Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mattyb · May 4, 2009, 10:50 AM

Jackson flash to be re-examined.

WOMBAT : waste of money brains and time

Railroader · May 4, 2009, 08:31 PM

I am about as conservative as it comes in regards to nudity on TV, but this is ridiculous. The subject should be dropped and never heard about again. The fact that a any more tax money will be spent on the topic is appalling.

osiris · May 5, 2009, 12:20 PM

Yet another waste of money and time. And I'm all for nudity on TV (or anywhere, for that matter).
Though I do think that TV should be free of nudity and foul language until 10 pm.
That's when I want to use martial arts to make the kids go to sleep.

mattyb · May 6, 2009, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by osiris

Yet another waste of money and time. And I'm all for nudity on TV (or anywhere, for that matter). Though I do think that TV should be free of nudity and foul language until 10 pm.

Dunno what the news is like in the US, but in France there are some pretty disturbing images shown between 20H00 and 20H45.

ghporter · May 6, 2009, 06:22 AM

The idea that the lower court made a mistake in their ruling, which is what SCOTUS had stated, I can deal with. It was "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" that this bit of nudity was entirely accidental, and not even a vocal flub like Cher's f-bomb at that awards show. This was entirely and completely an "oops," and because the video director was actually paying attention, there was not more than a few frames of the "offending" breast broadcast. That's what live television is all about...

But I will be very curious to see what the lower court does on this issue. What exactly were the mistakes SCOTUS suggests they made? I am 100% behind both the network and the stations broadcasting the show in this issue-and I want to see that something actually equitable comes out of it, not some half-million dollar fine for something the network could in no way expect or control.

Doofy · May 6, 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

It was "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" that this bit of nudity was entirely accidental

I'm guessing the nip decoration accidentally got there too?

Or do Americans often wander around with nip decorations on when they have no intentions of getting their boobies out? Is this a cultural practice I've somehow missed hearing about?

Originally Posted by BBC

Last year, the appeals court threw out the fine against CBS, saying that as the incident lasted nine-sixteenths of one second, it should have been regarded as "fleeting".

"Nine-sixteenths of one second".

ghporter · May 6, 2009, 07:28 AM

It's my impression that most pierced nipple people wear their decorations most of the time. May have something to do with how they feel about themselves or some such. Most women I've talked to about it say that they wear "pretty" undies for themselves, not to show off, and I think that generalizes to include jewelry, including "intimate" jewelry.

And 9/16 sec is about 16 frames of video. Considering the lighting conditions involved (and how many sites that posted the un-edited event had to adjust the exposure to show what they saw), there are a whole lot of self-righteous jerks getting their panties in a wad over something that they had to TRY HARD to see.

And don't get me started about how stupid our culture of hiding and sexualizing breasts is-being nice to look at is a very secondary purpose for them (though extremely nice!), and we tend to be, as a society, VERY psychotic about breasts becasue of our stupid focus on sex instead of function. (Besides, if we got a little less stupid about it, we'd see a lot more of 'em!)

Doofy · May 6, 2009, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's my impression that most pierced nipple people wear their decorations most of the time. May have something to do with how they feel about themselves or some such. Most women I've talked to about it say that they wear "pretty" undies for themselves, not to show off, and I think that generalizes to include jewelry, including "intimate" jewelry.

While chicks often walk around in nice undies and nip piercings, I've never heard of one undertaking a strenuous stage dance with "stick on" decorations. It'd rub, you know? The costume "malfunction" in this instance was almost certainly intentional, IMO.

Originally Posted by ghporter

And 9/16 sec is about 16 frames of video.

I know. It was just the use of imperial to measure fractions of a second which made me laugh.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Considering the lighting conditions involved (and how many sites that posted the un-edited event had to adjust the exposure to show what they saw), there are a whole lot of self-righteous jerks getting their panties in a wad over something that they had to TRY HARD to see.

?
I remember watching it live and not having to try hard to see it at all.

Originally Posted by ghporter

And don't get me started about how stupid our culture of hiding and sexualizing breasts is-being nice to look at is a very secondary purpose for them (though extremely nice!), and we tend to be, as a society, VERY psychotic about breasts becasue of our stupid focus on sex instead of function. (Besides, if we got a little less stupid about it, we'd see a lot more of 'em!)

I was thinking about this the other day. Or something very similar.
By being hyper-paranoid about boobie exposure, it seems that the slightest hint of nip has become classed as "porn" - so innocent artistic nudie pics ("fine art nudes") generally end up sharing page space with bukkake pics. I can't help wondering what this is doing to your society, as the line between "natural" and "utter filth" is eradicated and the public has their perceptions blurred.

Spheric Harlot · May 6, 2009, 08:51 AM

And here I clicked, expecting this thread to be another evolving flamefest on the justifiability of back royalties on past successes of a Motown band...

osiris · May 6, 2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by mattyb

Dunno what the news is like in the US, but in France there are some pretty disturbing images shown between 20H00 and 20H45.

imo the news is usually sanitized for Americans - rarely, if ever do you see anything too graphic/violent/foul on the network/cable news. The one place where the truth should be told, and it's not.

ghporter · May 6, 2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

?
I remember watching it live and not having to try hard to see it at all.

Not having seen it live, maybe I was taking my opinion from over-processed stills...

Originally Posted by Doofy

I can't help wondering what this is doing to your society, as the line between "natural" and "utter filth" is eradicated and the public has their perceptions blurred.

It's making us weirder than we already were, and weirder than we need to be. It makes it difficult for a mother to properly and healthfully feed her infant without being banished to the loo (I hate to think what the smells in the ladies' room would do to a baby trying to nurse). Our son was naturally fed, and all the benefits you might read about are clearly there; better oralmotor development (which translates into earlier and better development of speech, better resistance to disease through transfer of antibodies, higher intellectual development at an earlier age, and so on. Sexualizing teats on women is as stupid as sexualizing them on goats and cows.

Spheric Harlot · May 6, 2009, 09:10 AM

Women get banished to the TOILET to breastfeed?

WTF?

Railroader · May 6, 2009, 12:48 PM

Not in the America I live it. I recently saw a woman discretely nurse during a dolphin show at the zoo.

subego · May 6, 2009, 12:53 PM

Seen it on the bus.

Though that particular bus did smell like a toilet.

Laminar · May 6, 2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Sexualizing teats on women is as stupid as sexualizing them on goats and cows.

I saw it live, and remember not knowing what exactly it was that I saw, but I was watching it on my parents' 20" tube TV.

subego · May 6, 2009, 01:22 PM

Waitaminnit...

That cow's Greenland is almost as big as her Africa.