Toxic

[woaface]

There's a good chance that many of you watched the Superbowl last night. The game was weak for the first 25 minutes or so, but the last half of the last quarter was certainly tight!

It was a good game, not the best I've seen though. Anyways, I was absolutely appalled by the half-time show and even some of the commercials. Dogs biting guys nuts and flatuant horses? Whats up with that? It was stupid.

I don't know what's up with CBS, but they crapped up half of the commercial time with their own ads. The half-time show was disgusting. "We had no idea!", says CBS. Right, they just forgot about the delay system they own to edit out stunning moments like exposed breasts on live TV. So as we all watch the Superbowl halftime "show", we hear Justin Timberlake during the halftime "show" shout deplorable words on stage ("I'ma have you necked by da end of this song")and watch him grind with (gag!) Janet Jackson.

Then there he goes removing (with a somewhat light, yet obvious force) the covering from Janet's left breast. Just watch MTV at any hour of any day and ask yourself if they could produce a family show.

The title of Brittany Spears' new song "Toxic" might also serve as an apt name for the halftime show. Catching a glimpse of her video, you might see her as a flight attendant, with a skirt so short, that if she even bends over slightly, you'd see quite a bit. Sitting down? You'd witness almost every inch of her crossed legs...if she'd so chose to cross them. Not where you want to put your money though if you wanted to bet for most revealing moment in the video. No, you'd have to keep watching, and wait to see her rolling around on the floor in a see-through suit, pebbled with diamond like studs of varying size. But it covers her nipples! Yeah, what about EVERYTHING ELSE! They're just allowed to get away with it, because too many people don't care, or don't notice.

I don't know about ya'll, but I am TIRED of having sex pushed on my life day in and day out. I can't even watch the Superbowl, the one event that used to be the biggest thing people could watch without viewing crude material! You think parents do a good job of keeping their kids from it? Right.

Poor people in the ghetto try to keep their children from drugs, but many rich and middle class parents hardly attempt to keep their teenage son or daughter from MTV. Even MTV's condom prevention ads don’t condemn sex before marriage or lots of sex out of wedlock in general. They just promote condom wearing because it prevents HIV. OH BOY! WE CAN WEAR THEM! MTV SAYS IT'S FUN! Just walk into Abercrombie and Fitch, Holister, or American Eagle (The latter two which I'm guilty of shopping at) and see what they sell. While many of the guys clothes either remain baggy, or do the covering thing well, the things they sell to girls are turning our future men and women into sexhounds! Not like some of the current ones aren’t…so can you call them men and women?

An uproar among American consumers began when Abercrombie started to sell thongs to kids. With logos like "eye-candy" I can't believe they ever made it to shelves. But it's not just stores selling products to an older crowd dipping down the age latter! No no, not at all. This Christmas, when I was buying things for my little sister...9 years of age, I ran across a thong, in the Limited 2 store for really young to young girls. Was I upset? Yeah. Disgusted? Completely.

Did I watch a parent walk up and buy that for her daughter that was no taller than my navel? (I'm 5'7). Sure did! Not only that, IT WAS THE LAST ONE ON THE RACK! Sex as an industry isn't something that works it's way into your lives as a freshman in high school...or even an 8th grader. It starts way back when...when your kid is able to walk around the freakin mall and shop with their parent.

I know this is more of a shrewdly cut rant than an even criticism, but what do the rest of you think? Why is Viacom (who happens to own CBS and MTV) only being investigated by the FCC now? This stuff is repeated EVERY DAY on MTV. How many of you are ready to pull the plug on CBS and MTV and anyone else guilty of showing (visually or audibly) indecent material (as already defined by the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/obscind.html)) for a week or two and fine them a quarter or half a million dollars for EACH incident...not just an entire show. I sure as hell am!

[JamesHecker]

Ya know James...you really should'nt hold back like that. Come on... go ahead and express your self! ;)

[jspradii]

Ya know James...you really should'nt hold back like that. Come on... go ahead and express your self! ;)
Quit straddlin' the fence and tell us WHAT YOU REALLY THINK!!!!:bounce: :pimp: :banana2:

[Marauderman]

It's nice to know that it's not ONLY the older folks who are disgusted--and nice to hear a younger voice who agrees for a change.......

[Logan]

woaface, dude... You seriously need to pay more attention in English class and make at least a token effort at using a paragraph or two. I helped ya out. ;)

[woaface]

Before I read anyone's replys...I knowthere are a lot of technical errors in my typing, so don't base your opinions onmy literary expertise...or we're all liberals:) I know I forgot to mention Kid Rock, wiping his greesy self with a shirt( :nono: ) of the Amercan Flag (on BACKwards!) and Nelly, singing "hot in here". How'd they even let him on? Jeeze! I'll correct my mistakes later! -James

[woaface]

woaface, dude... You seriously need to pay more attention in English class and make at least a token effort at using a paragraph or two. I helped ya out. ;)
I was thinking about that when I went to bed last night:depress: I rushed writing that, and only looked over it once...If you would have waited 8 or 10 or 12 more hours, it would have been spify!:)

[2003 MIB]

I hear what you're saying, James...but I don't think it's a first ammendment issue at all. It was marketing not art. I thought it was a stupid publicity stunt when I saw it. Shocked? No, not really. Disgusted? No not really. The two teenaged stepdaughters (13 & 15) laughed when we saw it and everyone went on with their lives. Yesterday, I came home and the oldest and I were watching the replay on the news and she said, "It's pathetic that she thinks she needs to do that to sell records."
Freedom of speech doesn't seem like the issue to me- it's the Cult of Personality. Famous folks will do anything to remain relevent. Wasn't the song from the late 80's? When's the last time anyone even thought of Janet Jackson? Now, she's "shocking", "edgy" and therefore, "relevent" at least for the next 15 minutes....

[DONP1217]

Woaface,

I am happy to see that people your age are seeing through the trash that Sumner Redstone is trying to spoon feed you every day. If you didn't know, Sumner Redstone (his real name is Murray Rothstein) is the Chairman and CEO of Viacom. Viacom owns CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, BET, Paramount, UPN, Spike TV, TV Land, Comedy Central, Showtime, and 1400 movie theaters across the US.

That is a huge amount of power and influence for any one man to have. If the Arabs had this much media influence in our country we'd be screaming bloody murder. Rothstein has you as an audience from the time you are a child with Nickelodean, while you are a teen with MTV, and beyond with his other stations and media outlets.

Mr. Rothstein's buddies run the FCC and nothing will ever be done about his antics and brainwashing. The only way to shut down Rothstein and his kind is for intelligent young people to reject Mr. Rothstein's message. Turn off the TV and get your news and entertainment from the internet and books.

Congradulations on being smart enough to see through a large problem in our society.

[woaface]

Woaface,

I am happy to see that people your age are seeing through the trash that Sumner Redstone is trying to spoon feed you every day. If you didn't know, Sumner Redstone (his real name is Murray Rothstein) is the Chairman and CEO of Viacom. Viacom owns CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, BET, Paramount, UPN, Spike TV, TV Land, Comedy Central, Showtime, and 1400 movie theaters across the US.

That is a huge amount of power and influence for any one man to have. If the Arabs had this much media influence in our country we'd be screaming bloody murder. Rothstein has you as an audience from the time you are a child with Nickelodean, while you are a teen with MTV, and beyond with his other stations and media outlets.That I knew, the rest I did not. At least you didn't say; "It's nice" because everyone always says "It's nice" to see a young person on board;)

I hear what you're saying, James...but I don't think it's a first ammendment issue at all. It was marketing not art. I thought it was a stupid publicity stunt when I saw it. Shocked? No, not really. Disgusted? No not really. The two teenaged stepdaughters (13 & 15) laughed when we saw it and everyone went on with their lives. Yesterday, I came home and the oldest and I were watching the replay on the news and she said, "It's pathetic that she thinks she needs to do that to sell records."
Freedom of speech doesn't seem like the issue to me- it's the Cult of Personality. Famous folks will do anything to remain relevent. Wasn't the song from the late 80's? When's the last time anyone even thought of Janet Jackson? Now, she's "shocking", "edgy" and therefore, "relevent" at least for the next 15 minutes....Tell those who vote for that option, I've seen some Liberals that'll say ANYthing to rub against us "Neo-cons". Point taken though:)

[MAD-3R]

Wow,
This must be a first. I am of a contrary opinion to most of you. I watched it, wasn't paying any attention to it sense it's not my kind of music, and didn't even notice the bouncing boobie. But what’s the big deal? I was far more concerned with the wet field and the risk of injury to the players.

IT's a breast!! The world will end and our children will grow to be sex fiends because they caught a glimpse of her left breast from 50 feet away.

If that’s the biggest complaint that can be come up with by the news media, then we have other problems as a culture. We can't appreciate the beauty of the human body, and Janet is beautiful and has a nice body, yet depicting violent crimes and grisly murders is just good drama. That’s just twisted.

[woaface]

We can't appreciate the beauty of the human body, and Janet is beautiful and has a nice body, yet depicting violent crimes and grisly murders is just good drama. That’s just twisted.It wasn't portrayed beautifully. That'd be different. I'm not a fan of glorifying gore either, if it was in the Superbowl, everyone would talk abou it.

[MAD-3R]

It wasn't portrayed beautifully. That'd be different. I'm not a fan of glorifying gore either, if it was in the Superbowl, everyone would talk abou it.

