Woman sues over Janet's breast

[Aivansama]

Ok lets get down to the real reason this upsets me. Does the fact that I saw an old ladies pierced breast upset me. Not really. But what does is that this is the latest attention getting scheme that a celebrity has done on tv. From crotch grabbing (various artists) to lesbian kissing (madonna/britney/christina) and now to exposing yourself. What next?? I guess some people have no problem where we are going with this, I do. I dont want to see someone jacking off on tv. I dont want to see people eating human fecees. I dont want to see people having sex on public airwaves. Maybe this has all been done on "jackass". But 80+million people havent seen that show.

We've had breasts on TV for ages in Finland. I guess we're just slow, but we've not had goatse or tubgirl on TV yet. I'm sure that on less uncivilized and stone-aged countries those appear immediately following the breasts, but so far haven't appeared here.

Personally, I would like to see people having sex on TV. Sadly, that also hasn't happened yet. Can the breast effect be somehow accelerated?

BTW there are reasons that jaywalking is illegal. Some of them are for the safety of pedestrian and other for those driving on the road. But I guess you(not you JR) just feel that lawmakers had nothing better to do but put another stupid law on the books.

Before this gets thrown at me, I always wait until the light is green. Even at 3am when there isn't a soul to be seen. I guess the breasts haven't got to me yet. I'm sure they will eventually, I'm afraid I'm just slow.

 

[jvd]

Hey that tit scared me . I like them firm . I don't want to see a 37 year olds breast. I want to see a 20 year olds breast .

Yea,I wonder if people would of been just as upset if it was Britney's tit?

Na i would have been happy if it was michelle branch's tit ;-)

 

[Vince]

We've had breasts on TV for ages in Finland. I guess we're just slow, but we've not had goatse or tubgirl on TV yet.

No, you just have cases in said progressive countries where one could state that such open sexuality breeds a culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses.

Take Sweden and their recent increase in the numbers of animals who go to the vet with sex-induced injuries ever since they decided to ban child porn. I mean shit, who would have thought. But at least that only affects the person, not countless others on prime time. Who cares what someone does in their own home?


But, yet, what's most scary to me are people like John Reynolds (which is even more scary when you consider that he's a pops) who will bash the administration on some level for "Lying to the public" - a charge which has all but been dismissed my any serious observer - but don't have the moral clarity, intelligence, whatever it is, to see that fundamentally the charge against the Bush administration and Janet Jackson are one in the same: Intent & Trust.

We trust entities such as the Intelligence Community with our security. We put faith in them to properly inform the elected leaders so that they may use this insight to make the most prudent decisions regarding the defense of ourselves, our families and our fellow citizens.

We also put trust, put faith, in entities like CBS to provide us with content which has been properly marked so that parents can make the best decision for what their children view. Just as it's the President's duty to protect the American People under his watch, until a child turns 18 (and in my view for the rest of their life) it's a parents job to protect and guide their children.

In both cases there was a fundamantal breakdown in the passing of information, the knowledge of what's really going down, to the people who hold the right to know. And in both cases, people with the power - the parents and president - made choices on faulty knowledge. And that's bullshit in both cases, and in both cases heads will and should role.

Focusing on just Jackson now, it doesn't matter if it's a nipple or they have a freakin' 15 person gay orgy on stage. We all agree that each person has their own views as to what's acceptable and for that very reason we've set bounds and requirements to empower parents and viewers. By allowing this, and on the most widely viewed TV program bar none, is unacceptable on the now known condition that it was premeditated and the intent behind it was for yet more shameless self promotion.

So, at the end of the day it is nothing but trust. God-bless the FCC, I hope they rip her a new asshole over this. Because, personally, I don't believe in global/societal responsibility for problems which stem from the family and I don't believe in the censoring of media and art. I want to make the choice of what videogame my kids play and what TV they're allowed to watch. As your own person, with your own beliefs and morals which I respect that you hold, I don't care what you let yours watch as long as it doesn't prevent my ability to raise my family.

Look at the woman in the Miss Brazil contest who accidently removed her bathing suit when taking off her sarong. Did people start talking about suing her? Of course not, because they have more sense than the average American.

