Posted on 02/01/2004 5:37:46 PM PST by mattdono
Edited on 02/01/2004 6:30:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Moderator note: Do not post the photo, links are fine.
"I just can't see how anyone could be offended by seeing a hunky guy's penis (except maybe some jealous underendowed men")
Are you trying to justify the half-time show by declaring it the lesser of two "evils"? I've always viewed competitive sports, including full contact sports like football, as a medium to improve oneself mentally, physically, & socially and as a healthy way to blow off a little steam. Some of my very first lessons regarding self-discipline, mental & physical endurance, good sportsmanship, and unselfish behavior were learned on the playing field. To each his own, I guess.
As for the half-time show, all the outrage isn't because the majority of Americans are too prudish to handle seeing a bared breast. For many, this is a "proper time and place" issue.
Behavior that is acceptable at Mardi Gras, for instance, is not acceptable at a memorial service. Having a male stripper "take it all off" at a bachelorette party is fine, but having a male stripper as entertainment for your 6 year old daughter's birthday party is not. Simulated sex acts (er... I mean dancing) and partial nudity may be the norm on MTV these days, but it is not acceptable during a half-time show at the Superbowl on network TV. That's what all the ruckus is about.
Anyone who wants to see nudity can easily go to a strip club, watch an X or R-rated movie, or pick up a sleazy magazine. But, not everyone wants to see that. My 73 year old Catholic grandmother certainly doesn't. And, people like her shouldn't have that kind of smut thrown in their faces without any prior warning. How is what JJ & JT did to the television viewing audience any different from what a flasher does when he bares himself to an unsuspecting woman on the street?
It's all about time and place. Nudity on the Playboy channel? Fine. Nudity during Saturday morning cartoons? No. Not fine. Not fine at all.
Well, I think it is specious for you to presume that football is all the things that you described and is somehow bad for children to watch. According to one of your other posts, you like to play football (in the yard or the park). I would think the physicality associated with PLAYING football is infinitely more dangerous than watching.
[Now, if you are citing the "antics" of some of the current players, I don't know that I would disagree. However, I don't think that is the predominant approach of all the players, and the flashiness aspect certainly wasn't present in this Super Bowl].
Simply put, I don't agree with your description of what a football game is. I see the game as a mixture of intense physical conditioning and mental preparation. Professional football, in particular, requires an unbelievable amount of mental preparation.
Besides, there are different aspects of intelligence. Would you say that Michael Jordan is more athletically intelligent than, say, Albert Einstein? Surely. And vice versa? Surely. Is Yoyo Ma more muscially intelligent than donh? Probably. Is donh more intelligent than Yoyo ma? Probably.
You are way oversimplifying the game of football to necessarily be filled with "dumb jocks" or other athletic stereotypes.
Is football a violent game? Yes, but many sports are violent.
Does that make it inappropriate for a child to watch? I don't think so?
In fact, I think that they can learn alot from watching football, especially if they are motivated to play football and learn the game. (I used to watch old Big 10 football game film [the kind on a reel] of the great running backs and the blocking schemes that those teams employed. I found it very interesting and learned a lot from that).
Now, kids probably aren't watching the Super Bowl with that focus. But, hey, they might. Who are you to tell them or their parents that the game is onlya bunch of steroid monsters bashing each other's brains in.
[Aside: Acutally the NFL has a very stringent policy regarding steriods; Baseball, actually, is the major professional sport that they have yet to implement a strict policy.]
I will let the readers of this thread decide whether or not your description or mine of football is accurate. I personally think that your description is total hyperbole.
Well, you were talking about the Super Bowl and I didn't see any during the Super Bowl. Of course there are cheerleaders at football games.
Then again, my being obtuse about that is obtuse as you are, denying that having a woman's exposed nipple on public airwaves during a time frame that is considered safe/suitable for family is appropriate viewing.
No...ooo. I am pointing out that it is world-class hypocrisy to claim that what JJ and Timberlake did was kinky and inappropriate, as a half-time entertainment for a spectacle in which it is normal behavior for harems of half naked writhing niades to routinely display their charms to rouse their teams into physically destroying/humiliating/defeating (listen to the lyrics of the cheers) their opponents in a physical tussle that disturbingly resembles tribal warfare over the possession of what's traditionally an inflated pig organ. Just because you're used to it and don't think about it, doesn't make it something other than what it plainly is--ie. much kinkier, and much closer to a symbolic depiction of raw, orgiastic, uncivilized, physically damaging aggressive behavior with sinister sexual overtones than anything JJ and Timberlake did.
I've always viewed competitive sports, including full contact sports like football, as a medium to improve oneself mentally, physically, & socially and as a healthy way to blow off a little steam. Some of my very first lessons regarding self-discipline, mental & physical endurance, good sportsmanship, and unselfish behavior were learned on the playing field.
Me to. So What? That has about as much to do with nationally televised professional sports in general, and the superbowl in particular, as a cat has to do with a catamaran.