How was it not beautifully displayed? It was dressed up and exposed as part of an artistc performance.

Was it apropriate for the halftime show of the Superbowl? No, it wasn't.

But that would be my only complaint. A performance of Hamlet would have been just as out of place.

[MapleLeafMerc]

Wow,
This must be a first. I am of a contrary opinion to most of you. I watched it, wasn't paying any attention to it sense it's not my kind of music, and didn't even notice the bouncing boobie. But what’s the big deal? I was far more concerned with the wet field and the risk of injury to the players.

IT's a breast!! The world will end and our children will grow to be sex fiends because they caught a glimpse of her left breast from 50 feet away.

If that’s the biggest complaint that can be come up with by the news media, then we have other problems as a culture. We can't appreciate the beauty of the human body, and Janet is beautiful and has a nice body, yet depicting violent crimes and grisly murders is just good drama. That’s just twisted.

I agree.

Woaface, you won't find anyone further to the right than me. Some of the things liberals say and do drive me crazy. However, my conservatism includes the libertarian view that the government that governs least governs best. Calls for government to do something about this incident, if successful, will only further erode your freedom.

The rage that has resulted over this act of self-promotion scares me more than the incident itself. No doubt there will be people moaning about how little Johnny saw this and needs counselling. I just don't understand how a parent could not fairly easily steer his or her child through this.

[Ross]

Kid Rock "wearing the American flag backwards"?

He shouldn't have been wearing it at all.

He had cut a slit down the middle of the flag and d***** it over his head like it was a poncho or something. He needs to have his a$$ kicked for that.

[Bowman9]

I think the whole thing was done to take attention away from her brother Michael and to promote her new album.

Woaface - when I was 16 I was happy to see any breast even if it was on the scrambled Playboy channel... ahhh memories.
You seem to be a very mature 16 year old, well except for your driving stories :)

and MAD-3R it was her right breast not her left, ummmm....breast.

[Paul T. Casey]

Out of respect for those who may have been offended, the whole show should have never aired. Yeah, yeah, you can turn the tube off, but it's the Super Bowl. I'm thinking many a 10 year old boys were watching football with Daddy, or Grandpa, and at that time of day, you're not supposed to have to worry about such things. Wait a minute, I said respect, when talking about Mr. Redstone, nevermind, moot point, my mistake.
:shake:

[woaface]

What I mean by not being portrayed beautifully, is her right (sorry, not left) breast was blantantly exposed...not shown like art. The dancing was fine, except for some of the stuff the guys were wearing. Even her outfit wasn't offensive. But the material MTV had for the show was unacceceptable for something 90 million people watch at that time in the evening. There's no reason for that kind of display. My point is that many people, OBVIOUSLY including myself are absolutly tired of this kind of stuff being pushed around in our faces all the time. The human body is beautiful, and can be displayed to the public beautifully. But just ripping off a piece of clothing to expose something that is beautiful, is wrong...it didn't make it beautiful. You get what I mean? I'm sure there's something I didn't cover here, but I'll get to it:up:

[Fourth Horseman]

I was too busy watching the lingerie bowl and missed the whole breast incident.
:lol:

[TooManyFords]

The only thing that could have made the breast spectacle better would have Janet then clawing Justin's eyes out!

Question: How many refs does it take to start the second half?

Answer: 6 and a stripper!

[CRUZTAKER]

Kid Rock "wearing the American flag backwards"?

He shouldn't have been wearing it at all.

He had cut a slit down the middle of the flag and d***** it over his head like it was a poncho or something. He needs to have his a$$ kicked for that.

Right on Ross...and attempting to represent Texas? He's from friggin Compton...

"L"

I read several articles in the newspapers including the USA Today....and it's sad everyone is making a big deal over the JJ fiasco when Kid Rock was breaking one of our nations biggest rules.

I have no issue with his music, and admire him for changing most of the lyrics for the public, but if our U.S. military had had a presense at the show, they should have wiped his ass up for wearing OUR flag as a poncho. That was the only offensive display I noticed during the entire show.

[Billatpro]

I agree.

Woaface, you won't find anyone further to the right than me. Some of the things liberals say and do drive me crazy. However, my conservatism includes the libertarian view that the government that governs least governs best. Calls for government to do something about this incident, if successful, will only further erode your freedom.

The rage that has resulted over this act of self-promotion scares me more than the incident itself. No doubt there will be people moaning about how little Johnny saw this and needs counselling. I just don't understand how a parent could not fairly easily steer his or her child through this.

I don't get it! on this very site we are "Censured" we are not allowed to post messages containing "vulgar or foul language" WHY? will a child's eyes explode after he/she reads it? NO, will they be forever scard? NO.

However there are guide lines I think we all can agree that need to be set and lived by! Not just here, but in a society that is in much need of guide lines.

There is place and time for things, this thing was in the wrong place at the wrong time, plain and simple! As was the act that featured the "Rap" singer groping himself! keep this crap in the concerts where it means little to nothing! Not on national TV where my grandchildren or anyone else's childern can see it.

[usgecko]

Just to be a little inflamatory.

Why care about a breast being shown on TV when downtown of all big cities in the US is FULL of strip clubs. Its total hypocrisy (spelling ??) to be horrified at that pathetic little publicity stunt pulled by some overpaid morons when US society permits strip clubs in the profusion that they exist ?

[Donny Carlson]

There's a good chance that many of you watched the Superbowl last night.

I was working at the union office. For the first time ever, I followed the game via blog. The Chronicle had a staffer watching the game posting a running commentary. That, and the HC main page had almost instant updates. BTW, the blogger orignally called the breast incident a scam, saying she was wearing a flesh colored appliance. This later changed to an actial breast, but with a star shapped nipple piercing/pasty.



The half-time show was disgusting.

These friggin halftime shows are idiotic, anyway. Whatever happend to bands marching around forming objects? That was quaint. Five hundred identically dressed dancers giving some interpretation while Britney Spears writhes around on stage singing is not must see entertainment, imo, so why does the NFL pay huge amounts of money (or get paid huge amounts of money to allow) for this level of crap? Who has ever admitted they paid for a ticket to the Superbowl to see the half time show?


Then there he goes removing (with a somewhat light, yet obvious force) the covering from Janet's left breast.

Not that it matters, but it was her >right< ninny.

Hey, I admire nekkid breasts as much as any other red blooded hetero, but in conjunction with the Superbowl this usually requires watching the game at a topless bar. Jackson/Timberlake just changed that. Topless bars all over the country should sue. This will cost them millions!!


The title of Brittany Spears' new song "Toxic" might also serve as an apt name for the halftime show. Catching a glimpse of her video, you might see her as a flight attendant, with a skirt so short, that if she even bends over slightly, you'd see quite a bit.

I've seen this video. I laughed my large behind off, because her outfit is so over the top. Though, I have to admit back in the early days of Southwest airlines the flight attendants wore these hot pants outfits that were pretty interesting, but nothing with the cleavage of BS.

Videos are one thing. When you tune in MTV2 or watch them online, you have some expectation or warning what you are about to see. Flopping out your ninny in front of millions of viewers in one of the most watched family events like the Superbowl is just over the line and inappropriate. You gotta wonder just what were they thinking.

Not that I want to get into any debate, Woaface, but consider that even though our society here in America is more repressed when it comes to nekkid ninnies on TV than Europe or Asia, our teenage pregnancy rate is higher. I don't think cracking down more will change it for the better. imo.

[teamrope]

I'm still curious what desecrating a flag, or exposing certain portions of ones body has to do with freedom of speech. I always thought speech had SOMETHING to do with exercising ones vocal cords in conjunction with lip movements.

However, everyone from the entertainment industry to the supreme court have been watering the rules of what is and what is not acceptable for so long, it’s a wonder that society is not at a point where one can do whatever one feels like doing, no matter what who might be offended by it.

[woaface]

I'm still curious what desecrating a flag, or exposing certain portions of ones body has to do with freedom of speech. I always thought speech had SOMETHING to do with exercising ones vocal cords in conjunction with lip movements.
I've always wondered about that myself:)

[Patrick]

Yes I watched the super bowel. And what a game!!! And I saw Janets Breast (fake or not). I would like to see them. I AM MAN!!!!!!! Cant let go of that.

But I agree with you. What is sociaty coming too!!! Its become a 'ME' attude!! And a Sex attidude!

I work part time @ Dollar General, and I notice kids from 9-12 with shorts on that have hott stuff and other stuff wrote on them.

Where on the parants!!!!!!!!! This is sick!!!!!! Let my kid walk around with these clohtes?? Not!!!

Sorry to carry on, but I was brought up in my old school!

And Logan can close me out but I didnt like his respnse to this thread! :censor:I respect your veiws and I share many!!!Patrick

[junehhan]

I agree.

Woaface, you won't find anyone further to the right than me. Some of the things liberals say and do drive me crazy. However, my conservatism includes the libertarian view that the government that governs least governs best. Calls for government to do something about this incident, if successful, will only further erode your freedom.

The rage that has resulted over this act of self-promotion scares me more than the incident itself. No doubt there will be people moaning about how little Johnny saw this and needs counselling. I just don't understand how a parent could not fairly easily steer his or her child through this.

I am very conservative, but i'm also a huge Freedom of Speech buff as well. The problem, is that parents no longer want to be parents, and want some governing body to do the parenting for them. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be the case as I feel. Okay, so Johnny saw Janet's nipple right? By his age, Johnny has probably seen more nipples than that, and my feeling is that it is far more useful teaching Johnny the proper and mature ways to go about material like that, rather than trying to censor everything that Johnny has already seen by his age anyway.

