(no subject)
Feb. 7th, 2004 08:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apocalypsosYou know, I wasn't going to say another goddamn thing about Janet Jackson's dirty pillows (well, they are apparently awful and evil to behold), but this right here? Is incredibly fucking ridiculous.
What I want to know is when Justin Timberlake will be arrested for sexual assault. I mean, if it's this serious ...
*eye roll of abject disgust*
Look, I watched the fucking thing, and so did you. A breast is a breast, and fifty-one percent of us have a matching set, so we've got no right to complain. And the only guys who should complain are the gay ones and the blind ones who missed seeing it.
But, TP, what about the children?
You know what? I'm suddenly finding myself agreeing with George Carlin. Fuck the children.
It's a breast, for crying out loud. Trust me, your child has seen a breast, and has probably seen a penis, too. "But I've made sure ..." Yeah, well, try to remember your childhood. It's called sexual curiosity and we all had it. The first time I saw what a penis looked like when I went to the library when I was about seven and looked the damn thing up. Thank you, public education system.
But it was a public forum! We weren't expecting to see a breast!
But you were expecting to see grown men beat the shit out of each other (not to mention scantily clad cheerleaders), which of course is perfectly acceptable for impressionable children to see.
It wasn't the nudity that bothered us, it was the overtly sexual nature.
You saw that performance, right? I mean, seriously. You did watch the nearly three minutes of "Look, we're having sex right here on the stage in several different exciting positions in front of 130 million people!" dancing those two were doing, right? The fact that a breast got shown at the end didn't surprise me. That Justin didn't rip off her pants and go to town ... that surprised me, especially considering that the previous three minutes of dancing between the two of them looked like intense foreplay.
It wasn't that, damn it! It was a man showing sexual domination over a woman!
Sure it was. A sexual-domination manuever decided beforehand between the two of them that she helped along by wearing a bodice with snaps and a nipple-obscuring piee of jewelry. Jesus, look at all the sexual domination. (Especially condering he looked like a frat boy visiting the local dominatrix.)
And if you feel the need to explain that dance manuever as "sexual domination over a woman and why it's bad" to a child, that's just fucking wrong on so many levels. Dude, it was dancing. Get over it.
Try explaining "pretend" to your children. I'm sure they'll understand.
Don't ruin my harsh! My children saw a breast on national television!
Oh, grow up. The breast was on screen for something like thirty-eight frames from mostly far away. You even questioned you'd seen a breast until you asked someone else.
And why are you complaining? Were they ugly breasts? NO. Janet Jackson has large, beautiful, round, curvy breasts I'd slaughter adorable baby bunnies to have. If she wants to show her breasts on national TV, let her. For crying out loud, if I had breasts like that, I'd introduce myself to people by tugging down my bodice and shaking them at strangers. The only thing that did bother me about the whole thing was that she didn't turn around and yank off Justin Timberlake's clothes. Now, that would have been entertaining.
Look on the bright side, damn it. You know that theory about Michael and Janet being the same person? Well, unless Michael's wearing a corset under those stupid Sgt. Pepper outfits, that theory's right down the crapper.
*looks at rant*
Okay, I shouldn't rant when I'm listening to the alternative radio. Although it's apparently the right soundtrack for it.
What I want to know is when Justin Timberlake will be arrested for sexual assault. I mean, if it's this serious ...
*eye roll of abject disgust*
Look, I watched the fucking thing, and so did you. A breast is a breast, and fifty-one percent of us have a matching set, so we've got no right to complain. And the only guys who should complain are the gay ones and the blind ones who missed seeing it.
But, TP, what about the children?
You know what? I'm suddenly finding myself agreeing with George Carlin. Fuck the children.
It's a breast, for crying out loud. Trust me, your child has seen a breast, and has probably seen a penis, too. "But I've made sure ..." Yeah, well, try to remember your childhood. It's called sexual curiosity and we all had it. The first time I saw what a penis looked like when I went to the library when I was about seven and looked the damn thing up. Thank you, public education system.
But it was a public forum! We weren't expecting to see a breast!
But you were expecting to see grown men beat the shit out of each other (not to mention scantily clad cheerleaders), which of course is perfectly acceptable for impressionable children to see.
It wasn't the nudity that bothered us, it was the overtly sexual nature.
You saw that performance, right? I mean, seriously. You did watch the nearly three minutes of "Look, we're having sex right here on the stage in several different exciting positions in front of 130 million people!" dancing those two were doing, right? The fact that a breast got shown at the end didn't surprise me. That Justin didn't rip off her pants and go to town ... that surprised me, especially considering that the previous three minutes of dancing between the two of them looked like intense foreplay.
