, 39, of Liverpuddle
 
carole said:
Nah, it's her Girl Guide's Firelighter's badge . . .

Carole
Click to expand...

JEZZUS those girl guide's are 'ard!...the boy scouts only sew em on their slievs!
 
Re Janet Jackson --

The ANSWER is: WHO CARES???????


A boob is a boob is a BOOB! The only difference is the SIZE!

(I've always thought that Michael is LaToya is Janet anyways....and Sunday didn't change my thinking).

Now, if y'all want to start talking about MALE anatomy (which many of you are already PREOCCUPIED with.......and I won't go into the VARIOUS directions THAT can go in - LOL) let's get a REAL DISCUSSION going!
 
NotAFeminist said:
Re Janet Jackson --

The ANSWER is: WHO CARES???????


A boob is a boob is a BOOB! The only difference is the SIZE!

(I've always thought that Michael is LaToya is Janet anyways....and Sunday didn't change my thinking).

Now, if y'all want to start talking about MALE anatomy (which many of you are already PREOCCUPIED with.......and I won't go into the VARIOUS directions THAT can go in - LOL) let's get a REAL DISCUSSION going!
Click to expand...

Quite self evidently you do, dear heart... The Archie Bunker school of polemic is also very wearing...

As to male anatomy, well yes, some will be preoccupied with it, maybe even 'PREOCCUPIED' , as you so quaintly put it. Quelle surpirise... half to the board own male anatomy and the other half have to pretend its not simply cute, so there's bound to be a certain frission there.

Unless I'm missingthe joke and its an encoded message: -

ANSWER WHO CARES??????? BOOB SIZE! MALE PREOCCUPIED VARIOUS THAT LOL REAL DISCUSSION
Click to expand...

Hmm... almost makes sense. Knowing the average male, and being the possesor of a Y-chromasome my self I would say yes to yes to the encoded message; Boob size is a topic most men care about or even just have a passim interest in, and can we a great topic of late night, quite drunk cinversation, especially while doing Beavis and Butt-Head impressions while watching jewelery hour re-runs on QVC after the pubs have shut...

So like the life of our own dear Prince of Wales....
 
Now we really dig into the weirdness:

Woman sues over Janet Jackon's breast

Fri Feb 6, 1:28 PM ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A Tennessee woman has filed a class action suit against Janet Jackson and others involved in her breast-baring Super Bowl halftime show, saying millions of people are owed monetary damages for exposure to lewd conduct.




The suit, filed earlier this week in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, also names pop star Justin Timberlake, who performed with Jackson, CBS Broadcasting, show producer MTV Networks Enterprises, and the parent of those two companies, Viacom.

The action seeks a court order to prevent anything like last Sunday's stunt from being repeated on U.S. network television prior to 10 p.m. local time when children might be watching.

No dollar figure for damages is mentioned in the suit, but it estimates that over 80 million U.S. viewers might be due compensation. CBS has said the game drew an average viewership of just under 89.6 million people. Advertising during the game sold for more than million (1.1 million pounds) a spot.

The suit states that the ultimate compensatory damage figure, should a jury decide to grant damages, should be no higher than what the parties being sued made out of participating in and airing the Super Bowl and its halftime show.

If additional punitive damages are granted, it adds, they should be no higher than the "gross annual revenues of each defendant for the last three years..."

Those figures would probably run into the billions of dollars, according to the Smoking Gun, a Web site that first published the court papers.

During the halftime show Timberlake tore off half of Jackson's black leather bustier, exposing her right breast, while the two were singing a duet.

Jackson took the blame but said "it was not my intention that it go as far as it did."

CBS has already said it would use an "enhanced delay" on its February 8 broadcast of music's Grammy Awards so it can censor both audio and video as needed, and ABC also said it will use a delay on its February 29 broadcast of the Academy Awards (news - web sites).

The suit says the defendants knew the broadcast would be watched by millions of families with children but they "included in the halftime show sexually explicit acts solely designed to garner publicity and ultimately to increase profits for themselves. The suit mentions the breast exposure but also says the show in general contained "other lewd and sexually explicit conduct."

The law firm handling the suit issued a statement on Friday saying that neither the woman who filed it, Terri Carlin, nor her attorney, Wayne Ritchie, would comment. "The issue here is accountability and not more publicity," it said.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040206/od_uk_nm/oukoe_media_jackson_2

TiVo watchers uneasy after post-Super Bowl reports

Last modified: February 5, 2004, 3:21 PM PST
By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com



Janet Jackson's Super Bowl flash dance was shocking in more ways than one: Some TiVo users say the event brought home the realization that their beloved digital video recorders are watching them, too.

On Monday, TiVo said the exposure of Jackson's breast during her halftime performance was the most-watched moment to date on its device, which, when combined with the TiVo subscription service, lets viewers pause and "rewind" live television broadcasts, among other features.