[jspradii]

I'm still curious what desecrating a flag, or exposing certain portions of ones body has to do with freedom of speech. I always thought speech had SOMETHING to do with exercising ones vocal cords in conjunction with lip movements.

However, everyone from the entertainment industry to the supreme court have been watering the rules of what is and what is not acceptable for so long, it’s a wonder that society is not at a point where one can do whatever one feels like doing, no matter what who might be offended by it.
Whoa!!!! They've been doing it for going on 30 years. It has just gotten really "in your face" like this example in the last 10 years or so. Such behavior won't stop until the public stops making excuses for and condoning it. The FCC ought to nail CBS with a big fine, and then CBS oughta deduct it from its payment to MTV who then should, in kind, dock Jackson and Timberlake. Hit the culprits where they live....in their pocketbooks:puke: !

[Bigdogjim]

Like it or not .................SEX SELLS..............

End of story.

Just the facts.............

Cold hard truth..............

[BillyGman]

I wonder what you guys who think that it was fine or "beautiful" for Janet Jackson to do what she did would think if that was your sister or your mother who did that on public TV? Would you still think it was a beautiful display of the human body? I don't think so. Lets go further. What if it was your wife, your girlfiriend, or better yet, your daughter? Would you still accept it and be happy about it, and be so quick to defend her "right" to do that? If not,then why the double standard? I have a news flash for ya. With rights come responsibilities. And that's what many people who are soooo concerned w/their rights sometimes forget. I'm all for the Bill of Rights, but I'm also sick and tired of people ruining our freedoms simply because they refuse to be responsible while exercising those rights. And for Janet Jackson to do what she did is irresponsible. And if you argue w/that than I don't think you're being realistic, but rather you're more concerned w/trying to win a debate. I don't have any big problem w/a horse in that commercial passing gas, but what Janet jackson did was tasteless, and classless, and clearly shows that she cares nothing about 6 and 7 year old kids who were watching that night, but only about boosting her career by gaining publicity.

Now before you tell me about how so many other things on TV are just as bad or worse, let me point out to you that those other things are the parents decision as to weather or not they will allow their small children to watch such shows that may be questionable. But sporting events are supposed to be family shows that most parents aren't expecting to have to edit. But Janet, Justin, and CBS had decided to allow little kids to see that tasteless raunch w/out a parent being in the loop.

Little kids laughing you say? Laughing at something doesn't mean that it didn't have any influence over that child. What kind of example is being set? I'm w/Woaface on this, and it's sad in my book that a teenager has to teach older adults something about ethics and/or having some class. I'm sorry for being so pointed w/my words. I don't mean any offence to anyone, but unfortunately sometimes you need to get a little pointed to wake some people up out of their complacency. And if they choose to take offence to your words,then they never will have concern for what's right anyway,but only about their feelings being hurt. So I really don't mean any disrespect to anyone here. My only intention is to make a stand for what is right.Especially what's right for the young kids who were watching the Superbowl that night, and for those who will watch in the years to come. It's not always convenient or popular to make such a stand, but just because something isn't convenient,nor popular doesn't mean it isn't worth your effort.

Woaface, I commend you for being man enough to have the guts to start up a thread such as this, in the face of all of the rest of us board members who are much older than you are. That's what I call being a real man. NOT what Hollywood portrays as being a man. May I say it? U DA MAN!!!!!!!

[woaface]

Well there you have it! Thanks BillyG! As always, I appreciate it:)

[jerrym3]

I'm no prude, but our society has gone over the edge.

Rather than rehash what everyone has said already about Jackson/Timberlake on this post, I've got another pet peeve; the use of the word "sucks" on just about every TV show that presently exists.

Can anyone tell what words follow "that sucks....." except the obvious ones? And now, the words "that blows" are becoming just as common.

So, let's assume that you are watching a show with your young son/daughter/grandson or grandaughter, and the words "that sucks" comes up in the dialogue.

I'd like to hear how you explain when he or she asks you, "grandpa/dad, what does 'that sucks' mean"?

And we wonder why other countries think that our society is depraved?

[Paul T. Casey]

Not to mention my pet peeve, why is it construed that "sucks," and "blows" are bad things? I never thought either was that bad at all. :rolleyes:

[Dr Caleb]

I don't get it! on this very site we are "Censured" we are not allowed to post messages containing "vulgar or foul language" WHY? will a child's eyes explode after he/she reads it? NO, will they be forever scard? NO.


Why? Because in polite company, there is no need for this type of language. Logan chooses to ensure that this site remains polite. I find that one thing lacking in our society is common courtesy, evidenced by my neighbour's 10 year old calling me by my first name. When I was 10, I wouldn't think of calling any of my neighbours anything by Mr. or Mrs.

Will they learn those words? Yes. Do they need to use them? No. Which is why I laughed at the Chevy SSR commercial.

That being said, having someone jiggling in public doesn't offend me. I would no more be offended by a bare chested girl than I would be by a bare chested man. Mainly because girls are so much prettier. Breasts are only of concern if they are your primary form of nourishment.

[BillyGman]

But you didn't answer my question. What if it was your wife, or your daughter who exposed her breast on national TV? What would you feel about it then? How would you feel when you walked down the street w/her the next day through your neighborhood? Will you have the guts to give me an honest answer about that? Can you honestly say it would NOT bother you? I doubt it.

What would you say to your 16 yr old granddaughter who did that in public w/you right there 10 years from now, and then when you talked to her about it to voice your objection, she then said to you "but grandpa, you liked it when Janet Jackson did it on TV 10 years ago. Infact you laughed about it. So why is it so wrong for me to do now?" What can you possibly say to that? How can you defend your well thought out viewpoint now?

[Paul T. Casey]

Good points Billy, and thanks for young people like Wooface. I may have read somewhere "ye reap as ye sow." Makes sense to me.

[BillyGman]

Thankyou for acknowledging that Paul. I wonder if others will be honest enough to do the same.

[woaface]

Billy is on a good track here. There's no need to think things won't get worse, or 16 year old s will not, or don't already do things like this. I hear of people middle school students, 12 and 13 dating older guys 16, 17, even 18 years old. Oral , and making out was so common in talk, and almost practice by the time I was in 6th and 7th grade. After reading "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley and then hearing about 7 and 8 year old kids having a romp and actually doing extremely perverse things on the news, it makes me wonder where we'll be in another 20 or 30 years if everything continues down the same path. I don't like the idea of society being corsened to these ideas of s,e.x uality, especially at an early age. Young kids know way too much. Just yesterday I was at the YMCA, little dude had a $150 cell phone, didn't care if it was stolen because "he didn't pay for it" and was talking extremely dirty with his friends. Kid is somewheres around 10 and 12. I know I cussed when I was a kid his age, and I know kids have since way back when. But more and more is getting to their little heads, and guess which route their choosing to go? Corporate sponsers are right there to tell them that teachers and parents and most every athority figure cannot understand them as well as they can, and that the parents and teachers are all dweebs. It's not right, but so many parents choose to let it be so.

[2003 MIB]

James,
This is a sincere question based on your last posting. I'm sure my two stepdaughters think I'm out of touch or a dweeb. I think that's normal for them to feel that way. Don't you think your folks are dweebs? I think I didn't realize how smart/cool my parents were until I was about 20 or so...Enlighten me, please.
-Dan

[MAD-3R]

My point is that it was done as part of a performance. It was inapropriate as hell. No argument from me on that issue. My problem is the degree to which people are jumping all over this. She had her right breast exposed on national TV during the superbowl. Whoop tie f'en doo. Fine her money for public exposure, but that would be about the extent of her punishment. To labeling it indecent, or corruption, or pornographic is ludicris. (I don't think anyone here has said it was Porno, but I have read it in some articals.)

As for my supposed female child doing it at 16; if I have done my job as a parent correctly, she won't. Or at least, I would know about it as part of a performance, though I dought I would allow her to do it.

Absent parents and parents who don't care is what is causing the shops to be selling this merchandice to kids far to young for it's content.

TO paraphrase the anti-drup campain. Parents, the anti-sex.

[STLThunder]

My respectful opinion: Was it appropriate? Absolutely not, especially for Network TV :nono: , but I think too many people have over-reacted to it. :mad: Look at the Media. All the talk has been about "the Incident" and hardly a mention of who played in or won the game. If the game were broadcast on HBO, nothing would have been said. The whole thing only lasted a few seconds, but thanks to the media it has been replayed thousands of times, sometimes with out being :censor: .

As for the commercials, some of them were a little over the top, but they only seem to reflect what the viewing public wants. Just look at all the "reality shows" on TV that get great ratings, they all have several themes in common, sex, greed, backstabbing, humiliation, gross outs (I refer to shows that have "contestants" eat gross things), etc. I have yet to find any "contestant" on those shows that seem to have any redeeming values at all. They all just want their fifteen minutes of fame.

Yes, I do watch some of them occasionaly. :lol:

Thanks for letting me express my opinion.

[Macon Marauder]

I haven't watched a Superbowl half-time show in years. When half-time starts is when I start channel surfing. So we missed it. Not to sound too smug, but what did people think? A CBS half-time show produced by MTV featuring JJ, Kid Rock, rappers, etc? That told me all I needed to know about what the "entertainment" would be.

