MMBoy's Unrated ShowGirls V.I.P Edition Review!

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:08 pm

But then that's not really family programming, either. I don't think I've seen anything quite as revealing as Ms. Jackson's exposure on any music videos shown on TV, though.

-Aaron

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:23 pm

awallaceunc wrote:But then that's not really family programming, either. I don't think I've seen anything quite as revealing as Ms. Jackson's exposure on any music videos shown on TV, though.

-Aaron

To me, a bunch of meatheads hurtling themselves at each other. and suffering potentially life threatening (or at least life long) injuries isn't exactly family programming either.

As the late, great Bill Hiks might say:

"Go back to bed America, your government is in control again.
Here, here's American Gladiators, watch this, shut up!
Here's 56 channels of it.
Watch these pituary retards bang their skulls together
And congratulate you on living in the land of freedom
You are free to do as you tell you!"

pinkrenata · Post by **pinkrenata** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:49 pm

What about in cases, such as seen in the first Spiderman film, when a nipple protrudes so that it is seen under the clothing? Is that also offensive? At many hip clothing stores nowadays, the mannequins are actually made with nipples in order to achieve the bra-less effect. Kids see those everyday.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:53 pm

pinkrenata wrote:What about in cases, such as seen in the first Spiderman film, when a nipple protrudes so that it is seen under the clothing? Is that also offensive? At many hip clothing stores nowadays, the mannequins are actually made with nipples in order to achieve the bra-less effect. Kids see those everyday.

Yes, that was another one I was thinking of.

Mm....Kirsten

Sorry, I'm a guy too and I have men urges that must not be controlled.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:59 pm

I know of a lot of parents who do not allow their children to watch music videos due to the sex, violence, and lyrics.

Also Spiderman is not a movie for young children.

Parents have the ability to choose whether or not their children see these things. The questionable contents of the Superbowl half time show were not appropriately announced and thus parents were unable to make an informed decision about whether to allow their children to see it. The expectation was that it would be a G rated family friendly show, but that was not the case.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 4:02 pm

Ditto to what Rebel said.

As for the appropriateness of the Superbowl itself, I think you make a valid point, but it's a very cultural thing. I always find it amusing that America's culture is subject to all criticism but others must be revered. I'm not saying anyone here is upholding that, but rather attitudes in general (both within and outside of America).

-Aaron

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 4:04 pm

I don't see nothing wrong with the boob flash. It's a boob! it's part of a woman. It's anatomy. God created it. So what little joe saw Ms. Janet D. Jackson's boob I'm sure it wont be his last

pinkrenata · Post by **pinkrenata** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:11 pm

Rebel wrote:Also Spiderman is not a movie for young children.

That may be true, but I know a great number of young children who love the film.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:09 pm

Rebel wrote:I know of a lot of parents who do not allow their children to watch music videos due to the sex, violence, and lyrics.

Also Spiderman is not a movie for young children.

Parents have the ability to choose whether or not their children see these things. The questionable contents of the Superbowl half time show were not appropriately announced and thus parents were unable to make an informed decision about whether to allow their children to see it. The expectation was that it would be a G rated family friendly show, but that was not the case.

Ah! And there is lies the crux of the matter - parental responsibility.

You have parents who see it as ok to let their children watch a bunch of meatheads hurtling themselves at each other and suffering potentially life threatening (or at least life long) injuries; but drawing the line at some music.

If I were a parent, I'd say watch all the boobs you can, but stay away from the evening news!

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:23 pm

Indeed, parental responsibility really is key. They weren't able to make a judgment call on the boob, though, as they didn't know about it in advance.

-Aaron

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:51 pm

awallaceunc wrote:Indeed, parental responsibility really is key. They weren't able to make a judgment call on the boob, though, as they didn't know about it in advance.

Yes, but my point was we have a culture that sees it acceptable to allow children to watch men engaged in violent and dangerous behaviour (and as 2099net, potential injury on screen), yet gets all huffy when a natural body part is shown on screen.

"Daddy! Mummy! That man just broke his neck!"

"Keep watching, boy. That's an American tradition"

"Daddy! Mummy! That woman has a bouncy bit showing!"

