DVDizzy Forum

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?

disneychris04 wrote: Em... I don't think you should be typing something like this, especially when maybe there are young kids reading this forum...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Another Happy Customer!

Loomis wrote:

MickeyMouseboy wrote: How come you changed your mind MMPal?

Yeah, weren't we all sickos and bad boys a few posts ago?

I think he was one over by your glowing review.

Or the prospect of boobies.

well you can't let this restored version pass by!

Loomis wrote:

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.

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.

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?

I always knew Loomis had it in him! LOOMIS FOR PRESIDENT!

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?

Why do you need to hide it? It's not like it's a porn. It's just a NC-17 movie. Like Loomis said Americans are weird when it comes to nudity on screen

MickeyMouseboy wrote:
I always knew Loomis had it in him! LOOMIS FOR PRESIDENT!

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).

Although every one born in America COULD grow up to be president, and I guess that is another one of the risks they take.

Loomis wrote:

MickeyMouseboy wrote:
I always knew Loomis had it in him! LOOMIS FOR PRESIDENT!

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).

Although every one born in America COULD grow up to be president, and I guess that is another one of the risks they take.

Cheer up, You can always be president of Australia, Loomisland and Toontown if you wanted

You could be Governor of California.

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.

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

awallaceunc 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

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.

Aaron I'm not Loomis why did you quote me then talk about Loomis are you calling me Loomis?

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 .

-Aaron

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 .

And I'll do the same (kinda).

Surely most sex in America happens in the homes of America too, so presumably most homes have seen at least ONE breast in their lives.

Grandparents must have seen boobies at some stage, or else they wouldn't be grandparents. Ditto with parents. Teenagers would have just been as pleased as punch to see it pop out to say hello, and the young children have to learn about Janet's breasts at some stage. I remember being sat down after asking "What is a Janet boob?" at the tender age of 22.

And toddlers who were breast-fed will have seen a fair bit of tit by the time they reach toddledom.

MickeyMousePal wrote:I'm a guy too and I have men urges that must not be controlled.

That is SO going into someone's signature. If not MMP, I'll take it...

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.

-Aaron

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.

But every family has boobs!

Are you saying that breasts have not been culturally accepted?

Everyone has them! Amy Grant has them!

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

Loomis wrote:

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.

But every family has boobs!

Are you saying that breasts have not been culturally accepted?

Everyone has them! Amy Grant has them!

Thanks Loomis! I was getting worried that we got off topic ok now that we are back on topic. Kylie Minogue has the best aussie bum in the world you should see her in the lingerie commercial! that was Showgirls II

I agree with Loomis here. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why natural anatomy is so "taboo" in this country. People always love to fall back on the "Think of the children!" hysterics when it comes to "inappropriate" stuff, but why the heck would a kid be traumatized by a lil' ol' bit of anatomy? They only react when they observe the adults around them reacting in an affronted manner. It's the adults' unease that kids pick up on that disturbs them, 'cause if the authority is concerned, then that triggers a reaction in the dependent - the child. And of course, the adult is getting uppity because of their "concern" for the child in the first place, so it's kind of a vicious cycle. LOL

*sigh* Just another facet of the Incredible Backwards Society, I suppose.

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

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.

Loomis wrote:

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.

But every family has boobs!

Are you saying that breasts have not been culturally accepted?

Everyone has them! Amy Grant has them!

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!

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.

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.

FYI: Her nipple was still at least partially visible. I'm sure someone has a picture.

There was a lot of outrage over the lyrics, too, as well as Kid Rock's distasteful display with the American flag. That didn't get reported on quite as much as the "wardrobe malfunction," but they did get a lot of coverage. From what I understand, the lyrics were just as big a part of the FCC's complaint as anything else.

-Aaron

I should also add, how is a partially visible nipple any different to the 100s of music videos that are screened on a daily basis featuring far more suggestive images that one stray breast quickly covered up?

Young kids and teenagers watch those videos and buy the records (which make far more explicit comments than anything you'd find on your average Janet Jackson record).

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!

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?