All guys like Showgirl the only hard part is to hide the DVD from your wife, mother and children.
Other then that Must Have It Now!!!!
I'm a poor poor student so I can't afford it right now and if I do buy it how can I hide it from my family?

Sorry but the Janet Jackson Super Bowl stunt sort of ruined the moment for me there. Still I have seen this movie on VH1 (which was edited so much that nothing was left from the movie) and I'm not sure if I will ever see it again. To have Showgirls on video or DVD could be a bad thing if anyone finds you with a copy of it.disneychris04 wrote: Em... I don't think you should be typing something like this, especially when maybe there are young kids reading this forum...
I'm still baffled as to why the Janet Jackson thing was such a big deal. It was a floppy breast on TV. Hopefully most of America has seen breasts before, or else there will cease to be Americans (because, you know, I don't have to explain "the facts of life" here do I?). Every night on the news "War, illness, famine, depression, rape, pit bulls, war, illnessm famine, depression, rape" over and over with graphic images. Yet one stray boob pops out to say hello, and THEN a stricter prime-time regulation is enforced. It is like 9/11 in a way. All you need to do now to invoke a controversial law is say "War on terror". To adopt more censorship on TV all you need to do now is say "Janet Jackson". It's absurd.Uncle Remus wrote:
Sorry but the Janet Jackson Super Bowl stunt sort of ruined the moment for me there. [...]To have Showgirls on video or DVD could be a bad thing if anyone finds you with a copy of it.
Another Happy Customer!Nedakh wrote:MickeyMouseboy wrote:The nipples are very clear with no grain or artifacts. I think MGM took the time to Digitally Master each boobie for breath taking picture!wow, nice. I can't wait to pick it up at CircuitCity by tomorrow for the sale price.
well you can't let this restored version pass by!Loomis wrote:Yeah, weren't we all sickos and bad boys a few posts ago?MickeyMouseboy wrote: How come you changed your mind MMPal?
I think he was one over by your glowing review.
Or the prospect of boobies.
Loomis wrote:I'm still baffled as to why the Janet Jackson thing was such a big deal. It was a floppy breast on TV. Hopefully most of America has seen breasts before, or else there will cease to be Americans (because, you know, I don't have to explain "the facts of life" here do I?). Every night on the news "War, illness, famine, depression, rape, pit bulls, war, illnessm famine, depression, rape" over and over with graphic images. Yet one stray boob pops out to say hello, and THEN a stricter prime-time regulation is enforced. It is like 9/11 in a way. All you need to do now to invoke a controversial law is say "War on terror". To adopt more censorship on TV all you need to do now is say "Janet Jackson". It's absurd.Uncle Remus wrote:
Sorry but the Janet Jackson Super Bowl stunt sort of ruined the moment for me there. [...]To have Showgirls on video or DVD could be a bad thing if anyone finds you with a copy of it.
The US preoccupation with sex as a taboo baffles me generally. As Jack Nicholson once said: "If you suck on a tit in a movie, it's rated R. If you hack the tit off with an axe, it's PG-13."
As for Showgirls - I'm 25, and my girlfriend thinks the box set was a must buy (for the shotglasses alone). How could it possible be a bad thing if anyone finds it?
MickeyMousePal wrote:Hey, MickeyMouseboy and Loomis I was only kidding with you guys I'm a guy too and I have men urges that must not be controlled.
All guys like Showgirl the only hard part is to hide the DVD from your wife, mother and children.
Other then that Must Have It Now!!!!
I'm a poor poor student so I can't afford it right now and if I do buy it how can I hide it from my family?
Unfotunately (well, fortunately in my case, unfortunate for everyone else) I was not born in the US, therefore I can never be president, even if I became a citizen (so much for the land of opportunity).MickeyMouseboy wrote:
I always knew Loomis had it in him! LOOMIS FOR PRESIDENT!
Cheer up, You can always be president of Australia, Loomisland and Toontown if you wantedLoomis wrote:Unfotunately (well, fortunately in my case, unfortunate for everyone else) I was not born in the US, therefore I can never be president, even if I became a citizen (so much for the land of opportunity).MickeyMouseboy wrote:
I always knew Loomis had it in him! LOOMIS FOR PRESIDENT!
Although every one born in America COULD grow up to be president, and I guess that is another one of the risks they take.
MickeyMousePal wrote:Hey, MickeyMouseboy and Loomis I was only kidding with you guys I'm a guy too and I have men urges that must not be controlled.
MickeyMousePal wrote:Loomis, it wasn't so much what happened, it's where it happened. To understand the outrage, you have to first understand how deeply the Superbowl is engrained in American culture as an event for the family- something that grandparents, parents, teenagers, young children, and toddlers all watch together as tradition. That's why the shock ran so deep. Then, when it was believed to have been intentional, the outrage came.
-Aaron
Hey, MickeyMouseboy and Loomis I was only kidding with you guys I'm a guy too and I have men urges that must not be controlled.

And I'll do the same (kinda).awallaceunc wrote:MMP, I was laughing at what you said.
After I was done laughing (it took awhile- that was funny!), I then addressed what Loomis said, I just didn't quote him. Make sense now? Sorry I made you type
.
MickeyMousePal wrote:I'm a guy too and I have men urges that must not be controlled.
But every family has boobs!awallaceunc wrote:It may be very cultural, but "family fare" is expected to be without such things. The more accepted they are, the more common they will become. That's why I'm glad there was a negative reaction, though if it was accidental, I feel very bad for Janet.
Loomis wrote:But every family has boobs!awallaceunc wrote:It may be very cultural, but "family fare" is expected to be without such things. The more accepted they are, the more common they will become. That's why I'm glad there was a negative reaction, though if it was accidental, I feel very bad for Janet.
Are you saying that breasts have not been culturally accepted?
Everyone has them! Amy Grant has them!
OK, so the whole family watches the Superbowl. I can understand that. But what would have happened if a player was injured? What if a limb was badly broken? What if a player's neck was broken? It could happen. Accident happen. Wouldn't that upset young children more? Especially if it was a player they all knew and identified with?awallaceunc wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
They are just taboo in most, if not all, public contexts, especially when elementary school-aged children are seeing it. I realize a lot of people think that should change, but that's the culture. I agree with it, but then, I'm in the culture.![]()
-Aaron
Yes, you are right Loomis, every families have it, but that doesn't mean you have to talk and discuss about it all the time!Loomis wrote:But every family has boobs!awallaceunc wrote:It may be very cultural, but "family fare" is expected to be without such things. The more accepted they are, the more common they will become. That's why I'm glad there was a negative reaction, though if it was accidental, I feel very bad for Janet.
Are you saying that breasts have not been culturally accepted?
Everyone has them! Amy Grant has them!
Yes, that would be just as disturbing for children. The difference would be that one was intentional (we think), and the other wasn't. It was the fact that it appeared to be a planned publicity stunt that so upset everyone.2099net wrote:OK, so the whole family watches the Superbowl. I can understand that. But what would have happened if a player was injured? What if a limb was badly broken? What if a player's neck was broken? It could happen. Accident happen. Wouldn't that upset young children more? Especially if it was a player they all knew and identified with?
From all the accounts I've read, Janet's nipple (I said "nipple" huh-huh-huh) were still covered up anyway. And then there's the whole issue about what the actual lyrics in the song in question, and others too I believe in the same show. Is it not hypocritical to only complain when something physical is done, when all the songs themselves are about sex in one form or another? If the whole family was watching the Superbowl, surely none of the half time show was acceptable.
Nobody is suggesting we talking about it all the time, chris. But by trying to "cover them up" (so to speak) and no discuss them at all, and pretend they are a naughty thing, you get outrages such as this. Wouldn't it be better for kids to just accept they are a natural part of the human body and move on with their lives?disneychris04 wrote:Yes, you are right Loomis, every families have it, but that doesn't mean you have to talk and discuss about it all the time!