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.

RE: Gothamist: Janet Jackson's Garment Collapse