"Look away! That is the devil's work"

The amount of hysteria cause over this was unbelievable.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/janetsuit1.html

In the end, we have a nation who proudly watches violent sport, proudly watches troops march off to unjustified wars, and still feels the need to complain about a nipple on TV.

If you could file action every time something sexual popped up in the middle of regular programming, then you could sue all advertisers. You culd be watching 7th Heaven when an ad with two sexy twins hocking Pepsi pops on. "Oh no! They are wearing bikinis! I wasn't expecting that! I better sue...".

pinkrenata · Post by **pinkrenata** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:04 pm

Loomis wrote:The amount of hysteria cause over this was unbelievable.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/janetsuit1.html

I don't see any nipple. Maybe that's because there's a huge metal thing covering it!

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:07 pm

pinkrenata wrote:I don't see any nipple. Maybe that's because there's a huge metal thing covering it!

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/tit-tazzler.html

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:12 pm

I have to agree with Netty and Loomis on this. A boob is harmless while watching stupid life threatening fools trying to pull out dumb stunts since they don't have anything better to do.......and yet many people find delight watching this airheads try to pull this dumb stunts just for entertainment. Which is better looking at a harmless boob or watch someone kill themselves just for your entertainment? Boobs are harmless. It's part of a woman's anatomy. it shouldn't be treated as something degusting or evil. When Ms. JJ pulled her boobie out I found it to be quite funny and while I don't have kids I wouldnt have freaked out if my son or daughter saw the boob. When I was 5 I knew how baby's came to be. My mom would bring this kids books that explained it which was a surprise to me but hey it's part of life and am I'm not obsessed with boobs or have any sort of desorder? I think not! I think the younger you let your kids now about this things the less trouble they will have in the future when it come to sexual stuff.... I rather have them hear it from me and from their friends or in school. You can't shun this subject nowadays since it's pretty much everywhere TV, Radio, Movies, ETC..... Sex has actually become part of the American Culture if you really examine that content in the entertainment business. Dumb 15 year old blonde girls singing about hooking up with the boy next door and so forth are very common and yet parents are the ones buying this CDs for their daughters just because their daughter's friend have it and they want her to fit in but when a boobie flashes on TV that's end of the world! I think people that find Ms. JJ boob offensive are pretty much hypocrites, I think most of them enjoy such degrading entertainment that dominates the American Media. Also the way Ms. JJ got treated afterwards was pretty much pathetic and racist. If pamela anderson would have done that I don't think such negative treatment would have been upon her. On no it's a black boobie! oh no how grotesque! not at all I think Ms. JJ's boob looks better than any other white girl boobs

except elizabeth berkley's!

then like pinkrenata said Ms. JJ had a nipple ring so only the boob was shown. Can't you see boobs are you local mall? the dress code and what was decent have gone down hill. The more you look like a S**T the better you fit in. which is very sad for a girl to do. I think Americans need to evaluate their standards and their entertainment because it's has alot of sexual content in it. and yet they fuss about a nippleless boob?

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:39 pm

As Paka's link shows, the camera angle and timing from which the still frame was taken can reveal significantly more or less nipple.

What decides which should be worse? I think the boob is worse than the sporting (but as I said earlier, the point about the sporting is also well-taken). It's just cultural, though. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the nation's values doesn't change the fact that the values are still there. If JJ did it intentionally, she deserves everything she's gotten. If not, I feel very badly for her. I don't understand this incessant need to critize American culture, though, as if it's immune from the "be tolerant of all cultures" creed that we are all supposed to adher to and respect.

-Aaron

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:48 pm

awallaceunc wrote:As Paka's link shows, the camera angle and timing from which the still frame was taken can reveal significantly more or less nipple.

What decides which should be worse? I think the boob is worse than the sporting (but as I said earlier, the point about the sporting is also well-taken). It's just cultural, though. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the nation's values doesn't change the fact that the values are still there. If JJ did it intentionally, she deserves everything she's gotten. If not, I feel very badly for her. I don't understand this incessant need to critize American culture, though, as if it's immune from the "be tolerant of all cultures" creed that we are all supposed to adher to and respect.