To each his own, I guess.
Indeed. And to each superbowl fan, apparently, his own little dream world, where he couldn't address the argument presented to him, if it bit him on the heiny.
I think there is a time and place for everything. The halftime show failed on both those counts. If you want to watch a strip show go to the "gentlemans" club where you need to be 18 to enter. Not too many 7 and 8 year olds are found in those type of places. Let's see how halftime appeals to you ape-like "men" when the teletubbies are the halftime show next year. Then we'll see who's whining and moaning.
Well, I partially agreed with you about the powers of the FCC. I am very leery of that type of government involvement too. However, the justification I can see is that the people of the country are turning to government for help, because of the overwhelming power of CBS.
I prefer the direct route myself. I prefer the free market approach. Speak out about it (it is a constitutional right). Let the company (CBS, MTV, etc.) know with your viewing eyes and dollars that you won't support their programming.
And, you know what, some of the middle managers heads should roll for this. They too should know better and they are the ones that were organizing this event. And, while Ms. Jackson has recently (today) said that the agreement to expose her breast was done after final rehearsal, the CBS/MTV/AOL middle managers responsible for producing the halftime show should have been absolutely clear that there was a line that, for the purposes of this show, didn't need to be crossed.
I sort of feel bad for the CBS managers involved in the the pre-game show. Except for that idiot Willie Nelson and the petrified version of Aerosmith, the pre-game was terrific. Contrast the pre-game show to the MTV-produced show at halftime, there is no comparison.
Interestingly, if I mess up at work and alienate a great portion of my current client base, do you think that I might have the possibility of being fired? Sure.
Anyone that works in the real world would easily understand that if you piss off 30% or more of your customers, you are going out of business. And, that is the real problem here.
Ms. Jackson, Mr. Timberlake, and many of the producers at MTV live in a tiny, insolated world where no one challenges their opinions or actions. It is simple groupthink. It is also a fact that this group of folks have a leftist bent to their thinking, so flaunting conventions is a badge of honor. To them, the bigger the stage, the better. But, in this case, the stage was a lot bigger than they are used to and the stage performance was at a different time.
Again, I make a simple statement: it was in poor taste. I will be more specific and say that it was in poor taste for the given venue, at the given time, and the given broadcast medium/network.
Unfortunately, bad decisions have consequences.
You seem to have the same focus problem as other posters here. The game of football is just a game, and has some of the same virtues as most any other game. The commercial spectacle of football, with the accompanying cheerleader tittilation, enhancement drugs (your laughable defense to the contrary notwithstanding), mob gambling involvement, and ruthless partisanship with megabucks on the line, however, is a far cry from a game, and undifferentiable from JJ and Timberlake's shenanigans in terms of suitability for viewing by the young--save that, to the unprejudiced viewer, it's far scarier, on a far larger scale, such as to put one in mind of the roman circus.
You are way oversimplifying the game of football to necessarily be filled with "dumb jocks" or other athletic stereotypes.
Hey, I'd be ecstatic if it were just a matter of "dumb jocks". I like dumb jocks--I am one. Marginal scholars and high school and college dropouts making millions of dollars for bruising and bashing other human beings, while some of the prettiest woman my kids will maybe ever see chant and cheer themselves into undulating half-dressed ecstacy over it, however, is not an aspiration I want pounded into my kid's psyche every saturday afternoon. I'd rather go back to cartoon violence. Less real looking, and therefore, less likely to be subconsciously pursuasive.
I agree, and I agree with your solution. However, I quibble with your half-contention that Big Gov't intervention is justified because big ol' CBS is just too much for the free market to deal with. If we truly had a free market, CBS would have had no airwave license monopoly, and would be a distant memory. So would the NFL, for that matter, without the support of the Supremes perversion of the commerce clause to allow teams to indenture players.
How many cheerleaders, or people carried off the court in streachers, have you seen at volleyball games?
Whereas, half-naked cheerleaders jiggling themselves into an ecstatic lather over brutal physical combat is just what Dr. Spock ordered.
While there are cheerleaders at NFL games, they are hardly the centerpiece or even a fraction of the broadcast. You typically only see them at the TV breaks and the advertisers logo are usually on the screen, so you can see them anyway.
The other issues that you noted --drugs, gambling, partisanship-- no child would see that. That isn't something that you can see during the broadcast; and if it is, it is very subtle.
To be fair, as an adult and someone who has read a great deal about and experienced some of the "under belly" of the sports world, I have to admit that I am aware that this is going on (and in probably too many clubhouses that I would be comfortable admitting). But again, kids can't see this side of the game from a television broadcast.
So, I think saying that a kid can get all of this out of the broadcast is a bit much, though, again, I won't deny that some of the aspects of professional sports is a joke.
We can agree to disagree.
Oops. I spoke before thinking. No, I don't agree with you. They were both in poor taste, but the half-time entertainment was in less poor taste than the game itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.