I saw the pictures, replays, and I've read about it. My opinion is that it was inapproriate, and I'm glad my 14 and 10 year boys, and 8 year girl missed it. I asked them about it the next day after school, what they thought, what they're friends were saying, etc. The consensus was "gross!" But no big deal to them or the kids that saw it. They think JJ is "nasty" and "old" anyway (she's 37)!

FCC head (Colin Powell's son) and others are making political hay over this deal, IMHO. Yes, CBS is a mess, MTV is a bigger mess, and it just gets messier as you go up the line. No surprise there. But many of these outraged people are also just looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

My advice: know your kids and keep the lines of communication open. Bring them up the best way you know how. Chances are; they won't grow up to be a "JJ" or "Kid Rock" or whoever.

[woaface]

James,
This is a sincere question based on your last posting. I'm sure my two stepdaughters think I'm out of touch or a dweeb. I think that's normal for them to feel that way. Don't you think your folks are dweebs? I think I didn't realize how smart/cool my parents were until I was about 20 or so...Enlighten me, please.
-Dan
Depends on the situation. My mom over-reacts...a LOT. I don't know anyone who knows her well that doesn't think so, including my father. My father, he's cool. I definitely don't contend with how smart my parents are, my dad is a member of Mensa, and my mom failed that test by one point. I should mention she took that test at 9 in the morning while she was 8 months pregenate with me:) Once in a while, they are dweebs, but I do very much enjoy their company...I'm homeschooled and I'm around them quite a bit. I answer th at question honestly.

[woaface]

If the game were broadcast on HBO, nothing would have been said. HBO isn't free. As far as I can remember, CBS is an over-the-air network, unlike HBO which you have to obtain through cable. 90 million people watched the Superbowl on CBS, I don't think nearly as many watch the big fight of the year on HBO.

To labeling it , or corruption, or ographic is ludicris. (I don't think anyone here has said it was o, but I have read it in some articals.)

As for my supposed female child doing it at 16; if I have done my job as a parent correctly, she won't. Or at least, I would know about it as part of a performance, though I dought I would allow her to do it.

Do you know she's not doing it behind your back? It's not hard, not at all. It's way easier that stealing money from your wallet, or smoking behind your back. All she has to do is leave the house. What's wrong with labeling , corrupt, or ographic. It's not o...but ographic. It was , it was not decent. Corrupt? It'll corrupt some kids...just look at MTV. To think otherwise would be a mistake. It's a 'when in doubt' kind of thing...why bet that it won't be?

[Krytin]

My hat is off to Woaface and Billy! You are 100% right to bring up this thread and you have both taken the words right out of my mouth!
But this is a free country. I can respect another person's opinion - even if I don't agree with it.
I'm no saint and never will be and I don't judge what another human being does in private or in such a way that has no impact on persons that do not wish to be involved. The fact that many people are not offended by the entire half time show and even a few of the comercials is only proof that as a society we have let our standards of public decency and ethical values slip far to low for far to long. Too many generations have been exposed to increasingly poor taste and unethical acts to the effect that "no one cares" anymore! How very sad.

[MAD-3R]

Do you know she's not doing it behind your back? It's not hard, not at all. It's way easier that stealing money from your wallet, or smoking behind your back. All she has to do is leave the house. What's wrong with labeling , corrupt, or ographic. It's not o...but ographic. It was , it was not decent. Corrupt? It'll corrupt some kids...just look at MTV. To think otherwise would be a mistake. It's a 'when in doubt' kind of thing...why bet that it won't be?

But thats my point. If I had done things correctly, I would be able to trust them to make the right decition, without me secound guessing them. I now know that I didn't get away with half the shinanigans I thought I did while growning up. But my parents trusted me not to do anything REALLY stupid. Yes I smoked at 16, slipped out after cerfew, and snuck booze from the cabnet. But I didn't fool them. And, when the time came for me to make the decition on drugs or not, I made the right one.

And I found my dads stash of Playboys when I was 10 or so, and snuck one into my room to look at. There were articals? ANd I like to think I'm resonable well adjusted and even appear on the "normal" chart sometimes.

I do have the advantage of having an education in Classical art growing up. Living in Italy and visiting many of the great works teaches that the human body, when displayed in an artistic manor, is beautiful and not something to shield yourself from.

No matter if you found her performace disgusting and no matter how inapropreate, her performance was artistic and the display was part of the production.

[UAW 588]

CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG TOGETHER? :bigcry:

[woaface]

CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG TOGETHER? :bigcry:
We do, just disagreements on this forum:D

[woaface]

But my parents trusted me not to do anything REALLY stupid. Yes I smoked at 16, slipped out after cerfew, and snuck booze from the cabnet. But I didn't fool them. And, when the time came for me to make the decition on or not, I made the right one.

And I found my dads stash of s when I was 10 or so, and snuck one into my room to look at. There were articals? ANd I like to think I'm resonable well adjusted and even appear on the "normal" chart sometimes.
Completely normal...I've done stuff like that, and I've made the choice not to drink or do myself. Othere than one sip of Vadka at a friends house, I have not done, and will not do alcohol before I turn 21. Both of us have made good choices. But there are kids now-a-days that go way farther than that. It's very common, and more widespread than you think. Who helps them with these ideas? No you as a parent. Where do these ideas even come from? Definitely not you as a parent. As for art...sure, I can see how it's artistic, the boob was just blatent...if she wants to be artistic and beautiful about the boob, it shouldn't be flashed. It should be shown well. But not on the Superbowl, and certaintly not near kids. Just as you and I see it differently, kids are even more impressionable, and might not understand that as something of art, but as something they desire.

[MapleLeafMerc]

BillyG, you asked us collectively if we thought it would be ok if a sister or mother did what JJ did. But before giving us a chance to answer, you put an answer in our mouths and based the rest of your post on that. Please let people answer if you ask a question. I agree that what she did was irresponsible and selfish. I don't agree that CBS knew it was to happen.

You later posted again and asked us if we had the guts to answer. Strong words, and yes, I do. I will assume that you mean a female of comparable age and standing to Janet Jackson. By that I mean that JJ was NOT a teenaged daughter, but a middle-aged, seasoned veteran of the game of self promotion. I hope you can agree that it is misleading and inaccurate to compare Janet Jackson at 37 to my 17 year old daughter. IF my daughter had been an entertainer all her life like Janet Jackson, then yes I would be used to it by now. I am sure you don't mean to suggest that my daughter is presently capable of doing what Janet Jackson did.

junehan touched on another key point in this debate by suggesting that parents no longer want to be parents and want the government to do it for them. I think that has truth in it, but IMHO is just a symptom of the original problem. This problem is the trend, started in the 70's-80's, for governments to increasingly intrude into the private lives of its citizens as it applied to child rearing.

In Canada we have what is commonly known as the Young Offenders Act. It was recently revised and renamed, but the goals remain the same. That is, the focus has shifted from holding young people responsible for their actions, to an approach that offers little in the form of consequences. Instead, it places most of the emphasis on finding causes (excuses) for crime. Underage teens and gang leaders are all aware that until one reaches the legal age, even murder draws only minimal sentences. Even worse, in today's society, criminals receive more attention and "help" from the so-called justice system than the victims of crime.

Along with the tendency to excuse young people from the normal consequences of crime has been a concerted effort by activists and certain elements of the legal system to portray simple acts of discipline such as spanking as crimes. These groups have more or less successfully stigmatized what was a fairly successful form of child rearing. Instead, when spanking is mentioned now, it is made to sound like you have been torturing your child in private. As for teachers, I really feel sorry for them. If they even look sideways at a kid now, that kid can run to his parent's lawyer and scream abuse. No wonder kids aren't learning or behaving as well as we would hope.

Woaface, if you have a problem with the standards of society today, I would suggest that you talk to the social engineers, elected and otherwise, that have virtually eliminated the fear of serious consequences for one's actions, at least for the underaged.

As for your comment to MAD-3R- "Do you know she's not doing it behind your back?" I can only say that I have not read anything on this website as completely rude and disrespectful. You are not at high school talking to one of your peers here.

[BillyGman]

Wow! This thread has really taken off! MapleleafMerc, thanks for your opinions, but I only agree w/what you've said about constraints that the government puts on child rearing. As far as your comparisant of your daughter if she was 17 to Janet jackson I think your point is unrealistic. But first let me say that you're wrong to say that I didn't give people a chance to answer my question. Originaly I did, and they chose to skirt around that issue, and I then later had to bring it up again in a later post before anyone would attempt to answer.

What difference does it make how old a lady is? As long as she's an adult, what's the difference? And why should it be okay for a celebrity to expose herself in public, but not okay for your daughter to do so? Does someone have to get paid for doing that to make it okay? If so, then does that mean that you would accept your daughter being a Prostitute? After all they get paid too. Right? Don't you even see the double standard there? I don't care if someone tries to justify it by giving it a fancy label such as "Art" or not. Bottom line is, if you cannot appreciate your 17, or 18 year old daughter flashing her breasts on the beach to some guys driving by, or by doing that in front of a TV camera at a baseball game, then how can you appreciate Janet jackson doing that in public simply because she has celebrity status? In other words, it's called "art" when Janet jackson, Britney Spears, or Christine Aguilera does that, but it cannot be "art" if your daughter does it? Why? I can tell you why, but before you accuse me of answering the question for you again, I'll hold back on that answer until you provide one first.