-Aaron

Be tolerant of all cultures? That's a believe very few follow.

I dont think americans have tolerant of all cultures. Your nation's values are all messed up because america says they believe in one thing and then go and do otherwise. Like you guys say we believe in freedom of speech and equal rights for everyone.

Freedom of Speech - If there was such thing then Michael moore's film would of gotten distribute from Buena Vista w/o them been afraid of george bush. Anyone that's afraid to voice their opinion against the government or anything is not having freedom of speech.

Equal rights for everyone?- This country is very racist to other races and other social classes. How about equal rights for Gays and lesbians aren't they american citizens too? doesn't it say equal rights for everyone? I haven't been discriminated but i've seen other races been discriminated.

There's other double standards that make up this land of the great! but those are just examples of 2.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:53 pm

MickeyMouseboy wrote:Freedom of Speech - If there was such thing then Michael moore's film would of gotten distribute from Buena Vista w/o them been afraid of george bush. Anyone that's afraid to voice their opinion against the government or anything is not having freedom of speech.

It's freedom from the government in speech that we are promised and cherish. It is that freedom that keeps Washington from censoring Michael Moore and allows a private company like Disney decide what they want to market.

MMB wrote:Equal rights for everyone?- This country is very racist to other races and other social classes. How about equal rights for Gays and lesbians aren't they american citizens too? doesn't it say equal rights for everyone? I haven't been discriminated but i've seen other races been discriminated.

Well, homosexuality isn't a race, and they do have equal rights outside of marriage, but marriage isn't a legal right in America, but rather a government-sanctioned priviledge of recognition. There's no racism in the law.

-Aaron

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:59 pm

awallaceunc wrote:
MickeyMouseboy wrote:Freedom of Speech - If there was such thing then Michael moore's film would of gotten distribute from Buena Vista w/o them been afraid of george bush. Anyone that's afraid to voice their opinion against the government or anything is not having freedom of speech.
It's freedom from the government in speech that we are promised and cherish. It is that freedom that keeps Washington from censoring Michael Moore and allows a private company like Disney decide what they want to market.

If that was so then Disney wouldn't a problem in distributing the film but you know why they didn't

awallaceunc wrote:
MMB wrote:Equal rights for everyone?- This country is very racist to other races and other social classes. How about equal rights for Gays and lesbians aren't they american citizens too? doesn't it say equal rights for everyone? I haven't been discriminated but i've seen other races been discriminated.
Well, homosexuality isn't a race, and they do have equal rights outside of marriage, but marriage isn't a legal right in America, but rather a government-sanctioned priviledge of recognition. There's no racism in the law.

-Aaron

They might have equal rights but they get discrimated by their orientation so it's like they don't have rights at all.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:06 am

MickeyMouseboy wrote:If that was so then Disney wouldn't a problem in distributing the film but you know why they didn't

No, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Surely not that ridiculous Jeb Bush tax incentive nonsense that was proven to be just that- nonsense. Look, it makes sense that a CEO of a family company would not want to have its name attached to overly partisan or ideological productions, be it liberal or conservative.

MMB wrote:They might have equal rights but they get discrimated by their orientation so it's like they don't have rights at all.

Discriminated how? By the public's attitude? In a lot of ways, yes. By the law? No.

-Aaron

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:12 am

awallaceunc wrote:
MickeyMouseboy wrote:If that was so then Disney wouldn't a problem in distributing the film but you know why they didn't
No, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Surely not that ridiculous Jeb Bush tax incentive nonsense that was proven to be just that- nonsense. Look, it makes sense that a CEO of a family company would not want to have its name attached to overly partisan or ideological productions, be it liberal or conservative.

MMB wrote:They might have equal rights but they get discrimated by their orientation so it's like they don't have rights at all.
Discriminated how? By the public's attitude? In a lot of ways, yes. By the law? No.

-Aaron

well that first was just an example of freedom of speech.

second the Law is very corrupt at times and to whom it wants too. There's not consistency.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

MMBoy's Unrated ShowGirls V.I.P Edition Review!