And if that was an accident, then what can you do? It happens and I don't think you'll find many people, of any belief, who will say she should be sued. The difference is intent; Accidents happen... we all move on. Jackson confessed this was premeditated and she knowingly violated the trust of millions of viewers, the Network's name and herself for self-promotion. Big difference my friend.

 

[Vince]

And while I'm talking about this:

America, the land of the inverted moral compass. As president, get caught banging your young intern and lie about it, articles of impeachment will be drafted as millions are spent investigating the whereabouts and activities of your third leg. As president, have your intel scrubbed by the OSP, lie to the public, spends 100s of billions invading a foreign country, thousands of foreigners and 100s of your own countryment killed, and the almost complete disdain of the entire western world, and that's just nifty-keen.

Wow, this is brilliant. I have two questions for you:

• If your wife is walking downtown one night, asked for help which isn't really needed, subsequently dragged into an alley and gets raped ; would you divorce her?
• If your wife is walking downtown one night, meets a guy, gets a room and has sex with him; would you divorce her?

Because the way I see it, in both cases there is extra-marital sexual relations going on. The difference IMHO is intent, in once case this hypothetical wife premeditates the act, knows it's consequences, but deliberately does the act regardless. In the other she is following her "moral compass" and does what she feels is right, but gets into a situation which is much different and unintended.

Similarly, I - and damn near everyone - knows Bill Clinton premeditated his lying under oath. This is illegal and he made a mockery of the Law of the Land, just as a cheating wife makes a mockery of the concept of marriage.

I - and damn near everyone objectivly looking at it* - knows George Bush had no premeditated lying under Oath. Nor was his incorrect statements premeditated lies. Hell, the fact that articles of impeachment were never even brought up on the hill, or Sen. Kennedy's daily attempt and subsequent crash & burn when trying to find lying demonstrated this very fact. The president's intent and actions were based on their knowledge at the time and was correct & sincere. Just as were the 77 Senators who voted for the war on the same intelligence. Again, their intentions weren't convoluted or biased as stated by people ranging from David Kay, to Bush's speech writers who took material right out of the Natl Defense Review, to Zell Miller and other such democrats like Ed Koch. In this case, I don't think you divorce her for the extramarital sex - maybe comfort her and kill the guy who did it...

*It's not that I'm objective, no mystery there, I just happened to fall on the right side of this one.

 

[kyleb]

Take Sweeden and their recent increase in the numbers of animals who go to the vet with sex-induced injuries ever since they decided to ban child porn.

i think it is a bit nieve to take that article at face value. after all it is on a Norwegian website and they have always had a strong rivalry with the Swedes. they even go so far to claim that bestatilty is not illegal in Sweden when it clearly falls under the juristtion of cruelty to animals.


oh and as for the Bush bit, incase you forgot there were people in the intelegence comunity crying foul before the war even started.

 

[Vince]

Oh and as for the Bush bit, incase you forgot there were people in the intelegence comunity crying foul before the war even started.

And they're objections were noted but ultimatly overturned by the massive evidence being collected by almost every intelligence group in the Western World and Middle East.

Blair has been cleared, Bush has preliminarily been and will be. Hell, the fact that such a large majority of bipartisan Congressmen and the entire Clinton Administration believed and used the same intelligence as rational for surgical strikes should tell you something. This is beyond issue for anyone but those who intend to use it as a political weapon with the mentality of a conspiracy theorist.

Bill Clinton. 12.16.1998[/url]]Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world....

...That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

Anyways, wrong topic.


PS. Thanks. I didn't know that about the Swede-Fin relationship, I just took the news article on face value and laughed.

 

[kyleb]

lol, Norwegian arn't Fins. but you probably knew that and am just as tired as i am as evidenced by me typeing "juristtion" instead of "jurisdiction."

considering that i think its time to call it a night and i'll get back to this thread in the morning.

 

[Aivansama]

We've had breasts on TV for ages in Finland. I guess we're just slow, but we've not had goatse or tubgirl on TV yet.

No, you just have cases in said progressive countries where one could state that such open sexuality breeds a culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses.