[MapleLeafMerc]

What difference does it make how old a lady is? As long as she's an adult, what's the difference? And why should it be okay for a celebrity to expose herself in public, but not okay for your daughter to do so? Does someone have to get paid for doing that to make it okay? If so, then does that mean that you would accept your daughter being a Prostitute? After all they get paid too. Right? Don't you even see the double standard there? I don't care if someone tries to justify it by giving it a fancy label such as "Art" or not. Bottom line is, if you cannot appreciate your 17, or 18 year old daughter flashing her breasts on the beach to some guys driving by, or by doing that in front of a TV camera at a baseball game, then how can you appreciate Janet jackson doing that in public simply because she has celebrity status? In other words, it's called "art" when Janet jackson, Britney Spears, or Christine Aguilera does that, but it cannot be "art" if your daughter does it? Why? I can tell you why, but before you accuse me of answering the question for you again, I'll hold back on that answer until you provide one first.

Billy, I haven't said it was ok for JJ to do what she did; in fact I called it inappropriate and selfish. My first post and original point was that the reaction to what JJ did at the Super Bowl has not been commensurable to the offence. I also did not call it art, nor do I "appreciate" what she did, just as I can't say I appreciate your hypothesis of my daughter as a prostitute being part of your argument.

The original point and source of Woaface's and your anger was (I thought), that a female exposed her breast on a program that children were watching. I therefore don't understand how my (or anyone's) daughter's private actions, such as flashing at the beach, is in any way germane to this discussion.

As for your last question, no, it was not art what JJ did and it would not be art if someone's daughter did it either. If I haven't clarified my position sufficiently for you here, let's just agree to disagree, ok?

[MAD-3R]

As for your last question, no, it was not art what JJ did and it would not be art if someone's daughter did it either. If I haven't clarified my position sufficiently for you here, let's just agree to disagree, ok?

But how was it not art?

[woaface]

Lol, ok let's not get carried away with ourselves! Im sorry, I didn't think that was a rude comment, or at least I didn't mean it to be. I more-or-less meant to say that it's so easy for kids to get away with stuff now and that these ideas don't come from the parent. I apologize if it was offensive

How was it art?I think that being shown artistically, it wouldn't have been suddenly shown and then the camera being pulled away from it. Art is a display of some sort, that isn't given to only a second of the publics eye and burst out in sexual angst.

[BillyGman]

Mapleleaf, my coments were not only directed at you, but also at MAD3R, who insists that the raunch of such celebs is "art". Gimmie a break. And that's why I felt that I had to go to the extreme w/my hypothetical examples such as someone's daughter being a prostitute in order to make a point. That's all. If you don't agree, then hey, it's your opinion, and my opinion is mine. Good enough. I noticed that MAD3R has chosen to avoid dealing w/my hypothetical examples directly. If something is called "art" just because a celebrity does it, yet cannot be called "art" if your own daughter does it simply because she doesn't get payed for it, then that's a crock and a double standard,and the only reason why guys go to the extreme liberal stance of calling raunch "art" is because they like looking at a exposed woman's body in public because they get off on it, and ofcourse they would feel guilty if they were to look at their own daughter doing that since they wouldn't feel it was proper to look at her like that which indeed it wouldn't be. But every woma including Janet Jackson is someone's daughter. The point is, that that if the woman in question is doing such a thing in view of the public eye, then what's the difference if she's getting payed to do it, or not? It's either acceptable or it isn't. But perverse men who enjoy such acts are determined to defend it by calling it "art". If the shoe fits. Wear it. What other reason would anyone be calling that "art" unless they can watch their own daughter do the same and call that "art" and still have a clear concsience about it? And that's the question that nobody on here who calls such a public display "art" can directly answer since they would have to admit their guilt to answer such a question honestly.

And this had nothing to do w/anyone's daughter being a prostitute. That's just a hypothetical question devised to bring out an ethical question here. This is an ethical issue. NOT one of "art". It's unfortunate that I had to go to such extremes w/my wording just to get some honesty out of people who defend such actions of celebrities as Janet jackson, and others. I don't enjoy having to go to such extremes simply to make a point, but I feel that somebody has to make a stand for what is right.

My intentions are never to offend anyone on here, but if my examples that I feel had to be brought out offend anyone, then perhaps they're offended merely because they're guilty, and the truth sometimes hurts. At one time or another we're all guilty of something, and we have to face the facts, and admit to ourselves that we're wrong, and make a change. But some people refuse to admit that they're stance is ever wrong. And that's unfortunate.

[Dr Caleb]

But how was it not art?

It made no statement. It served no esthetic value. It made no attempt to be thoughtful.

From what I gather, JT was supposed to tear of her leather garment, and expose some sort of undergarment. Perhaps that would have been slightly provocative, in line with the style of dance and music they were doing at the time. But since the outer garment didn't come off without the undergarment, it turned from art to exposure.

Now, I'm not an art critic, and what some people class as 'art' I usually see as 'junk', but to each their own.

Good points MLM. I also fail to see BillyG's parallel between someone's daughter exposing themself in public, and a life of prostitution.

And to answer your question BillyG, I have no idea how I would feel. If my sister decided to flip up her shirt on national TV or on a public beach, that would be her business. She's an adult, and I cannot speculate on how I would feel about something that hasn't happened yet.

I suppose I wouldn't be concerned, as she spent a couple years in Austrailia where topless beaches are common and seeing a womans breasts is about as common as seeing a mans. The social taboo of public nudity just isn't the same for all people. In most places, a womans naked breasts aren't even taboo.

(Observe that commercial someone posted from Europe - the one with the cigar being rolled between a woman's breasts.. . )

This has to be the largest use of the work 'breast' in any thread on MM.net to date :)

[BillyGman]

the points I've made in my last post stands, and the question I've posed goes unanswered since nobody wants to deal w/it directly out of fear of guilt. I'm not talking about this happening in any society were all woman walk around exposed, but one where they don't. I'm talking about where the superbowl takes place, and that's in this country, NOT in Australia. But again you go to the extreme to avoid dealing w/my question directly because deep in your heart you know that I have a valid point but you allow your pride to prevent you from admiting that you're wrong.

Sure this is a board about cars, but we have a "Lounge" forum to discuss off-topics such as this. but I see that someone has questioned this discussion simply because he's running out of answers to fabricate.

Yes, this has been an intense debate, and because certain people refuse admit that my points are valid, then I have to go for the jugular. if you just admited that I had an accurate point in the first place, or simply abstained from arguing w/me, then i would let it go. but as long as you post and skirt around mt questioning, or offer answers that don't directly deal w/the points I've made, then I'll keep coming back. Like it or not.

[Ross]

OK, I guess I have to chime in on the issue of "art." In recent years we have seen such things as a crucifix in a glass of urine called "art," and even supported by federal tax dollars. I have seen local tax dollars spent on "public art" which is nothing more than huge chunks of jagged, welded steel thrown together and called "sculpture." Today, any no-talent scam artist can call his junk "art" and some liberal will agree, just to be cool. It has become so politically incorrect to say "Michaelangelo produced art. Rembrandt produced art. This is trash." Nowadays, I can put my loaded garbage can on display, and some idiot will call it art. OK, all you lovers of modern "art," flame away.

[woaface]

OK, I guess I have to chime in on the issue of "art." In recent years we have seen such things as a crucifix in a glass of urine called "art," and even supported by federal tax dollars. I have seen local tax dollars spent on "public art" which is nothing more than huge chunks of jagged, welded steel thrown together and called "sculpture." Today, any no-talent scam artist can call his junk "art" and some liberal will agree, just to be cool. It has become so politically incorrect to say "Michaelangelo produced art. Rembrandt produced art. This is trash." Nowadays, I can put my loaded garbage can on display, and some idiot will call it art. OK, all you lovers of modern "art," flame away.Whoo! I'll second that. You know, I read in the paper today that Justin Timberlake said his parents were embarrassed by the offensive act:D

(On how it wasn't art because...)It made no statement. It served no esthetic value. It made no attempt to be thoughtful.
I completely (and obviously) agree.

[Dr Caleb]

But again you go to the extreme to avoid dealing w/my question directly because deep in your heart you know that I have a valid point but you allow your pride to prevent you from admiting that you're wrong.

Firstly, i don't believe anyone has taken offense at anything anyone has said, but I can only speak for myself, and I have not. :)

No I for one didn't go to the extreme to avoid your question, and I am not wrong. I did deal directly with your question. Let me state my answers again to be clear:

I would not take offense at my sister walking around topless, because I am not offended by nudity, and I am sure she has done so in the past. I do not know how I would feel if she did so on national TV, because she has not done so, but given that I don't get offended by such things, I don't think I would be if she did. I cannot say how I would feel about my daughter doing this because I do not have a daughter. When I get one who is old enough to have breasts, I'll let you know. Perhaps my views will change.

Your point is valid, from your moral perspective. From mine, it is not. My pride has nothing to do with it, and I feel no guilt or shame for having an appreciation of the human female form. I like women. I like to look at naked women. I'm male and I have a heartbeat, and my heart is pumping testosterone through my body. It's part of me, so . . . when I'm not looking at naked women, I'm thinking about naked women. To deny that is to deny what I am. There is nothing shamful about being hungry or sleepy, there is nothing shameful about my appreciation of women ethier.

Because you appear to be offended by public nudity, I can see your perspective.