TiVo said users had watched the skin-baring incident nearly three times more than any other moment during the Super Bowl broadcast, sparking headlines that dramatically publicized the power of the company's longstanding data-gathering practices.

"It's just sort of creepy," longtime TiVo subscriber Sandra Munozshe wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com.

A TiVo spokesman said the company operates well within established privacy standards. For years, TiVo has disclosed its data-gathering practices in user agreements, saying it strips out any information that could be traced back to an individual viewer.
News.context

Although TiVo could conceivably investigate an individual's viewing habits, it doesn't, a spokesman said. But it does occasionally mine data from a random sampling of 20,000 homes viewing a particular program, as it did during the Super Bowl.

"I can understand people's concerns," said spokesman Scott Sutherland. "But when weighted against reality, they are unfounded."

Privacy issues hitherto associated mainly with PCs are beginning to ripple into the living room with the arrival of new devices, such as digital video recorders (DVRs), that offer interactive features. Once one-way receivers, televisions and even radios are becoming two-way devices capable of sending information back to service providers. The shift promises to fundamentally change the ground rules for media, which increasingly must adhere to new privacy standards to ensure that new technologies aren't abused in the name of demographics and the like.

The minicontroversy over privacy at TiVo underscores growing consumer awareness over industry practices that have been standard for years on the Internet but are only now beginning to spill out into other media. DVRs, which function like a VCR but record shows on a hard disk instead of on videotape, bring interactive features to TV that promise to transform the industry. Among other things, the devices can recommend shows based on a given user's past viewing choices, pause live programming and skip commercials.

Since they let consumers jump quickly over ads, DVRs have been in the spotlight as a potential thorn in the side of network TV. But the networks have also been tantalized by the devices' ability to track viewer behavior, intelligence that could ultimately be used to improve the effectiveness of marketing campaigns and so forth.
A full Nielsen
TiVo this week signed a deal to provide data to Nielsen Media Research, a leading provider of information on television-viewing habits. Under the agreement, TiVo will supply Nielsen with anonymous data on the habits of subscribers who have agreed to hand over their information, giving Nielsen its first look at the tendencies of DVR users. Nielsen spokesman Jack Loftus said Thursday that the next deal Nielsen reaches with TiVo, or any other DVR supplier, will involve more valuable demographic information about viewers, such as age or sex.

"It's a natural step," Loftus said, because it makes Nielsen's services dramatically more valuable to the company's advertiser clients.

Most consumer data collection is done for marketing purposes, resulting, at worst, in more junk mail for those whose name winds up on a given list. Still, some privacy advocates worry that intimate data--once collected--may take on a life of its own, either by mistake or through malicious behavior. Such information could be damaging, if it wound up as evidence in court proceedings or in other unexpected contexts.

Companies that hope to gather and market consumer data have downplayed consumer concerns, arguing that surveillance fears are misplaced. Many have been working for years to assure customers that their practices are benign, creating and pushing for the adoption of practices they claim will minimize privacy risks.

For example, consumers can already count on some basic privacy protections, thanks to business practices hammered out years ago on the Net. Commonly accepted procedures include removing from databases any information, such as account numbers or device serial numbers, that could be used to identify an individual. Such agreements have led to information collection practices that typically provide researchers with what's known as aggregated data--figures that show how many people engaged in a particular activity at any given time but not who, specifically, did what.

In a bid to prevent malicious or inadvertent privacy leaks, data-mining companies such as IBM have developed techniques to encrypt data at the source in ways that preserve enough information to provide useful statistics, while at the same time destroying the primary data.

Lee Tien, lead staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization concerned with online privacy and other issues, gave TiVo high marks overall for guarding its customers' personal data. But Tien said the deal with Nielsen pushes the envelope, because it threatens to remove the anonymity from the data collected. "So long as they are only selling anonymized data, then the privacy issues are not at all that great," he said.
Rewinding TiVo habits
So what information does TiVo collect about its viewers? The company can indeed tell what has been watched on a particular TiVo box, down to the second, including the number of times a moment was rewound and played again, or a commercial was skipped.

The information is transmitted back to TiVo headquarters in Alviso, Calif., via the same phone line used to download show schedules to the DVR inside a home. The information itself is used to automatically suggest which shows a viewer would like, based on previous selections.

But for all the granularity involved in tracking viewing habits, TiVo said there's nothing personal attached to the resulting data, as promised in its subscriber privacy policy.

"There is no demographic information sent back to TiVo," Sutherland said. "TiVo doesn't know any of that."

In fact, it's Nielsen that will be reaching out to TiVo users for the more personal information, if and when it decides to take that step, Loftus said.

Those concerned about being part of the sporadic random samplings TiVo conducts, such as the one taken during the Super Bowl, can call an 800 number to opt out.

