(no subject)

[apocalypsos]

You 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.

Comments

Anyone else find it odd...

[seferin.livejournal.com]

that a sitting president has just been proved to have lied, threw his teeth, sending people to die, sold our future to get himself reelected, obliterated the economy, outsourced more jobs, and otherwise set back American progress for a generation.