Woman sues over Janet's breast

[Aivansama]

out of curiosity did you take these statements to be directed at you?

No. Why?

I obviously don't think that is what the full objection was about. I feel there is an underlying sexual implication that the boob represents. Not that there is anything wrong with the boob persay.

Speaking as someone who has seen first hand what the boobs really are for, I would be hard pressed to claim that there always is a sexual undertone to breasts. In fact, after some time sharing them with slightly smaller mammal, you really have to relearn their sexual meaning...
Which also goes for this:

I think the misunderstanding is some of the thread goers are trying to sperate boob from sexuality when the two can not be easily seperated. Needless to say i feel this argument is really concerning sexual material not suited for television.

and this:

Lets us not try and erase the sexual nature of them as well...

The two become instantly separated on certain occasions.

Not always (which is why silicon was put to uses other than IC:s), but sometimes. Insisting on taboos can lead to people learning human anatomy on XXX vids, which can cause some mishaps on first dates... Natural reaction of course would be to ban dates. (OK, that was uncalled for. But the point stands.)

Was it Ginger Lynn who was quoted as once showing her breasts to a erotic show attendee, only to hear comments like "they don't look like the breasts I've seen (on film)"?. The poor sod had never seen natural, un-cut breasts and was slightly let down...

Yes, children, once upon time even pornstars had natural breasts. That was slightly after stone was found to be sharp and fire hot.

Correct, just as we disagree she showed them to present to us here mammary glands and not for shock value.

Actually, we disagree here that on this we disagree.

We do agree: She showed them exactly for shock value. Shock value, which was mostly created by the taboo. 99% of ensuing noise was because outraged parents (or people with stong opinions and loud voice as would be more appropriate) claimed permanent moral corruption to kids who witnessed The Boob.

Children who haven't discovered their sexuality (hence "children") most likely don't magically do so after seeing a breast. Only after discovering the flowers and the bees, or Hustler and DivX, when they cease to be children and become adolescents, would they connect the breasts to Jugs, Hooters etc, but then there wouldn't be any damage left to be done, now would there? And please do not generalize this to include goatse, or violence, or animal porn etc. You should know better. (Not aimed at You, Legion. In case You wondered.)

BTW, I watched the bloody game and didn't notice It. Did You? (Best superbowl I've seen. Cats should have won, though. Delhomme ruled late in the halfs...)

The discussion on this forum would not be about boobs, it would be about Janets (sorry) boob and why it rules/sucks if it wasn't for the forbidden fruit flavour. Or more preferably why Cats did so badly early on and so briliantly later on (apart from the unfortunate kick).

 

[Legion]

No. Why?

You made an earlier statement suggesting you were concerned I was directing a comment at you. I am wondering if you felt any of this is directed at you.

Speaking as someone who has seen first hand what the boobs really are for, I would be hard pressed to claim that there always is a sexual undertone to breasts.

Yes just like sex can also be viewed as mating...

The fact remains, especially in this case, the intent was sexual.

I think the matter of "what they are really for" is subjective.

In fact, after some time sharing them with slightly smaller mammal, you really have to relearn their sexual meaning...

Right, just like how we view animal sexual behavior as mating and show it on Discovery but regard human mating as "sex" and refer to it as pornography...It reality you could view it simply as mating so why object to it at all :? Go ahead, show Debbie Does Dallas on Discovery. After all, its just animals mating...

Not always (which is why silicon was put to uses other than IC:s), but sometimes. Insisting on taboos can lead to people learning human anatomy on XXX vids, which can cause some mishaps on first dates... Natural reaction of course would be to ban dates. (OK, that was uncalled for. But the point stands.)

Not always what? I refered to sexual conotation of breasts and you begin discussing possibly dangers of taboos. How can taboos lead to "mishaps" on first dates? How is this relevant?

Was it Ginger Lynn who was quoted as once showing her breasts to a erotic show attendee, only to hear comments like "they don't look like the breasts I've seen (on film)"?. The poor sod had never seen natural, un-cut breasts and was slightly let down...

...even this implies a sexuality of the breasts. What does this have to do with the issue of censorship..? This speaks more of the problems inherent with breast augmentation.

Yes, children, once upon time even pornstars had natural breasts. That was slightly after stone was found to be sharp and fire hot.

Yes and allowing these boys to see real breasts will spare them the hardship of learning real breasts just aren't as nice looking as fake ones...I pitty those poor boys with a disheartening misconception...

Actually, we disagree here that on this we disagree.

We do agree: She showed them exactly for shock value. Shock value, which was mostly created by the taboo. 99% of ensuing noise was because outraged parents (or people with stong opinions and loud voice as would be more appropriate) claimed permanent moral corruption to kids who witnessed The Boob.

Right, so why wear clothes all they do is create sexual misconceptions of nudity..?

Children who haven't discovered their sexuality (hence "children") most likely don't magically do so after seeing a breast. Only after discovering the flowers and the bees, or Hustler and DivX, when they cease to be children and become adolescents, would they connect the breasts to Jugs, Hooters etc, but then there wouldn't be any damage left to be done, now would there? And please do not generalize this to include goatse, or violence, or animal porn etc. You should know better. (Not aimed at You, Legion. In case You wondered.)

Right, so really we should just walk around naked because sexuality is merely a societal concoction from taboos. Desensitizing is the key.

BTW, I watched the bloody game and didn't notice It. Did You? (Best superbowl I've seen. Cats should have won, though. Delhomme ruled late in the halfs...)

No i didn't notice it. I didn't watch the game. I had more important things to do with my time then watch barbarians run accross a field with a ball.

I believe i entered this conversation defending people's right to object to certain material on tv. I was not defending the psychology behind their object. I merely stated their objections could be seen as reasonable in some cases.

 

[kyleb]

I honestly do not see America being upset by this at all.

Yes i do feel the opinion in this case reflects the majority. I could be wrong though...

well you are obviously wrong on one count or antoher, you can't rightly have it both ways.

 

[Legion]

well you are obviously wrong on one count or antoher, you can't rightly have it both ways.

Kyleb please no extrapolations from words taken out of context.

I honestly do not see America being upset by this at all.

Here I am discussing the the absence of upset among Americans.

I may have better phrased this as

"I do not at all see upset americans."

Quite frankly all i see is indifference.

Yes i do feel the opinion in this case reflects the majority. I could be wrong though...

here i am discussing their feelings about censorship being law.

Yes, i think that most americans would disagree with nudity on television being easily accessable without censorship. However i do not feel everyone is always actively concerned.

 

[kyleb]

yet no is argueing the latter, only the former.

 

[Legion]

yet no is argueing the latter, only the former.

The statement to which i was responding was this:

I assumed the same to be the case on the "nipple on air" at US. I read that You disagree? That the law actually reflects the opinion of the majority?

Yes i do agree censorship laws of american television do represent the majorities' opinion. However, i admitted i could be wrong. After all i am a right wing fanatic - pro gay marriage leftist facist, so my perception could be skewed.

 

[kyleb]

i called you a right wing fanatic in relation to the issue at hand, were you took my disapproval of the idea of torturing a person to death as a leftist comment.

 

[Legion]

i called you a right wing fanatic in relation to the issue at hand, were you took my disapproval of the idea of torturing a person to death as a leftist comment.

where did i take your disapproval of the idea of torturing some one to be that of a leftist? Is there something wrong with being a leftist? I implied you have leftist leaning political beliefs. I remembering stating was to the affect of requesting an alternative to to the active system.


-btw a right wing fanatic believes in torturing people to death?

 

[kyleb]

where you ask? in another thread, compleatly off the topic of this one.

 

[ByteMe]

If anyone would care to read my opinion here it is;

Tits ROCK!


The more you see them the better.

As simple as that.

 

[L233]

The USA is a sexually immature culture that cannot make up its mind whether it wants to be the most gawdforsaken prude in the industrialized world or the biggest seller and consumer of pr0n.

Like with so many other things ("either with us or against us", "either pro-war or unamerican" etc.) the American society seems to have lost touch with something we might call the sensible middle ground.

 

[Natoma]

The USA is a sexually immature culture that cannot make up its mind whether it wants to be the most gawdforsaken prude in the industrialized world or the biggest seller and consumer of pr0n.

Like with so many other things ("either with us or against us", "either pro-war or unamerican" etc.) the American society seems to have lost touch with something we might call the sensible middle ground.

Yep. As I said in an earlier thread on this very subject,

We are, as a society, pretty damn schizophrenic. Madonna/Whore complex anyone?

On one hand, we as a society clamor for more and more sex and sex appeal. On the other hand, once we get it, we bitch and moan and use up precious oxygen deconstructing what it all means and how it's going to be the end of us all. Gotta love it.

 

[ByteMe]

The USA is a sexually immature culture that cannot make up its mind whether it wants to be the most gawdforsaken prude in the industrialized world or the biggest seller and consumer of pr0n.

Well said. Ever hear of the "flesh-light" ?

 

[L233]

Well said. Ever hear of the "flesh-light" ?

Nope, never heard of it but my good friend Google says its a rubber pussy camouflaged as a flashlight.

I am not really sure what your point is, though.

 

[jvd]

The USA is a sexually immature culture that cannot make up its mind whether it wants to be the most gawdforsaken prude in the industrialized world or the biggest seller and consumer of pr0n.

Like with so many other things ("either with us or against us", "either pro-war or unamerican" etc.) the American society seems to have lost touch with something we might call the sensible middle ground.

I don't see a problem with censoring things that children shouldn't see . My 7 year old cousin saw the superbowl .His parents let him watch it because it wasn't blocked out by the v chip which blocks out rated r or mature programs so that he couldn't stumble upon skinamax or something else like that .

It had no place being shown at the time . How people defend it . I don't know . But hey keep saying the lines should be blurred . One day people will be saying child porn should be allowed to be shown on tv . Then what will you say . WHere will you draw the line ?

 

[ByteMe]

Well said. Ever hear of the "flesh-light" ?

Nope, never heard of it but my good friend Google says its a rubber pussy camouflaged as a flashlight.

I am not really sure what your point is, though.

No point.

 

[arjan de lumens]

I don't see a problem with censoring things that children shouldn't see . My 7 year old cousin saw the superbowl .His parents let him watch it because it wasn't blocked out by the v chip which blocks out rated r or mature programs so that he couldn't stumble upon skinamax or something else like that .

Will a 7 year old boy associate seeing a naked breast with sexuality? I distinctly remember that when I was 7 years old myself, I didn't. So why the big fuss? And even if he was old enough to associate a naked breast with sexuality (as opposed to e.g. breast-feeding), wouldn't it indicate that it's time to take the full flower & bee discussion with him anyway?

It had no place being shown at the time . How people defend it . I don't know . But hey keep saying the lines should be blurred . One day people will be saying child porn should be allowed to be shown on tv . Then what will you say . WHere will you draw the line ?

At depicting illegal activities?

 

[Aivansama]

I don't see a problem with censoring things that children shouldn't see . My 7 year old cousin saw the superbowl .His parents let him watch it because it wasn't blocked out by the v chip which blocks out rated r or mature programs so that he couldn't stumble upon skinamax or something else like that .

Sadly this technology hasn't been introduced here. It would be really cool if parents didn't have to spend precious free time watching stuff with kids, buit could spend it as they please. Kind of like the netnanny stuff that's protecting children from online predators, without parents having to watch where the offspring is surfing.

It had no place being shown at the time . How people defend it . I don't know . But hey keep saying the lines should be blurred . One day people will be saying child porn should be allowed to be shown on tv . Then what will you say . WHere will you draw the line ?

Well, I heard swedes seem to be pushing for animal porn after they lost child porn, so they must not be satisfied with bare breasts on TV. And Humus even confessed they had actually shown sex on public TV... I wonder, would it have helped, if the sex would have been shown a little earlier? I think it must have been so late at night that nobody saw it, and that is why they're pushing for animal porn.

 

[Lezmaka]

Sadly this technology hasn't been introduced here. It would be really cool if parents didn't have to spend precious free time watching stuff with kids, buit could spend it as they please. Kind of like the netnanny stuff that's protecting children from online predators, without parents having to watch where the offspring is surfing.

I see, just let technology raise the children, the parents go off and do what they want and blame someone/something else when they visit a porn site not blocked by the filter.

 

[arjan de lumens]

Well, I heard swedes seem to be pushing for animal porn after they lost child porn, so they must not be satisfied with bare breasts on TV. And Humus even confessed they had actually shown sex on public TV... I wonder, would it have helped, if the sex would have been shown a little earlier? I think it must have been so late at night that nobody saw it, and that is why they're pushing for animal porn.

Sex on TV? Well, here in Norway, they actually sent "In The Realm Of The Senses" (famous Japanese erotic movie, quite sexually graphic) on public TV - around 8pm a few months ago, IIRC. Which drew surprisingly little outrage.