It wasn't that, damn it! It was a man showing sexual domination over a woman!
Sure it was. A sexual-domination manuever decided beforehand between the two of them that she helped along by wearing a bodice with snaps and a nipple-obscuring piee of jewelry. Jesus, look at all the sexual domination. (Especially condering he looked like a frat boy visiting the local dominatrix.)
And if you feel the need to explain that dance manuever as "sexual domination over a woman and why it's bad" to a child, that's just fucking wrong on so many levels. Dude, it was dancing. Get over it.
Try explaining "pretend" to your children. I'm sure they'll understand.
Don't ruin my harsh! My children saw a breast on national television!
Oh, grow up. The breast was on screen for something like thirty-eight frames from mostly far away. You even questioned you'd seen a breast until you asked someone else.
And why are you complaining? Were they ugly breasts? NO. Janet Jackson has large, beautiful, round, curvy breasts I'd slaughter adorable baby bunnies to have. If she wants to show her breasts on national TV, let her. For crying out loud, if I had breasts like that, I'd introduce myself to people by tugging down my bodice and shaking them at strangers. The only thing that did bother me about the whole thing was that she didn't turn around and yank off Justin Timberlake's clothes. Now, that would have been entertaining.
Look on the bright side, damn it. You know that theory about Michael and Janet being the same person? Well, unless Michael's wearing a corset under those stupid Sgt. Pepper outfits, that theory's right down the crapper.
*looks at rant*
Okay, I shouldn't rant when I'm listening to the alternative radio. Although it's apparently the right soundtrack for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 07:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 07:15 am (UTC)I have no clue how much profit was made by all the participants being sued. But it is my understanding that it usually net profit, not gross; so it often undergoes radical surgery creating a relatively small net profit. So, lets say - to make a nice round figure $100 million dollars.
Roughly 90million people saw "the breast."
Lets say that only one-third join the class action law suit and win....
$100,000,000 divided by 30,000,000 people = approximately $3.33 award per person.
However - the legal fees are generally paid by the offending participants, and legal fees are often 30% of the settlement.
$100,000,000 times 30% = $30,000,000 for the lawyers to share.
Of course, if the lawyers fees have to come out of the settlement, that will only leave $70,000,000 for award payments. Reducing the award payments to only $2.33.
Hmmm...
so lets see, who gets the most financial gain out of this lawsuit?
I saw it and am now scarred for life. I mean, when I'm watching a cable show (like "The L Word") it's okay because I expect to see one or two - or more many more. Hey, sometimes I might even look for them. But I never expected to see one in a half-time show at the Superbowl. Imagine what seeing an unexpected breast can do to a lesbian. Yep, I'm definitely scarred for life...so I want my $3.33 or $2.33 share - that's enough for a six-pack isn't it? Yes then I can drink myself into oblivion and possible heal my wounded psyche.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-08 10:50 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 10:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 07:19 am (UTC)It was the dirty pillows that got me. *dies*
Date: 2004-02-07 07:28 am (UTC)Thank you for giving me a marvellous laugh first thing in the morning.
"Don't ruin my harsh." I love it. It's what the people who harsh other people's groove say when groovy people want to take their harsh from them! God, you're a genius! *cry*
They need to give you a TV show on HBO right after Dennis Miller.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 07:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 07:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 08:01 am (UTC)I think my brain melted.
In response to the lawsuit itself...
Date: 2004-02-07 09:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 09:23 am (UTC)Pretty much.
And honestly, the dancing wasn't even all that explicit. Janet's practically in a burnoose, just stalking around, with JT chasing after her. Pretty tame compared to things I did on stage back in my dancing days, in the name of Modern Dance & Performance Art (tm).
America is fucked up. I'd like to sue the plaintiffs for emotional distress, because this crap is pissing me off.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 10:47 am (UTC)I don't care if you don't have breasts like that... I'd thoroughly enjoy it if you introduced yourself to me that way... or if you "accidentally" removed part of my tear-away clothing...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 12:15 pm (UTC)*makes immediate decision to move far far away from it and the stupidity*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 12:16 pm (UTC)Anyone else find it odd...
Date: 2004-02-07 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-07 01:15 pm (UTC)(Technically her jewelry didn't obscure the nipple, since it's a ring around it, but that's a tiny nitpick, and doesn't change your point.)
Right on!
Date: 2004-02-09 11:33 pm (UTC)