Take Sweden and their recent increase in the numbers of animals who go to the vet with sex-induced injuries ever since they decided to ban child porn. I mean shit, who would have thought. But at least that only affects the person, not countless others on prime time. Who cares what someone does in their own home?

Come on, now, do not feed the troll, folks (kyleb...). It was obviously a troll and a joke. Nobody in his right mind would really believe that.

Sadly the forum lacks a really good ROTFL symbol, but this post almost made it to my sig. It was just so hilarious.

Just to make sure that the next troll prepares his piece a little better, here's some actual facts (Which trolls usually avoid for obvious reasons).

Facts supporting breast sightings on TV equating a
"culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses"

Finland (AD 2001):
Breasts allowed on TV without outrage - true

Crime rates (per 100000 habitants):
Murder - 1.71
Rape - 8.68

Divorce rate (per 1000 habitants) - 2.6
Teen pregnancy rate (per 1000 women) - 20.5
Infant mortality (per 1000 live births) - 3.2
(widely regarded as THE measure of society)

United states (AD 2001):
Breasts allowed on TV without outrage - false

Crime rates (per 100000 habitants):
Murder - 5.61
Rape - 32.77

Divorce rate (per 1000 habitants) - 4.0
Teen pregnancy rate (per 1000 women) - 83.6
Infant mortality (per 1000 live births) - 6.9

So clearly a society becomes
"culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses"
when a boob is shown to a TV audience.

Feel free to use this data on Your following trolls, Vince.

Sources:
Crime rates (Finland)
http://www.interpol.com/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/finland2001.pdf
Crime rates (United States)
http://www.interpol.com/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/usa2001.pdf
Teen pregnancies (sorry about the quality of source.):
http://www.baby-parenting.com/pregnancy/teen_pregnancy_statistics.html
Health data (Finland):
http://www.coe.int/t/e/social_cohes...2_Edition/RAPNAT2002 Finland e.asp#P465_6797
Health data (United States):
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_14.pdf
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_12.pdf

 

[epicstruggle]

Aivansama, that has got to be the silliest comparisions ever. Simple reason is that the 2 countries are completly different. Heres the reason population. The US has a population of 300 million whereas Finland has 5 million. The US is a great melting pot of different cultures, whereas (i assume) Finland has really only one ethinic group all of the same religion.

You did have to compare your country to another, but using a country of similar size would have been more appropriate.

later,
epic

 

[dreamin']

Well, I guess he couldn't find another country of the western world that'd fit the "Breasts allowed on TV without outrage - false
" criteria

 

[Aivansama]

Aivansama, that has got to be the silliest comparisions ever. Simple reason is that the 2 countries are completly different. Heres the reason population. The US has a population of 300 million whereas Finland has 5 million. The US is a great melting pot of different cultures, whereas (i assume) Finland has really only one ethinic group all of the same religion.

You did have to compare your country to another, but using a country of similar size would have been more appropriate.

later,
epic

Yes, You are correct. Direct comparisons are utterly pointless.
But I think You missed the boob... sorry, point of this comparison.

"open sexuality breeds a culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses"

Finland (which is not actually very open at all, we just do not understand why boobs are bad), has "open sexuality" and thus has moral corruption, sodomy and polar bears running rampant on streets while US, understanding the inherent evil that is mammaries, has none of those. Surely the statistics show that?

Although, it could be that nipples cause more harm to larger audiences. 5 million finns could thus be relatively safe, while the 300 million americans are corrupted.

That is why this comparison is pointless.

 

[Aivansama]

Well, I guess he couldn't find another country of the western world that'd fit the "Breasts allowed on TV without outrage - false
" criteria

I considered Vatican, but then again the sizes do not match. Besides, teen pregnancies data would be slightly difficult to obtain...
And to top it all off, I am not sure that boobs ARE forbidden there. Anyone know for sure?

Edit: Typos. Same as the previous message.

 

[Humus]

Personally, I would like to see people having sex on TV. Sadly, that also hasn't happened yet.

Well, that has happened in Sweden a number of times in reality shows in prime time TV. There was some fuzz about it when it first happened, but it died off pretty quickly.