Yes, this has been an intense debate, and because certain people refuse admit that my points are valid, then I have to go for the jugular. if you just admited that I had an accurate point in the first place, or simply abstained from arguing w/me, then i would let it go. but as long as you post and skirt around mt questioning, or offer answers that don't directly deal w/the points I've made, then I'll keep coming back. Like it or not.

Keep coming back and re-hashing this subject all you like. It makes for interesting conversation. I can't speak for everyone, but my answers won't change.

[Dr Caleb]

. . . when I'm not looking at naked women, I'm thinking about naked women.

I should clairify that a little. I do think about cars about as much as I do about women.

[Paul T. Casey]

IMHO if the potential was there to offend even one person, the stunt shouldn't have happened. But, nowadays, only certian types of offensive behaivor are allowed to be criticized. To some, saying God in the Pledge of Allegiance is offensive, however, most of the same folks offended by that say I shouldn't be offended by sex, violence, and general disrespect onfree access TV. Hmmmm.

[Dr Caleb]

To some, saying God in the Pledge of Allegiance is offensive, however, most of the same folks offended by that say I shouldn't be offended by sex, violence, and general disrespect onfree access TV. Hmmmm.

Hooorah! I'm still stumped that some people are offended at the sight of a pretty woman, but allow their kids to listen to bad poetry about shooting mostly law enforcement personelle who are there to protect us.

Stop the planet, I want to get off :)

[woaface]

Hooorah! I'm still stumped that some people are offended at the sight of a pretty woman, but allow their kids to listen to bad poetry about shooting mostly law enforcement personelle who are there to protect us.
I'm not offended by naked or beautiful women. I don't know why anyone should be. I'm offended by a JJ's chest being exposed in an unreasonable manner. I don't think anyone who is offended by this would let their kids listen to rap music, as ignorant as it can be. This is something that kids shouldn't have their minds filled with. You are an adult and can see it as part of nature. Kids don't...they hear things in school, see things on TV and there's no reason to throw something like that in a childs face. CHILDREN WATCH THE SUPERBOWL. This fuels (key word is fuels) what they can't get, and they know they can't get it. It's turning them into little hedonists. It'd be one thing if we were all nudists. Anyways, it is quite funny that breast has been used so many times in one forum.


Stop the planet, I want to get off :)Isn't Canada close enough;) Just kidding!

[BillyGman]

Thankyou. I'm glad to see that there are atleast several people here who understand where I'm coming from on this "art" thing.

[Dr Caleb]

This fuels (key word is fuels) what they can't get, and they know they can't get it. It's turning them into little hedonists.

Exactally! Take away something and declare it off limits, you increase demand. See: "Prohibition" and "War on Drugs". In places where women regularlly are topless, such as Africa, boys your age are more excited over a new watering hole for their cattle.

Speaking of which, my girlfriend has a son about your age. She told him he couldn't have Playboys. Being a single mother, she didn't realize this meant the boy "must have Playboys". She found the stash that he got his friend to 'liberate' from his dad's collection, and asked if this was normal. I assured her it was, and at least it wasn't Playgirls. :)



Isn't Canada close enough;) Just kidding!

:shot:
:)

[woaface]

Exactally! Take away something and declare it off limits, you increase demand. See: "Prohibition" and "War on Drugs". In places where women regularlly are topless, such as Africa, boys your age are more excited over a new watering hole for their cattle.
Yes, I agree, however, things they hear in school, and stuff they see on TV don't make it normal. They show it disgustingly (See: Spring Break) and show it in a hedonistic fashion. When I saw a woman in Africa walkin around naked in National Geographic as a kid I thought "Man, those are some nast t*ts!" But watching MTV, or getting ahold of Lowrider/Honda Tuning Magazine in the grocery store, I said "WOW! I want some of that!" As the girl is somewhere I can't be, and it tatalizing me with something I can't get. Now I know it's something I don't want since I'm a genius (because of homeschooling) and she's an idoit (because she parties 24-7.:cool4: MTV and the like play to the emotions of younger people from middle school to college. Again, turning them into little hedonists...there's so much more that is so much more important in the world, but having fun in life, partying, getting girls, the right car...it's replacing that. Guys become sex-monkeys and girls become their slaves. Or something like that.:D Ok, I'm guilty of the car thing...but at least...uh...er...ok, I'm guilty of the car thing.

[MAD-3R]

What difference does it make how old a lady is? As long as she's an adult, what's the difference? And why should it be okay for a celebrity to expose herself in public, but not okay for your daughter to do so? Does someone have to get paid for doing that to make it okay? If so, then does that mean that you would accept your daughter being a Prostitute? After all they get paid too. Right? Don't you even see the double standard there? I don't care if someone tries to justify it by giving it a fancy label such as "Art" or not. Bottom line is, if you cannot appreciate your 17, or 18 year old daughter flashing her breasts on the beach to some guys driving by, or by doing that in front of a TV camera at a baseball game, then how can you appreciate Janet jackson doing that in public simply because she has celebrity status? In other words, it's called "art" when Janet jackson, Britney Spears, or Christine Aguilera does that, but it cannot be "art" if your daughter does it? Why? I can tell you why, but before you accuse me of answering the question for you again, I'll hold back on that answer until you provide one first.


Ok, to tackle this head on, and to address the concept of "Art."

TO just flip up the shirt to get a flash a car of boys would not justify as an artistic display, just as a display. But lets say, if she was on stage in a performance, and the scene has her exposing her breast, then in the context of the performance, it would be art.

The difference is that JJ and JT was PERFORMING, not just lifting her shirt. That is the difference.

And the fact that we have 5 pages of this little forum dedicated to her right breast, makes it pretty thought provoking, and well, guess what?

That the point of art. Especially performance art.

As I patron of the arts, I have paid to see plays, art displays, purchased books and music, and watched movies. Just because you don't think something is art, doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

As an example. I like my old school punk, and have purchased some Suicidal Tendencies. I have supported the artist by purchasing his music. My wife like Country music, and has purchased a Garth Brooks album. She has supported her artist. Nether one of us like Janet Jackson, or Justin Timberlake, so have no intention of purchasing their music.

But it is still art, and they are still artists.


edit to correct spelling

[Dr Caleb]

*snip* As the girl is somewhere I can't be, and it tatalizing me with something I can't get. Now I know it's something I don't want since I'm a genius (because of homeschooling) and she's an idoit (because she parties 24-7.:cool4:

You shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush. There are many women out there who will give you a run for your money in the neuron department. I met my ex wife on the ski slopes, we were both trying out for the 1986 Calgary Olympic team. Looked really good in tight racing body suit. She became a physicist.



MTV and the like play to the emotions of younger people from middle school to college. Again, turning them into little hedonists...there's so much more that is so much more important in the world, but having fun in life, partying, getting girls, the right car...it's replacing that.

Yup. That they do. Just like the 6 o'clock doesn't report "Nothing happened today, all is good"; it doesn't sell anything. People act that way because they think they are expected to act that way. I think I mentioned this to you before, but I see the coolest guy in my high school graduation class twice a week. He collects my garbage.

I have a 18 year old cousin who is very much the MTV type. Belly shirts, open toed shoes (it's friggen cold out!) loud Nelly. Dropped out of grade 9, and most likely will say "super size that?" for the rest of her career. And she believes Brittny is talented. :help: She also still believes the back street boys were the greatest group ever. Waste of government rations.



Guys become sex-monkeys and girls become their slaves. Or something like that.:D Ok, I'm guilty of the car thing...but at least...uh...er...ok, I'm guilty of the car thing.

You will find both a beautiful woman and an intellegent woman in the same package if you only know where to look. Where would you expect to find a hidden needle? In a haystack? Wrong. With a bunch of other needles. Find out where all the smart girls hang out, and yours will be there.

In the mean time, learn about cars! Can't hurt to have practical skills along with book knowledge. Or do what my father taught me to do. Once a year, pick something you know nothing about, and learn about it. It opens many doors! (Some of those doors lead to smart, pretty women too.)

[Dr Caleb]

Well said Mad!

[woaface]

Yeah, smart and beautiful women are common around here...I was just tryin to get a lick in on the cover girls...:) So hey, how does Janet Jackson make kids any smarter with the showing of the breast? I think she's lowering herself and social standards. She is the girl flashing the car full of guys when she did the half-time show. So how is it in anyway helpful when your 18 year old cousin dropped out of ninth grade Dr. Caleb? Not to be pointed. But it's sure a lot more interesting to younger people that learning something in school, or listening to their mom who corporations trying to make a buck portray as a dip who doesn't know how teens act.

Ok, this thread is officially boring. All I want is a dead pedal! But I'm glad everyone could make the input, I don't have anyone black-listed and I hope I'm not anyone's enemy:)

[Dr Caleb]

So how is it in anyway helpful when your 18 year old cousin dropped out of ninth grade Dr. Caleb? Not to be pointed.

Ok, this thread is officially boring. All I want is a dead pedal! But I'm glad everyone could make the input, I don't have anyone black-listed and I hope I'm not anyone's enemy:)

That's why I said, "Waste of Government Rations". If 9th grade is as high as she goes, that's pretty pathetic. Just a commentary on your "eMpTyVee ooooo shiny!" crowd. Yes, you meant to be pointed! :)

Yea, we did get a little off topic there. Do I detect a short attention span James? :lol:

Janet bad! (but not offensive)

[woaface]

That's why I said, "Waste of Government Rations". If 9th grade is as high as she goes, that's pretty pathetic. Just a commentary on your "eMpTyVee ooooo shiny!" crowd. Yes, you meant to be pointed! :)

Yea, we did get a little off topic there. Do I detect a short attention span James? :lol:

Janet bad! (but not offensive)Lol...gotcha!
My attention only spans what it needs to, or what I ask it to.