If this week's wave of complaints offers any clues, though, TiVo may still have some work to do to convince customers that it has their interests at heart.

"Make no mistake, I do clearly love the box," engineer and longtime TiVo user Jerrell Wilson wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "I have been a tireless sales rep with all my friends. I should be on commission from TiVo. Thus arises the most severe form of anger: that deriving from a perceived betrayal of trust."
Click to expand...

http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-5154219.html?tag=prntfr
 
Imagine that someone filed a lawsuit. Such an unusual thing to happen as America is not at all a litigous society. LOL
 
I didn't see the show (no TV)

but from the posted picture

It was a tit

it was pierced

there was a decorative attachment to the piercing

From the reports

It was shocking to see

it undermines the moral fabric of the US

the act subverted the morally uplifting entertainment of the game

From my own experience

I learnt about breasts at my mothers breast

I've seen prettier ones

Breasts are not revolutionary (except in the case of a certain exotic dancer called Candy where one was revolutionary and the other counter-revolutionary)
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Boob size is a topic most men care about or even just have a passim interest in,
Click to expand...

Err.. No! Not an iota!

intaglio

Breasts are not revolutionary (except in the case of a certain exotic dancer called Candy where one was revolutionary and the other counter-revolutionary)
Click to expand...


Ahh! Candy at Madame Fifi's:D I remember her well
 
lutzman said:
Ahh! Candy at Madame Fifi's:D I remember her well
Click to expand...
She remembers you as well.

"That dirty old bastard! He's a lousy tipper."

On the breast at hand (as it were), having grown up in a country where nudity on television was a regular occurrence, I fail to see the problem. Hell, over here they don't even cut away if there's a streaker on the pitch.

Actually, they do, but not because of the nudity -- at least so they claim -- but because they don't want to encourage them.

Anyway: it was a breast. If you haven't seen one before, then you need to get out more. If your kids haven't seen one before, then they're not really trying. Anyone who thinks it was pornographic really needs to get out more.
 
There are two Americas. This week, they met each other at the Super Bowl. And they didn't get on one itty-bitty bit. There's the America of MTV. In this America, the more your dancing looks like a stripper's, the more popular you are. Women are to be seen as much as heard, a white man can put his hand on a black woman's breast, and the horses are kept permanently scared... Then there's the America of, say, Garth Brooks. Or of Celine Dion, or of Toby Keith... You see less of this America outside its borders. In this America, women only show their titties in hidden copies of Playboy. And those women are sluts. And if they were black - which they aren't - it wouldn't be white men ripping their clothes off. Not on TV anyway...
 
It's also the America where you can sell vibrators - but not say what they are for
 
NotAFeminist said:
Re Janet Jackson --

The ANSWER is: WHO CARES???????


A boob is a boob is a BOOB! The only difference is the SIZE!
Click to expand...
I've worked out the secret to reading NAF's posts - just do so in the manner of Cartman. They make sense then :).

As to the subject matter, I agree entirely with Pi23. Having seen US cable showing the Exterminator on a mid-morning Saturday, with all the violence intact but the swearing and nudity excised completely, I agree that there is a dual-standard prudery in the US media that doesn't exist elsewhere - the Puritan ethic is stil relatively strong, whereas ours was diluted a long time ago (perhaps when a lot of puritans left here and went to.....?).

It was Janet Jackson's tit. Big deal - you couldn't even see her nipple, as it had a manhole cover over it. Walk along most beaches in Southern England on the rare occasion when it's sunny, and you'll probably see at least one girl in a string bikini with minute deltas of cloth that just covers the nips, or even the ones with an X of tape over them - they don't elicit complaints to the coastguard, as far as I'm aware.
 
looks like the publicity stunt's going to backfire

. . . and I'm actually bothering to look at the NME website :eek!!!!:

Experts claim JANET JACKSON 'exposure' at Sunday's SUPER BOWL (February 1) could lead to damaging of sales for her new album 'DAMITA JO'.

The stunt, which resulted in Justin Timberlake ripping away part of Jackson 's clothing to reveal her right breast, has caused outrage after it was seen by millions across the world.

China Danforth, chief executive of urban label DKG Music, said: "I don't think it will boost sales of the CD. I don't think it was consistent with her image and the problem with it is that it came off looking just like a publicity stunt."
Click to expand...

Incidentally, here's someone else causing 'outrage' :hmph:
 
Re: Something for the Ladies

littleblackduck said:
So great is the fuss made over the errant teat that the other errant wardrobe malfunction of the Superbowl hardly got any notice, namely Mark Roberts, professional (well, more than amateur) streaker.

Brings a little local British colour to the Super Breast story.

Here is some background material on Boob II:

Mark Roberts, 39, of Liverpuddle
Click to expand...

He has his own site here:

http://www.thestreaker.org.uk

Emps
 
This is the same media that gushes over the see-through dresses that the actresses wear to the academy awards. :rolleyes:
 
The US Senate has launched an inquiry into the whole affair.

Fortunately, however, they don't seem to be as obsessed with Janet's Right Breast as others seem to be.

The inquiry is actually investigating the advertising shown during the Super Bowl as well, including the aforementioned incendiarily flatulent equines.

I'll see if I can find a link.

[EDIT]This is the best I can do:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1043908.htm

The CNN story just mentions Janet Jackson for some reason.
 
I personally don't get the whole halftime show thing, we would always change the channel and watch something else when I was younger. I personally didn't watch the Super Bowl, but my husband did. He said it was little more than a flash of boob. He said he was thinking was that her boob, I think it was her boob. Not until everyone started raising a ruckus about it was he sure.

And the nipple was covered. Come on we have people like the rapper Lil' Kim that one half of her outfit is missing and only a pastie is covering her nipple and the outfit is all over the media and in commercials that children see and noone is up in arms about it. I mean it is a boob. You either have them or have seen them. Most children have seen their mothers.

And now an investigation? Oh opportunity to waste money and act like we care about issues.
 
Yes, it was a "flash" of a boob, in real time.....

One of our astute posters (on page one of this thread) posted a WEBSITE where you can see it. The funny thing is that, along with the boob, is what appears to be a HAIRY CHEST!!! :D

Could it be......Michael????? (There were rumors that HE was going to be at the Superbowl). They didn't say WHICH persona (Latoya, Janet, or him) would be there.

THAT is truly "the big reveal!!!!"

LOL ;)

_________

"Notta" - un-bending Stu's spoons
 
David Leterman joke

As for the Senate investigation (Senator Joe McCarthy seems to have become a member of the Fashion Police), David Letterman, the late night talkshow host, did a good joke about how they're not looking into Enron or the Iraq War but they are looking into Janet Jackson's cleavage. I just caught it on the way through to the Conan O'Brien show which is in Toronto this week.

I'm taping it. It is wild to the point of hysteria.

Wednesday they had the Seattle Space Needle and the C.N. Tower mudwrestling in chocolate pudding and Scott Thompson (the openly gay member of the Kids in the Hall comedy show and star of BRAIN CANDY) imitated the naked victory lap scene from SLAPSHOT by dancing in nothing but a jock strap in front of the Stanley Cup display wherever that is.

Gee, I don't know what that has to do with a flash of tata, but I can say that Scott Thompson is built more like the hockey players I have seen in déshabile than the actor who played one in the movie.

Incidentally, I saw a magazine article today which asked the rhetorical question why people in North America are getting their news more and more from comedians instead of journalists. My answer: because the journalists and their slanted, tabloid news is more and more of a joke.
 
LBD:
Don't forget Jon Stewart! The way things are going, he's gonna end up anchoring one of the network news shows. I think this goes to show two things:
A) the "real media" aren't focusing on what's important,
and B) things have gotten so f*cked up that the satirists have a better grasp of reality than the mainstream news.
(I have often made the comment that "The Onion" is supposed to be parody, not news. "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over" indeed.)
 
Philo T said:
LBD:
Don't forget Jon Stewart! The way things are going, he's gonna end up anchoring one of the network news shows.
Click to expand...
I've caught his show on CNN, cable, here a few times.

It is indeed very sharp, for a US show. It was actually a bit of a surprise. Satire! And actually making some good points.
 
Originally posted by Philo T
[B things have gotten so f*cked up that the satirists have a better grasp of reality than the mainstream news.
Click to expand...


ive always thought that to be true.
 
Louis Black is a favorite comedien of mine he is always acutely aware of the absurd.
 
Philo T said:
LBD:
Don't forget Jon Stewart! The way things are going, he's gonna end up anchoring one of the network news shows. I think this goes to show two things:
Click to expand...
We get the weekly version (Global Edition) of his show here. (Except the channel that show it have moved it to a night that I can never remember that it's on.)

From what friends in the US have told me, it would be the best satirical show on TV if they just dumped the celebrity interviews. Certainly, I don't think they need the interviews in the Global Edition.

We at least have a couple of news programmes not in the pocket of the government. Oddly enough, they're on government funded television.
 
I wonder what Bill Hicks would have made of it?
 
anome:
True, about half of Jon's interviews are "celeberties", that's just fodder for the late night format. But about half of his interviews are with politicians / policymakers etc. Those he alternates between being silly and downright insightful. I know he's had (at least) two of the democratic candidates for president on his show before the primaries.
 
Funny that the Super Bowl is consecrated 'family time'. I bet there were at least 10 ads for boner pills during the game. I can see some kid turning and asking his father, 'Whats erectile dysfuntion?'. 'Ask your mother.'

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top