 

[epicstruggle]

boobs, nipples != bad
(exposed) boobs, nipples on tv, shown to an unexpectant audience == bad

hope that makes it easier to understand

later,
epic

 

[Humus]

Take Sweden and their recent increase in the numbers of animals who go to the vet with sex-induced injuries ever since they decided to ban child porn.

A few things about this ... it has grown from nearly nothing to some. It's not like animal sex happends all over the place. In fact, when a number of politicians proposed to ban it, most media reacted with surprise. Nobody objected of course, but most were puzzled why this all of the sudden was a concern that needed immediate attention and action.
Also, while animal sex isn't explicitely banned, it is of course illegal to harm animals, and that law is often sufficient. Also, the article is wrong on saying that child porn was banned in 1999. It had been banned for a long time, though it was strengthened in 1999 to also criminalize possession and distribution of it.

 

[Humus]

Aivansama, that has got to be the silliest comparisions ever. Simple reason is that the 2 countries are completly different. Heres the reason population. The US has a population of 300 million whereas Finland has 5 million. The US is a great melting pot of different cultures, whereas (i assume) Finland has really only one ethinic group all of the same religion.

You did have to compare your country to another, but using a country of similar size would have been more appropriate.

Why the heck would population size matter?

 

[Aivansama]

boobs, nipples != bad
(exposed) boobs, nipples on tv, shown to an unexpectant audience == bad

hope that makes it easier to understand

later,
epic

That has been the topic all along.

Unless You claim that on countries that permit breasts on TV, people are aware that a nipple may be seen and thus are not shocked to see one, and thus do not suffer the moral corruption as a result. Whereas in countries (are there more than one BTW? should I list it as a country?) where unsuspecting audiences recoil from the shock that is bare breast, they stumble and break their moral backbone in the process?

BTW, violence on TV is usually frowned upon here and TV news may inform parents that the following footage may be unappropriate for sensitive viewers (war footage etc). No such disclaimers are used for breasts, in case You wondered. Naked genitalia are reserved for time slots after 10pm (or was it 11pm?), but bosoms are not included in that.

 

[Aivansama]

Why the heck would population size matter?

Although, it could be that nipples cause more harm to larger audiences. 5 million finns could thus be relatively safe, while the 300 million americans are corrupted.

...

 

[epicstruggle]

Aivansama, that has got to be the silliest comparisions ever. Simple reason is that the 2 countries are completly different. Heres the reason population. The US has a population of 300 million whereas Finland has 5 million. The US is a great melting pot of different cultures, whereas (i assume) Finland has really only one ethinic group all of the same religion.

You did have to compare your country to another, but using a country of similar size would have been more appropriate.

Why the heck would population size matter?

It matter here, because Aivansama was trying to show a comparrison between US and Finland regarding nudity on tv. But there are many variables that could explain all the differences between the 2 countries regarding:divorce rate, crime rates,... which Aivansama brought up. So my point was that it would have been more appropriate to choose 2 more similar countries with only the nudity as a factor. The US is a more populated country, with more ethnic/religious diversity which Finland cannot compare too. So the comparisson is really worthless.

later,
epic

 

[oi]

I - and damn near everyone objectivly looking at it* - knows George Bush had no premeditated lying under Oath.

Actually, no you don't know that. You can however chose to believe that's the case, but claiming that it's an absolute fact is a bit silly. Almost as silly as your analogy between Bush and Janet or your wife example. Since it's all about intent and trust, I assume you would be just as mad if lets say Justin changed some of his lines only due to the fact that he himself finds the original lines a bit silly and then changes them to something he finds better. It could be something like;

"My name is Justin Timberlake"
to
"Justin Timberlake is my name, and I'm a cool cat"

Since you clearly stated that it's not what's shown, expressed or the outcome that's the matter at hand, but the intent and trust, I assume you'd want to crucify Justin if he made such a change? I mean he clearly spiced the line up to make himself look like one leet kid and at the same time he violated the trust from the channel for his own well being.

I mean good lord (ops, I usually don't use his name in vain, but I felt it was needed this time), the kind of arguments some of you bring forth is nothing but hilarity at a level unknown in countries where open sexuality breeds a culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses.