That 'Damita Jo' cover shot was ill-advised,coming so soon after the whole "nipplegate" scandal.I would have thought that,after all the criticism,Janet would have been eager to change the subject,instead of focusing on her boobs.

SoulAlive said:

The story about her buying that kid had nothing to do with her musical career.

Glindathegood said:

No, Michael Jackson is mostly ridiculed for his public life to the point his career was ruined. Prince spent most of the '90s being ridiculed for his argument with his record company and only as a oldies-but-goodies act has started regaining some of his standing.

In this case, you're talking about one act whose reputation has been irrevocably damaged (a deterioration that was the cumulation of years of a very public, tabloid-like coverage) and another who needed years of relative silence to overcome his criticism. A Madonna controversy has lasted, what, one year?

midnightmover said:

True.I'm just pointing out that she gets heavily critized no matter what she does,musically or otherwise.She doesn't get a "pass" from the media.

ehuffnsd said:

If you say so, but even if it was intentionally done that overshadows EVERYTHING about Madonna's past 20-odd years?

SoulAlive said:

Let's see, a picture of Janet Jackson doing a pose I've seen plenty of women do in Sports Illustrated magazines and album covers over the years. I'm failing to see the "ill-advised" aspect of this.

If you think this is "controversial," I would hate to show you some Ohio Players covers.
[Edited 6/9/08 6:44am]

LittleAmy said:

LittleAmy, you make some good points, but you lose major credibility when you call Nipplegate "an accident". That story simply doesn't stand up to any logical analysis, which is why Justin has never backed up the claim. He knows how ridiculous that story is.

midnightmover said:

The whole point is, accident or intentional (FWIW, I will say Janet Jackson didn't intend to show her exposed breast but it still a high-risk, low-reward stunt that made no sense), it still doesn't equal to the things Madonna has done over the past 20 years.

It still is evident of the double standard that goes with the "industry darling" argument. Whether I "have credibility" with people I will never meet in this life is fairly irrelevant, especially when I don't have a vested interest in Jackson's life.
[Edited 6/9/08 7:10am]

LittleAmy said:

YES. Janet was treated better than Madonna in by the Industry after Control. Also as it's been pointed out most of Madonna's oversexual performances were something you had to buy, were done with warnings that some parts of the show might be too much and I believe the Girlie Show had a noone under 18 rule in the States

Janet planned, bought and finally even had teasers done that were promoting she was going to do something shocking at the Superbowl. The American People at large are prudes that's why nudity gets you an R rating but blowing up everyone only gets you a PG13. She crossed a line and will not own up to it. Therefore she has to suffer the punishment. Everyone knows you don't do nudity at the largest tv event in America. I love Janet but poor decision to flash her breast on tv, ended her life as a Media Darling and Superstar

LittleAmy said:

Michael planted the stories orginally in the 80s he took the focus off the music. And Child molestion charges are going to stick because he settled the first time. If he worked more maybe people would have more to move on from.

ehuffnsd said:

Janet Jackson's publicist promoted that there would be a surprise during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime event -- the "surprise" was the guest appearance of Justin Timberlake. A case of hindsight on your behalf, IMO.

It's a fair argument to say that seeing a botched stunt where a woman's breast wasn't seen by the national viewing audience (CBS cameras cut away from the scene before most people could see Jackson's breast) was hardly the end of civilization as we know it. But yet some people then and now still act like it was such a heinous act. Hell, turn it to Showtime and HBO and you can see exposed breasts all day (with the cameras showing them, no less).
[Edited 6/9/08 7:14am]

LittleAmy said:

ok but facts are facts.

She had a Leather Bustier designed with one tear away cup. She had to wear nothing under it because the design of the product offers the support that a bra is designed for. The corest was designed to withstand heavy BDSM play and without the snaps the cup should have never have come off.

Gil bought a Nipple Sheild for her to wear on the side of the said Bustier with the designed tear away cup.

Teasers were made to say Janet would shock you.

And because of the alligning of the universe and strange otherworld forces Janet's rip away cup with the nipple shield underneather just happened purely by chance to come off when Justin sang,"I'm going to have you naked by the end of this song." Oh my forgive me for the errors of my ways. All this time I was letting little facts cloud my vision of the incident. You are right even though the stunt was planned and failed it all happened by accident.
[Edited 6/9/08 7:17am]

ehuffnsd said:

What part of "It was a botched stunt" that I have said several times DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? It was evident that Janet Jackson had that in the script that Justin Timberlake would pull off that part of her outfit, but looking at AP pictures it didn't seem like they expected for her exposed breast to pop up.

And even then, it was hardly the end of civilization. My goodness, most Super Bowl XXXVIII viewers didn't even SEE Jackson's exposed breast -- the news broke on the mishap during the second half of the game because the cameras panned away from it.

And it sure as hell isn't something that is worth mentioning several years after the fact as some hot-button issue. My point is you never heard about any of Madonna's antics nearly as long as the Jackson one nor did they wreak they havoc on Madonna's career one incident did of Jackson's.

Again, thank you for showing the double standard ... from an acknowledged Madonna fan, no less (talk about "credibility issues").
[Edited 6/9/08 7:30am]

LittleAmy said:

honestly Janet's breast had no affect on my life. DJ and 20YO were bad albums without that. Well you aren't admitting this was a planned botched stunt you still claim Janet had no control over what happened when she had the whole time. Like I said Americans are prude and there is a very sick love/hate relationship with sex in America and it touches us all one way or another.

The difference between FCC Broadcast Television during the day and Skinimax and Showtime is one is Free and availible to everyone and offend the least number of people as possible and the other is paid for and you can set parterntal controls if you are scared of your child seeing another person naked. There was no parental advisory on the Superbowl... granted most people missed it and it wasn't til the 24Hour newstations picked it up did it become a story. Truely poor planning and she needs to own up to so the media can start to move on.

Janet shows a dark nipple, and STILL gets crusaded for that.Accident or no accident, she's still paying for that dumb shit.

Madonna made a nude video(Erotica) followed by a sex book, and she got stamped with the "strong woman in search of liberation" tag, and got kisses on her ass more than kicks.

People who don't see the hypocrisy & the bias in this situation simply got their heads buried far up their asses.

Harlepolis said:

It isn't hypocritical. Erotica was only shown three times on MTV and each time it was after midnight when most children are sleeping. Also Madonna has been very vocal about her work not being suitable for children. Janet unwisely decided it would be a good idea to do a quick reveal of her breast, her nipple was covered, on the biggest event on tv with families watching. Oh and White America she's Janet than a woman than a black person. Most of America has watched her grow up and since she speaks proper English they aren't intimiated by her so her race is a nonissue. This is purely about America's sick twisted puritical relationship to sex and nudity. If Madonna had done the same it would be the same story becaue unlike Janet Madonna is threatening to the White Male Establishment. And Newsweek, Time, People, Entertainment Weekly, Georldo Donahue, Sally Jesse, Oprah and every other media outlet had feild day with Erotica delcaring Madonna had gone to far and that she had passed the point of no return. Madonna said "yup I did it" and the world kept spinning. Aside from the JPG runway show in Paris Madonna never made a public apperence where she flashed her breast. The topless dancer for the Girlie Show was Carrie Anne from dancing with the stars.
[Edited 6/9/08 7:39am]

ehuffnsd said:

No, you're simply trying to read something else into what I said -- which is typically the case when you deal with unobjective fans.

Janet Jackson's routine included a guest appearance from Justin Timberlake, who at the end of the routine would rip off the leather cover from her outfit.

IMO, it was debatable that the intent was to show Jackson's bare exposed breast. Particularly when you look at this and other AP photos that were taken immediately after the exposure:



Timberlake's and Jackson's expressions seem to me be ones of shock. It certainly doesn't look like they were anticipating that.

I always said it was a dumb manuveur to being with, because it had too much risk and not enough (if any) reward even successfully completed. Where I am skeptical is this notion she intentionally wanted her bare breast shown, knowing such an intentional act on such a large stage would destroy her career (which it effectively did).

ehuffnsd said:

Like I said before, the vast majority of viewers didn't even see Jackson's exposed breast because the CBS cameras moved away so quickly. It's hard to be offended by something you didn't see, which is where your argument is falling apart in my eyes.
[Edited 6/9/08 7:42am]

LittleAmy said:

The photo proves my point look at the clean seam of the bra cup and the lace sewn into the cup. Honestly I don't know why it's an issue and I only debate people that claim Janet was innocent. I don't understand the double stand on sex and nudity. LIke when I went to see the 300 and the whole theatre laughed out of uncomfortablity when they showed the lead actor naked but didn't do anything when the females were naked.

ehuffnsd said:

Suuuuure!

People have their own interpretation of this mess I guess.

It quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck,,,,,it sure as hell ain't a rooster.

P.S. If I'm not intimidated by you, it doesn't mean that I won't try to put you in your "place" if you ever acted wild or different from my "safe assumptions" about you

Harlepolis said:

i'm just saying from my experience growing up white and nonthreathing minorities are treated differently than those who appear that way. I've seen the references on here about house slave mentality and high yellow and what not. Janet is viewed as a person first and color second to most of White America.

ehuffnsd said:

But yet Janet Jackson's and Justin Timberlake's expressions don't prove the point they were shocked?!?! Does that look like a practiced expression of approval?!?! WTFever.

I think America is hypocritical about race just as it’s hypocritical about sex and nudity.

The playing field for Jan and Madge is not quite even. The only thing they have in common is being vocally-challenged female popstars.

I also think there should be a Janet – Madonna sticky thread so this ongoing debate doesn’t hijack innocent threads that originally had nothing to do with them.

LittleAmy said:

She is an actor. And if was mistake why did he hold it most people would have dropped it. And he was bragging about it right afterwards and only later changed his tune when America said they crossed a line. It was planned sorry.

ehuffnsd said:

Maybe to you, but not to most of White America, nobody Black EVER is viewed as a person 1st(in America that is),,,the whole Obama thing proved that.

I understand where you came from though,,,,but its more complicated than that,,,and if we try to tackle the subject, we will cause the shift of this thread to the P&R board

ehuffnsd said:

It's a stretch to call Janet Jackson an actress, much less a good actress (a craft that she did not practice for years at that point).

ehuffnsd said:

Justin Timberlake was in shock, not repulsed by Jackson. That's simply reaching for something.

Like Jackie Blue said, some people in the United States are as hypocritical about race as they are about gender and sex (and even more so on the black-white race issue). At this point, agree to disagree and move on.

Harlepolis said:

hey P&R rocks! and remember sterotyping works both ways.

ehuffnsd said:

I don't remember that,,,I LIVE with that fact every day for the past of my 25 years

ehuffnsd said:

Save in the United States, the socioeconomic conditions and effects are very lopsided against minority groups (especially black groups in black-white race discussions). Like Harlepolis eloquently said, let's not even go there because that is a losing battle to say black Americans are on the same playing field as their white counterparts.

Harlepolis said:

i try to live up to as many gay steroptypes as i can.