ix wrote:
] the gothamist writes:
] --
] FCC Chariman Michael Powell opens an FCC investigation by
] saying, "I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show
] of the Super Bowl. Like millions of Americans, my family and I
] fathered around the television for a celebration. Instead,
] that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass, and
] deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens
] deserve better."
] Yes, deserve better, like farting horses on the beer
] commercials, 'cause flatulence and animals is classy.
] --
]
] seems to me, there's a lot of bigotry around.

Welcome to the United States of the Offended. It amazes me that TV has to be G rated while the world around us is pretty R rated most of the time.

ix wrote:
] the gothamist writes:
] --
] FCC Chariman Michael Powell opens an FCC investigation by
] saying, "I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show
] of the Super Bowl. Like millions of Americans, my family and I
] fathered around the television for a celebration. Instead,
] that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass, and
] deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens
] deserve better."
] Yes, deserve better, like farting horses on the beer
] commercials, 'cause flatulence and animals is classy.
] --
]
] seems to me, there's a lot of bigotry around.

It was only a fucking tit!!! If their kids can handle a bunch of men slamming into and on top of one another, they should be able to handle Janet Jackson's fucking tit. It was mostly metal anyway. They don't object to the Viagra commercials trying to cure their limp dicks, but one flash of titty and its "outrage." No wonder they need Viagra. What sort of message does it send to kids to get angry over tittage anyway? Its the parents reaction to this bullshit which makes their kids retards.

If/when someone has kids, they can decide whether or not to let them see "tittage". For other parents though, they too have the right to decide what their own kids should and shouldn't be seeing in their own living rooms. When millions of families sat down to the SuperBowl, they had a certain expectation of what they would and wouldn't see, and bare breasts (even in the singular) were not part of that expectation.

Having said that, I *do* think it's possible to take things too far in the other direction too.

But I'll still defend the right of reasonable parents to raise their own kids by their own standards. That's part of Freedom too.

Elonka wrote:
] If/when someone has kids, they can decide whether or not to
] let them see "tittage". For other parents though, they too
] have the right to decide what their own kids should and
] shouldn't be seeing in their own living rooms. When millions
] of families sat down to the SuperBowl, they had a certain
] expectation of what they would and wouldn't see, and bare
] breasts (even in the singular) were not part of that
] expectation.
]
] Having said that, I *do* think it's possible to take things
] too far in the other direction too.
]
] But I'll still defend the right of reasonable parents to raise
] their own kids by their own standards. That's part of Freedom
] too.

When someone has a child, they may also decide whether or not to let them watch TV in the first place. For a parent to expect that everything on television is going to be "wholesome" entertainment is irresponsible. Even at a football game, American tradition expects cheerleaders to shake more than their pom-poms. Bare or not, these kids are not innocent to the tit phenomenon. If any child allowed to watch television is scarred for life at the sight of a bare breast, I hope the parent also never lets them out of their house or else their heads might explode. My point is that sex and violence are the two most common things on TV, and if the kids are tuned in for the violence they should also be capable of handling sex. Football should be every bit as offensive to these people as a barbed tit.