[BillyGman]

Okay guys, I'm glad you didn't get offended by anything I've written, cuz I know that I can get pretty intense at times. That doesn't mean that I'm retracting anything I've stated, but just that I'm saying that my goal isn't to attack anyone, but just challenge their viewpoints.

DR Caleb, as for you being a man w/Testosterone etc., etc....Yep, me too. Join the club. My urges for sex are just as great as the next guy, and I admire a woman's body too. But here's my veiwpoint:

Male animals have Testosterone pumping through their veins also. And animals have sex right in front of their young offspring, as well as right out in the open for the rest of the animal community to view. So does that mean that it's acceptable for the human male to want to do the same, just because he too has "Testosterone pumping through his veins"?? And while you address that, question, here's another for you and for MAD3R..........

So if almost anything can be considered "art" if it's on stage, then if a man and woman had sex on stage in front of the paid audience, then is that considered "art" also? If not, then why not? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line between "art" and raunch? Surely there must be some line drawn somewhere. No? because if there isn't, then what's to stop someone from having sex w/animals on stage in the giuse of "art", sex w/children,sex w/dead bodies, etc., etc etc.

The point is that there needs to be some rules laid down, and some constraints, otherwise things get out of control. Just because I appreciate a woman's body, doesn't mean that I shouldn't practice modesty. Otherwise us human beings become just like the animals that we're supposed to be above. And performers need to practice some modesty also while in public weather they get paid to perform or not. because otherwise, they show disrespect for the public, and they too become just like the animal kingdom instead of humanity. Just because someone has a "groove thang" underneath their clothes,and they happen to be a professional entertainer, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to take liberty w/liberties, flaunting it around fully exposed in the eye of the public, especially when there will be kids watching. And that's just like what Janet Jackson did.

[martyo]

...none of this would have happened.

http://www.mercurygallery.net/mmnet/data/500/563DuctTape-thumb.jpg

[MM03MOK]

...none of this would have happened.He missed a spot!! :lol:

[MAD-3R]

Okay guys, I'm glad you didn't get offended by anything I've written, cuz I know that I can get pretty intense at times. That doesn't mean that I'm retracting anything I've stated, but just that I'm saying that my goal isn't to attack anyone, but just challenge their viewpoints.

DR Caleb, as for you being a man w/Testosterone etc., etc....Yep, me too. Join the club. My urges for sex are just as great as the next guy, and I admire a woman's body too. But here's my veiwpoint:

Male animals have Testosterone pumping through their veins also. And animals have sex right in front of their young offspring, as well as right out in the open for the rest of the animal community to view. So does that mean that it's acceptable for the human male to want to do the same, just because he too has "Testosterone pumping through his veins"?? And while you address that, question, here's another for you and for MAD3R..........

So if almost anything can be considered "art" if it's on stage, then if a man and woman had sex on stage in front of the paid audience, then is that considered "art" also? If not, then why not? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line between "art" and raunch? Surely there must be some line drawn somewhere. No? because if there isn't, then what's to stop someone from having sex w/animals on stage in the giuse of "art", sex w/children,sex w/dead bodies, etc., etc etc.

The point is that there needs to be some rules laid down, and some constraints, otherwise things get out of control. Just because I appreciate a woman's body, doesn't mean that I shouldn't practice modesty. Otherwise us human beings become just like the animals that we're supposed to be above. And performers need to practice some modesty also while in public weather they get paid to perform or not. because otherwise, they show disrespect for the public, and they too become just like the animal kingdom instead of humanity. Just because someone has a "groove thang" underneath their clothes,and they happen to be a professional entertainer, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to take liberty w/liberties, flaunting it around fully exposed in the eye of the public, especially when there will be kids watching. And that's just like what Janet Jackson did.

If a coiuple has sex, on stage, in front of an audiance, then it could be concidered art. But if you have no desire to see the show, then they don't get your money, you are not supporting them. As bigdog said here and been said sence the advent of advertising, "Sex sells." If a performer does something that you feel is inapropriate, hit them where it hurts. In the pocketbook. I can not tell you what isn't Art, nether can Woeface tell me what isn't art. No one can tell anyone what isn't art. But, there are laws to protect those who can't protect themselves, be they children, animals, or dead. But if there is no money to support the artist, then they will have to do something more commercial to feed themselves.

I do not support the goverment giving money to anyone who claims to be an artist. But I would aprove the goverment contracting an artist for there work, if it is appropriate for the venue. ie. Murals in post offices, concerts in parks.

And as I have said, what JJ did was inapropriate for the venue, and should be fined. Or, made to perfom free concerts in public parks and keep the shows purely "G" Rated.

[MapleLeafMerc]

...none of this would have happened.

Thanks Marty!

http://www.mercurygallery.net/mmnet/watermark.php?file=500/563DuctTape.jpg

Duct tape forever! (Thanks, Red Green)

[woaface]

Just because, I'm adding another thing or two or three to the poll...the duct tape is funny!!!

To expound on what BillyG said...we're animals with a higher though process...and that can do a lot of evil...so many males would do so many things inappropriatly to women. Oh wait...that already happens.

**I can't add to the poll, I know I should have in the first place, oh well!**

[Petrograde]

I was stationed in Germany for 2 1/2 years. If you guys think a glimpse of JJ's boob is shocking, then you better not watch European TV!!! Especially after 10:00pm!

I guess our Puritan ancestors that moved to North America centries ago still have a tremendous influence on our culture.

I believe it was a publicity stunt. The publicity is has recieved is now approaching the "beating a dead horse" level.

The amount of press coverage given to this event is laughable. And I for one refuse to give it one more second of though.

Tom

[MM03MOK]

I believe it was a publicity stunt. The publicity is has recieved is now approaching the "beating a dead horse" level.

The amount of press coverage given to this event is laughable. And I for one refuse to give it one more second of though.

TomI agree, Tom, and hadn't planned on chiming in at all. The media is giving them exactly what they hoped for, by perpetuating the discussion. You can't buy this amount of publicity.

NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
SUPERBOWL CHAMPIONS 2004


- 30 -

[MM03MOK]

One more thing:



Congress Investigates Broadcast Indecency. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing last week on broadcast indecency. Concerns with the Super Bowl and Janet Jackson (following on the heels of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau decision not to take enforcement action against U2 lead singer Bono for using an obscenity at the Golden Globes) have solidified the Subcommittee's plans on an additional hearing in February. Subcommittee Chairman Upton, along with 38 other colleagues, has introduced, H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, which would increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language. In addition, the Senate Commerce Committee is looking to hold its broadcast indecency hearing on February 11th.

My company (Comcast) is educating Members of both Commerce Committees on the differences between the regulation of broadcast television and radio (which are licensees of the public spectrum) and cable services (which are not).


ok, now - 30 -!

[woaface]

I was stationed in Germany for 2 1/2 years. If you guys think a glimpse of JJ's boob is shocking, then you better not watch European TV!!! Especially after 10:00pm!

I guess our Puritan ancestors that moved to North America centries ago still have a tremendous influence on our culture.

I believe it was a publicity stunt. The publicity is has recieved is now approaching the "beating a horse" level.

The amount of press coverage given to this event is laughable. And I for one refuse to give it one more second of though.

TomYou know, in Russia they have a news channel where they strip while telling the news.:) I guess that's what it takes to get people to watch the news.:shake: News gives the coverage for ratings. This we all know, this I know. Bono should get in some trouble also. Because 90 million people saw what happened, now many conservatives can get their point across, where-as a lot of people don't care about little incidents. If it's little, does it hurt? Hardly as much, but it still shouldn't be there.

[Dr Caleb]

I agree with Mad, you can't tell someone what is art and what isn't. To me, some of the most stunning images I've seen can't be created in the physical world.


f(x) = x2 - µ


http://www.mindspring.com/~chroma/mandelbrot.html

[RCSignals]

Isn't the issue more about what "Professional" sport has become?
Not a question of what is art, what is free speech?

Does a sporting event, and the supposed "Fans" of that sport, really need all the extra fluff and extravagant "half time" performances? should the "half time show" overshadow what is supposed to be the main event?
whatever happened to something simpler, like cheerleading displays, marching bands, etc?

[BillyGman]

I think this all comes full circle back to a statement I made early on in this thread. With rights, come responsibilities. you can ask 10 kids on the street what their rights are, and atleast halfof them will be able to immediately spit out atleast a short list of what their rights are as a citizen. But if you ask those same kids what their responsibilities are as citizens, you would get a silence accompanied by a blank stare. People are so quick to set examples for their kids as well as to teach them what their rights are, but when it comes to having responsibility while exercising those rights, forget it.

If you think that you're so supportive of our rights as citizens, and yet you do NOT concern yourself w/showing responsibility and temperance while exercising those rights, then think again. because if that's the case, then you actually do more harm than good to those rights that you claim to value. The more that people show a lack of responsibility w/thepractice of exercising their rights, then the more reason it gives the goverment to take them away, or atleast to make laws that restricts us from freely exercising our rights.

So in that sense, when people go to the extreme by doing "whatever feels good" then they ruin things for all of us in the longrun.

And let me just stae that not only am I unconcerned w/most of what the press is saying about Janet and Justin, I'm not even aware of much of what is being said either. I don't pay alot of attention to that. Infact I don't even read the newspaper every day, nor listen to the news on TV all the time. So the opinions that I've expressed in this thread concerning Janet, and justin's actions have absolutely nothing to do w/whatever it is that the media is saying about the incident.

I don't know about you, but I don't need the press to form my opnions about what I do nor about what other people do. Everything I've expressed in this thread have absolutely nothing to do w/what the press is saying. So quite frankly if I see anopther statement made in this thread about how much emphasis the media is placing on the incident, I think I'm gonna puke.

[BillyGman]

Isn't the issue more about what "Professional" sport has become?
Not a question of what is art, what is free speech?

Does a sporting event, and the supposed "Fans" of that sport, really need all the extra fluff and extravagant "half time" performances? should the "half time show" overshadow what is supposed to be the main event?
whatever happened to something simpler, like cheerleading displays, marching bands, etc?

That's a god point RC. Perhpas we've been getting a bit off-topic.

[Donny Carlson]

:eek: You knew it had to happen! Copy cats were BOUND to jump on the ninny exposure bandwagon!!

[woaface]

Something weird happened and this (see next page) was posted twice. Oops!

[woaface]

I started the thread to mention things not in sports, but on TV, in magazines, and just everywhere that can be reached by young peoples now. Because it was on a major event that 90million (a lot of people...of every catergory of age.) people watched, it makes it a better base for arguing against it...it's not just the little things that get to kids anymore, and since it's been a slowish process getting to society, it's corsened it in a way, you know what I mean? People accept it as normal. It's a bit too much, and I'm tired of having it in my face everywhere I turn. That was my main problem...If I'm dating someone, and we've been going a while, that might be one thing...but still...I mean we're not going to haul off and have a kid, so why do teenage chicks bother to dress like that? I mean you can dress great, beautiful, nice...without having a 6 inch skirt, and a tight ass shirt with the lowest drop from the top possible. Yes my fieonce, yes my wife...but when I'm this age, and when my friends are this age...it's not appropriate...maybe sometimes, it's really hot down here...but it's not always needed. I'm going to eat taco-bell...it smells so good that I forgot what I meant, or was going, to say:up: :D :)

[MapleLeafMerc]

:eek: You knew it had to happen! Copy cats were BOUND to jump on the ninny exposure bandwagon!!

Thanks Donny, you kill!

[MapleLeafMerc]

I agree, Tom, and hadn't planned on chiming in at all. The media is giving them exactly what they hoped for, by perpetuating the discussion. You can't buy this amount of publicity.

Someone once said (something like) "I don't care what they say about me as long as they spell my name correctly". ;)

[gja]

OK,
I am quite possibly one of the most extreme right-wingers you would want to bump into. I think Rush Limbaugh is a bleeding-heart pinko liberal. I was always hoping someone would smack Clinton and his iron-bottom spouse from he11 in the face for defaming and embarrassing America in the sight of the world.
I think we should close the borders and EXPEL/DEPORT/THROWOUT all foreigners who break the law in even the slightest way.
(Sorry Logan, I can hear you cringing now)
I am sick-to-death of people who think parenting means running to change laws to lessen the amount of vigilance they must practice.

Well boo-****g-hoo!!!

I would say to parents who think we should pass law-after-law and make amendment-after-amendment to the constitution...
GET A CLUE YOU IMBICILES; DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF BEING A PROPER PARENT.
Why must the rest of us suffer the restrictions of an overly tight society and deal with a level of litigiousness that places such an overhead on some businesses that it affects our cost of living? WHY?

Why does it shock, or even surprise, people that something like this happened on TV? Oh, please......grow up. This was in conjunction with a sporting event that targets the type of male-pigs that only serve to sustain the stereotypical image of the shouting, beer-bloated, belly-painted, over-the-top fan that has become a hallmark of football.

This is why I do not enjoy most of the "organized" (ha, thats an oxymoron) sports anymore. The entire structure is nothing more than a money vehicle for capital generation. Even the players are a bunch of damned fairies in comparison to the players of say, 20 years prior. They go out on the injured list for a stubbed toe. What a pack of sissies!

See what you started????
Now I need to have a shot of single-malt to calm my nerves.
Bahhhh....

[MapleLeafMerc]

OK,
I am quite possibly one of the most extreme right-wingers you would want to bump into. I think Rush Limbaugh is a bleeding-heart pinko liberal. I was always hoping someone would smack Clinton and his iron-bottom spouse from he11 in the face for defaming and embarrassing America in the sight of the world.
I think we should close the borders and EXPEL/DEPORT/THROWOUT all foreigners who break the law in even the slightest way.
(Sorry Logan, I can hear you cringing now)
I am sick-to-death of people who think parenting means running to change laws to lessen the amount of vigilance they must practice.

Well boo-****g-hoo!!!

I would say to parents who think we should pass law-after-law and make amendment-after-amendment to the constitution...
GET A CLUE YOU IMBICILES; DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF BEING A PROPER PARENT.
Why must the rest of us suffer the restrictions of an overly tight society and deal with a level of litigiousness that places such an overhead on some businesses that it affects our cost of living? WHY?

Why does it shock, or even surprise, people that something like this happened on TV? Oh, please......grow up. This was in conjunction with a sporting event that targets the type of male-pigs that only serve to sustain the stereotypical image of the shouting, beer-bloated, belly-painted, over-the-top fan that has become a hallmark of football.

This is why I do not enjoy most of the "organized" (ha, thats an oxymoron) sports anymore. The entire structure is nothing more than a money vehicle for capital generation. Even the players are a bunch of damned fairies in comparison to the players of say, 20 years prior. They go out on the injured list for a stubbed toe. What a pack of sissies!

See what you started????
Now I need to have a shot of single-malt to calm my nerves.
Bahhhh....

Try to out-right-wing me will ya? I think Atilla the Hun was a wuss, and drawing and quartering is underrated as a deterrent to crime;)

You make some good points, esp. about the audience of the Super Bowl; I never thought of football as a family activity before this incident. And yes, it is strictly a money issue now, not quality nor doing it for the love of the game.

[BillyGman]

gja, please don't hold back anymore....tell us how you really feel(LOL). Actually, I can relate to your outspokeness, but the title under your username definately suites you well. You are a "Loose Cannon". That's for sure. I agree w/part of what you've stated. Especially about organized professional sports. They're all ruined as far as I'm concerned, and it's really the fault of the pure fans who continue to support them by numerous ticket purchases. I don't consider myself a pure fan. If I go to see one game out of the year, even that's out of the norm for me. I'll watch literally 2 or 3 games on TV per year. That's about it. But I disagree w/you about the viewing of the Superbowl not being a family thing. Yes, for many it's just a guy thing, but for some it's a game where their family (kids included) gathers around the tube to watch. So I don't think that you can accurately make a generalization like that.

So in light of that viewpoint, I don't think that anything that isn't pay per view only, should be considered an adult only telecast unless it's shown after 10:00 pm. It's funny that you should use the term "stereotypical" because you are definatly stereotyping all of the Superbowl viewers, and lumping them all into one mold, and I for one just don't believe that it's a realistic viewpoint at all.

And as far as your comments about parents expecting society to raise their kids, I fully agree. However I don't think that even applies w/broadcasts that are sporting events shown before 10:00 pm, and aren't pay per view. What's a parent to do, sit there w/the remote in their hand for the entire game ready to hit the button if some halftime performer decides to shread their clothes so that it doesn't set a terrible example for little 6 year old Johnny who's mind is still like a sponge, and is very impressionable? It would be different if the parent in question allowed their kids to watch some pay per view wrestling event, or even MTV. But a regular legit sporting game? Come on. And BTW, I don't even have kids my friend. But I happen to have a great Love for them, and have been around and taken care of many of them. I have many nieces and nephews.

[DHULK]

If Nobody Talked About It And The Media Didn`t Hype It Up , We Wouldn`t Be Having This Wonderfull Thread!! :p

[BillyGman]

IMO, the media hyping it up is a whole different thing than us talking about it in this forum. Just my 2 cents.......

[MapleLeafMerc]

IMO, the media hyping it up is a whole different thing than us talking about it in this forum. Just my 2 cents.......

Billy, you must be way over a buck by now... :lol:



I hope we can all laugh at this: ;)

http://www.mercurygallery.net/mmnet/watermark.php?file=500/1197Rob_Schneider_php.jpg

:rock:

[BillyGman]

LOL.....that hurts just looking at it.

[woaface]

Glad everything smoothed out and no posts, or worse the thread itself had to be deleted!:)

[Silver_04]

As if Janet and Justin doing their thing at the Superbowl wasn't enough, they aren't finished yet. I was cruzing the web looking for more Marauder parts, and I stumbled upon this. It appears as if they are further trying to capitalize upon the attention they are receiving and trying to tap into the automotive market.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ctt9/images/rear_emblem.jpg

This is one mod I don't believe I will be doing.

[woaface]

:lol: :shot: :D :baaa: :beer: That's great!

[teamrope]

As if Janet and Justin doing their thing at the Superbowl wasn't enough, they aren't finished yet. I was cruzing the web looking for more Marauder parts, and I stumbled upon this. It appears as if they are further trying to capitalize upon the attention they are receiving and trying to tap into the automotive market.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ctt9/images/rear_emblem.jpg

This is one mod I don't believe I will be doing.

I gotta have that! :lol: