it was just a tit..???

can u believe the reaction to that half time show "boober" with janet and justin?
just when I thought society was starting to mature a little.

PEOPLE it was just a tit...they didn't have sex, what the F....and so now we can't watch Britney videos during daytime...well lets just lock ourselves up from this dirty little world eh.

it doesnt matter if it was jus a tit or not it was further beyond before look went from britany kiss to a tit wat next full nudity . they were pushing the envolope and if we let them keep doing this and doing it wit out any consequences it will lead to something as bad as completely naked. its ridiculus wat these people these days do to try further their careers or popularity but i am personality glad it backfired this time cus its like i child if u let them get away wit stealing a candy once they will push it and go for more next time and then more next time and then even more next time until they rob a bank or something its jus the fact that u cant let slackness in the laws come in this world to much cus u will have plenty people out there willin and ready to take full advantage of it.

Dwight E. Fox
Bahamas

I totaly agree with otb. Hello dont hide from reality. And it didnt show anything but a tan flash. The cameras were moving so fast and off her that you couldnt see a full brest unless you tivo it and then it is your own fault.
Anyone that watched it knows you didnt see the whole breast

Yes, but it was such a nice tit! Not to be facetious but it changed my life.
Eldred

I agree with Decius. Certain parts of a persons body should not be shown if children could be watching the program. It don't matter if it's a woman's body part or a man's!

Em

Why is it that a guy can be seen on tv with his shirt on. Is it not the same makeup, females are just bigger. Come on its not a bad thing.
Not that I think people should go showing off there business on tv but this wasnt a big deal, they did not show her breast. They showed him rip her clothes and then you saw a tan spot for not even a second.

I agree with Decius and Em, there is a time and a place for stuff like that. That is something I wouldn't want my son seeing something like that. He is a little too young yet to understand that kind of stuff, but when he gets older to understand that his privates are for only him to see, I don't want two popular people showing their privates on national television, because he might think that it is ok to do that.

I know guys that like there nipples rubbed and pinched etc. Is this not sexual? ummmm.....I do believe they are just glands.

By the way, nobody saw her tit. Did you see it, if you did you used tivo cuz it looked like a body suit to me. I know it wasnt but if there wasnt so muchmedia hype everyone would be guessing.

exactly my point brann22......it was a blunder, it wasn't like she was parading around....true, children don't need to be exposed to certain things on television, but unfortunetly its going to happen. So wouldn't it be better if we were mature about it, instead of freaking out. What kind of example r we setting there??

And now there after kid rock, come on just cuz he was wearing a united states flag as a poncho. Do we not have the option to buy flag print thong bikkinis.

With a lot of people the problem isn't completely what happened. Most of the problem is that if you let one person do something and get a way with it soon everyone will be trying it. It's bad enough that there aren't any wholesome family sitcoms on anymore and that the nightly entertainment is ALL about sex. So what if we didn't actually see her tit? If she is allowed to have it hang out or the guys are allowed to rip open or off her outfits everyone will think that it's ok for them to do also.

Em

Of course somebody is going to do something again...thats a given. Because we keep responding to it so loudly....we are just giving them the attention they want.

I think it was a bit over the top but you see a lot of stuff like that on tv now and they just decide to rave about it when a famous person does it? I think she did it because she has a new album out soon so she could get publicity.

But I do agree that it was over the top for a show watched by young children.

The whole thing was a crappy self indulgent stunt meant to stir up the media and propmote janet jackson- man that is a weird family,....

this whole deal about shocking people is really just another way to break down social barriers i think. i don't really like pop stars that much or what they do to further their careers, but i think that a lot of the stuff going on on tv lately (the madonna kiss, saying the F-word on south park, etc.) is a way of slowly bringing an end to censorship. honestly, i dont see anything wrong with showing breasts on tv. they do it in europe all the time, and their kids dont turn into sex-crazed maniacs when they grow up. the reason breasts represent sexuality is because that is how our society labels them. in africa women can run around without their shirts on all they want and no one gives it a second thought. i think it is the act of concealment that makes body parts become sex symbols, not the part itself. the more something is concealed the more we want to see it. if tits were out flying free all the time kids wouldn't give them a second thought, because they would become used to them. i don't really think we should eliminate clothes, but just the taboo of exposure. trying to hide kids from sex in the first place is a futile effort anyway, and it is the amount of taboos that we have created that creates the problem. the more things a kid isn't allowed to see, the more he or she will see, because hidden things cant remain that way forever. the best way to go is to not conceal them in the first place. i think that this is where our society is headed, whether we like it or not. just look at the barriers that elvis and the beatles broke in the 50s and 60s. at the time people thought that it would turn kids into rapists and criminals to watch elvis gyrate his hips or whatever, but that just didn't happen.
anyway, i see nothing inherently wrong with the naked body or words that we deem as "inappropriate." after all what is really the difference between saying the S-word and saying crap? nothing other than the meaning that we place on them. what is the difference between showing a tit and showing other revealing areas of the body? nothing, except the meaning that we place on them. eliminate the meaning and eliminate the problem.
the only thing that i can see as perhaps being a problem is showing the act of sex itself, because then kids may get all kinds of crazy notions. sex has inherent meaning attached to it, because it is a basic human drive. so, i would go so far as allowing nudity and swearing on television but not sex itself. in any case, when we eliminate all the taboos of sex and exposure, i think kids will be able to understand the act of sex and see it as a natural process, rather than some taboo that appeals to them because people refuse to acknowledge it. in any case, doing this probably wouldnt really change kid's inherent attitudes toward sex (most kids are fascinated by it when they are young for a while), but it would eliminate its societal taboos, which just makes it all the more appealing. you all may think i sound crazy, but check back with me in about 50 years and see how far society has come in what it accepts.