everyone is talking about the Super bowl incident between Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Everyone claims it was planned when when U know that Janet and Justin said "sorry" hundreds of times and that it was an accident and that it was not planned!! Y R U assuming it was planned or get angry bcuz Janet nudeness happens 2 show up on national television (Janet's bare breast) when every single movie or show shows sex and violence everyday?? Doesn't it ever cross UR mind that wat Ur making a big deal out is wat U see in movies and tv shows everyday?? Come on, people..grow up!! Think about it 4 a while or a minute or a second and realize just wat a big deal it was b4 U go assuming it was planned or it was Janet's fault or Justin's fault, or both. Anyone understands wat I'm trying 2 say straight out or agree wit me here??
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 8:22:39 PST 2004 by Missy]

Missy said:

um, she admitted it was planned

cborgman said:

Read it again.

missy, missy, U R showing Ur age. move on missy. move on.


PEACE N B WiLD!!!

I feel that the entire incident was a blatant publicity stunt. I believe it was a way for Justin to "get back at" Britney for the kiss with Madonna. I also think that Janet and Justin knew that her breast would be exposed and they both did it for the attention and publicity it would garner. These celebrities need to get a life. They are so caught up in themselves and some have no concept of reality. I like Janet, but I feel that this stunt was completely uncalled for and extremely immature. Also, it would be nice to actually hear her sing live for a change rather than lip-syncing every live performance she ever does. I'm starting to wonder if she can sing at all seeing as I've never seen her do it.

4jamiestarr said:

Janet did say it was planned, but I do agree with you, Missy, that it's ridiculous to make such an issue over the whole nipple incident when there are so many things that are much worse on television. And before people tell me "Well, it shouldn't have been at the Superbowl", you mean to tell me those commercials are tasteful? I think not.

Who cares - the superbowl is all titties and beer anyway.

theVelvetRoper said:

Missy said:

your post or her admission?

cborgman said:

Her camp says the plan was Justin was only supposed to take off the black part and leave the red part. It is humanly possible that is what happened. If it really was an accident then the world has really overreacted. The problem is that CBS and the NFL got used and they don't get to cash in on the record sales. If they had a piece of her action you wouldn't have heard diddly from the FCC. Also people are saying that Colin Powell's son (the FCC guy, I forget his name) needs a platform and a bit of publicity himself.

AdoreDaBang1 said:

Look at close-ups - the red part is sewn INTO the black part, and the tearaway buttons are attached to the black part only. Impossible that he was somehow supposed to leave the red lace there.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 10:54:22 PST 2004 by VoicesCarry]

Anxiety said:

Cheerleaders shaking ass, boobies, and pom-poms!

Anyway, Stevie Wonder could see that it was one big publicity stunt. I guess the fuss has to do with the fact that it aired on public tv, so millions saw it; and perhaps CBS is afraid of loosing sponsors. I guess.

Missy: You are right that the halftime show was not outside the norm of TV entertainment these days. But most TV is geared towards an 18-35 demographic. The Super Bowl is geared towards all demographics. So the MTV halftime show was BOUND to offend millions of watchers before Janet even hit the stage.

Think about it not as Missy, but as a parent with a 7 year-old son. You may not necessarily be offended by what you see, and your son may see it on MTV all the time, but that's not what you a) want your son to see or b) want your son to see you watching. And you don't watch the Super Bowl to see Janet. On information and belief, the Super Bowl's primary purpose is still football.

There's a big world outside the org, and in that world millions of people think that what Janet did was disgusting. I can understand why they took offense. They would watch MTV or HBO if they wanted to see Janet shake it like a Polaroid picture. They watch the Super Bowl for other purposes.

All that being said . . . the NFL and Viacom share the blame for this, not Janet. They targeted one demographic to appeal to for their show, and picked MTV to run the show. Anyone who has watched MTV since 1984 KNOWS what happens on an MTV production. They took a chance knowing that a decidedly non-MTV audience wouldn't feel it and basically didn't care. Janet's GONNA push buttons while pushing an album. She gets some blame, but the lion's share goes to the companies with the cameras, lights and broadcast rights.

VoicesCarry said:

Come on now, you can't say impossible. All you've seen are pictures and blurry close-ups. Improbable yes, impossible no.

namepeace said:

I don't have a 7 year old son but if I did I'm not sure what I would find most difficult about the Super Bowl broadcast.
Would it be :
The momentary glimpse of JJ's boobie.
or
The numerous ads mentioning penile erection dysfuntion.

I mean come on people - how do you explain penile erection dysfunction to a 7 year old boy?? Don't tell me they don't hear it & aren't curious. How do you explain that to a 7 year old? Or girl? I remember being about 7 & looking in a magazine & asking my sister what a Tampex was. I got no answer. I can't imagine what would have happened if I'd asked about erections.
The boobie being exposed is nothing.

thedoorkeeper said:

I wasn't thinking along those lines, but you have a point.

God created the human body-- and the plastic surgeons who helped create Janet's. There's nothing wrong with it. I have more problem with gratuitous violence and sex. Negative energy and empty advertisements are what's wrong with television. Janet's breast is the least of our worries.

Oh My GOD!! I just heard something disturbing on the news. AOL WANTS ITS MONEY BACK!! Apparently what Janet did so overshadowed the impact that the commercials had that it totally devalued them and made the million dollars for a 30 sec spot essentially worthless. If THEY do it the other advertisers might follow suit and then it will REALLY be a big mess.

On the other side of the coin this was on Access Hollywood web site

Comedian Jon Lovitz told Access Hollywood's Shaun Robinson that Justin's "revealing" strip was indeed unintentional.

"You think it was a wardrobe malfuntion?" Shaun asked Jon.

"That's exactly what it was. That's just a fact. Adam Sandler's manager Sandy Warnick was at the Super Bowl with the wardrobe person when it happened," explained Jon. "She freaked out and said, 'Oh no!' because it wasn't supposed to happen. She had that red thing underneath but it got ripped away -- that's all."


didn't know where to post this since people are complaining about to many Janet threads. Thoughts people?

AdoreDaBang1 said:

Why the cross thread posting???

SquirrelMeat said:

didn't know where to put it. threads getting locked an all

whodknee said:

Nobody's got problems with the human body. As a member of the "1st" MTV generation, my sensibilities aren't offended by what Janet did. In light of previous performances of Madonna, Prince and others on MTV shows, this is par for the course for MTV. But as a football fan, I simply wanted to watch the Super Bowl and I really would have preferred more halftime analysis. Especially since the performances were pretty awful.

My point has been, we should consider why so many people were upset at the show (they don't like that kind of thing), whether the show was "venue-appropriate" (I say no), and whether the NFL and CBS asked for it by letting MTV produce the show (absolutely).