This was HORRIBLE!!!!!! (non-disney)

Any topic that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Dick Saucer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:04 pm

Post by Dick Saucer »

DaveWadding wrote:
Dick Saucer wrote: or how about, "i'm gonna have ya naked by the end of this song!" as heard at the super bowl? no one was complaining about that. . .
Sunset Girl wrote:And people made a big deal about Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl? Did anyone even pay attention the last line of their song? Hypocrites, the lot of them.
well, except for sunset here.
User avatar
DaveWadding
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by DaveWadding »

Sunset Girl wrote: Quick question here. . .

Are you sure the Kidz Bop version has the exact same lyrics? I'm not doubting you but they usually sanitize them a bit. Then again, this is the type of stuff that would go over most kids' heads, as opposed to Pink's "Get this Party Started" or whatever it's called when they changed the lyrics to "You'll be watching me pass" from "you'll be kissing my. . ." well, you know.


No, I'm not sure...but then again, even if they did sanitize it...they didnt hear the sanitized version on the radio, did they? :p
Sunset Girl wrote: Yeah, that's right. And I get to "play parent" and monitor a whole bunch of kids that have parents that don't really care to do any monitoring themselves. :( Sigh. I guess it's not really my responsibility, though.
I'm sure that ticks you off the same way that ticks me off. and I could go on into a rant about how teachers are underpaid because they're doing more parenting than teaching anymore... but I won't.

You're right, it's not your responsibility, but you have my admiration for doing it anyways...
Dick Saucer wrote:
DaveWadding wrote:
well, except for sunset here.
I know what the lyric is, and I've known since the CD came out. I just don't care...call me desensitized if you will (in fact, I'm listening to a song called "B**ches Ain't S**t" right now, what can I say?) but I really don't care about sex and violence in music...I take music like this at face value. That's all.
Sunset Girl

Post by Sunset Girl »

To be honest, those sanitized versions of the songs drive me nuts! Thank god I have Disney soundtracks to bring in! :lol:
DaveWadding wrote:I'm sure that ticks you off the same way that ticks me off. and I could go on into a rant about how teachers are underpaid because they're doing more parenting than teaching anymore... but I won't.

You're right, it's not your responsibility, but you have my admiration for doing it anyways...
Exactly. And thanks. :)
DaveWadding wrote:I know what the lyric is, and I've known since the CD came out. I just don't care...call me desensitized if you will (in fact, I'm listening to a song called "B**ches Ain't S**t" right now, what can I say?) but I really don't care about sex and violence in music...I take music like this at face value. That's all.
Well, I'm not sure what Dick's point was, but I agree about that face value thing. The only reason I brought it up is that it seems so hypocritcal on the FCC's part.
User avatar
DaveWadding
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by DaveWadding »

Sunset Girl wrote:To be honest, those sanitized versions of the songs drive me nuts! Thank god I have Disney soundtracks to bring in! :lol:
I 100% agree with you, if they're gonna listen to the music let them listen to the REAL thing. In fact my niece (who's 4)'s favorite song right now is "Holla Back Girl" by Gwen Stefani, and she listens to it complete with the "Uh-huh, that's my s**t" and the whole nine. Then again, she's being raised the way my sister and I are musically: ALL OVER the place. She listen to Floyd, Elvis, the Beatles...Disney soundtracks, techno..you name it.
Sunset Girl wrote:Exactly. And thanks. :)
You are, of course, very welcome. :D
Sunset Girl wrote:Well, I'm not sure what Dick's point was, but I agree about that face value thing. The only reason I brought it up is that it seems so hypocritcal on the FCC's part.
The way I interpreted it was it was a similar point to yours, but what do I know? :p

I don't think it reflects hypocritically on the FCC, myself, because...well, she wasn't really naked. OMFG, it's a NIPPLE!

Personally, I think they overreacted a LITTLE too much. Michaelangelo's David has a PENIS..and it's just there. OMG, COVER IT UP. There's an ep of the Simpsons that covers that pretty good, actually. My view on the whole thing is: "Do you actually THINK we were BORN with clothes on?!" Nudity is a natural thing...I don't get what's especially "taboo" about it. *shrug*

Of course, I am an all out free love civil rights left wing hippie... ;)
Sunset Girl

Post by Sunset Girl »

Sorry to get so off-topic here, but this is getting interesting. :D

Well, I think a lot of people confuse nudity and sexuality; even though they are often tied together, they are not the same thing. And everyone seems to have their own idea of what is acceptable and what isn't, making it difficult for a lot of people to even want to look for the difference. And herein lies the problem.

I believe I've mentioned here somewhere that I feel the FCC blew the whole Janet fiasco way out of proportion. One could argue that she committed a sexual act (as opposed to something as non-sexual as viewing Michaelangelo's David) but come on. . . with all that transpired there was practically nothing to see, anyway.

A friend of mine made an interesting point this morning: are the soccer moms that freaked out about Janet Jackson the same soccer moms that pushed for the right to nurse their babies in public? And I've often wondered why men's nipples have no debate just because they have smaller breasts! I don't get it.

Heh. You're talking to a girl that worked with live nude models in college, so nudity doesn't bother me in the least.

And I've seen that Simpsons episode you've mentioned; I agree that it covered the topic well and that it made an interesting point.

I also believe it's up to the parents to decide what is in the best interest of their children, and if I let my kids listen to, say, Holla Back Girl, I'm gonna be the one in trouble when they talk about it at home. No matter how many times they listen to it at home in the first place! And I find it sad that I can't even do something as simple as letting them listen to the radio without having to monitor every single freaking song.

I'm pretty sure that whenever I have kids they're gonna be listening to the real thing as opposed to all that sanitized crap. But at the same time, I'm not exactly excited about exposing them to certain material that I feel they may not be ready for. See, I want my kids to be exposed to and learn to appreciate all kinds of music and art, and finding that balance can be tricky.
User avatar
Siren
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3749
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:45 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by Siren »

or how about, "i'm gonna have ya naked by the end of this song!" as heard at the super bowl? no one was complaining about that. . .
Ever hear of the FCC? It's because of Janet that now they REALLY have cracked down hard on tv. I agree with FCC to a point there. Super Bowl is mostly testerone hyped men, but a lot of families watch it to. They expect to watch Super Bowl and see the game, some funny commercials, and a great halftime show. Not a strip-tease. Save that for Britney on the MTV Awards were parents already expect it. The problem was, no one expected it (except Janet, IMO). The year before it was Aerosmith and newer preformers and it was great. Family friendly and a preformance that brought the old and new together. People expected that or something similar.
People watch Deserparte Housewives and expect sexuality and some nudity. Most parents wouldn't let their kids watch it. But if Lizzie McGuire popped a boob, parents would be up in arms.

For those people who don't think the Janet thing was anything to crow about, what if Justin's penis popped out? I think yes, it's been blown up too much, but you can't say its okay for one and not the other.
She wanted to pull a stunt like that? Fine, do it on MTV Music Awards. Not on a program that millions watch with their children. It is disrespectful to Janet and to the public. I mean was she THAT desperate to sell records?

Men's nipples are not seen as a sexual stimulus. Their chests react the same way as women's does when they are aroused, but because of their size and being men, they are simply not seen as a sexual organ by law or morally. Also the big difference between popping a breast like Janet and popping one out for a baby is just that. Janet did it for fun and shock value and to get her name back in the papers because she is pretty much a has-been. Mothers do it to nuture and feed their babies and most discreetly. They aren't doing it to arouse men. It is society who has stated that women's breasts are a sexual organ, even though they aren't scientifically. Back in the cavemen days, a women's breasts, lips, and scent would tell the men she was ready to mate. The breasts and lips grow slightly larger and pinker/redder when arroused because the blood flows more readily to them (and other parts) and the hormones create the scent. The breasts are now covered, so no longer can that be used as a sign readily. The lips are often plumper and redder more commonly because of makeup, so conciously, we ignore them. And we lost much of our sense in smell for detecting from a distance. Since the dawn of time men's nipples have done little to be sexual. They are simply there. Like an apendix or tonsils. Men only have breasts because all eggs start out female. (I think) :)
Sunset Girl

Post by Sunset Girl »

Siren wrote:Ever hear of the FCC? It's because of Janet that now they REALLY have cracked down hard on tv. I agree with FCC to a point there. . .

I mean was she THAT desperate to sell records?
Apparently so. :wink:

But seriously, I'm quite familiar with the FCC as my fiance works in broadcasting, and I can see they have a point. But their reaction has not solved anything. Their standards are very vague as it is and this crackdown has only confused the heck out of the broadcasters even more over what is considered profane and what is not.

And I understand that the Super Bowl is family time for a lot of different people. I was watching that half-time show as it was airing and failed to grasp what had even happened until everyone began to talk about it after the fact.

And yeah, I agree that if the same thing had happened on MTV it would be a whole different story, but that's the difference between cable and free over-the-air network broadcasts.

So yeah, punish Janet and Justin. They knew exactly what they were doing and knew better. But fining the unsuspecting network and cracking down over the industry? I think that is wrong.
User avatar
Siren
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3749
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:45 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by Siren »

I agree with you in every instance!!

What REALLY drives me up the wall. The FCC is cracking down on great TV shows, but oh boy, do I get to hear all about impotent men and the drugs they take on the commercial breaks. And now we got them about women too. Sometimes during shows my daughter is watching! I mean, they are real vague, but save them for during school hours and after 8PM.
User avatar
betorh
Limited Issue
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:05 am
Location: Puebla, México.

Post by betorh »

Well I dont like the japannesse movies...
Image
User avatar
Evil Genie Jafar
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Humacao, Puerto Rico; there's more to PR than San Juan!

Post by Evil Genie Jafar »

betorh wrote:Well I dont like the japannesse movies...
em... it's korean.
Image

"You're only second rate!"
Dick Saucer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:04 pm

Post by Dick Saucer »

Evil Genie Jafar wrote:
betorh wrote:Well I dont like the japannesse movies...
em... it's korean.
heh. i know it's sad, but face it. . . japanese, korean, chinese. . . it's all the same to most people. personally, i love exploring stuff from other cultures.
User avatar
Evil Genie Jafar
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Humacao, Puerto Rico; there's more to PR than San Juan!

Post by Evil Genie Jafar »

Dick Saucer wrote:
Evil Genie Jafar wrote: em... it's korean.
heh. i know it's sad, but face it. . . japanese, korean, chinese. . . it's all the same to most people. personally, i love exploring stuff from other cultures.
I know, but its the same for as when people think all Latins are the same.

I remember when I was studying in PA that someone came to me at lunch and said: "They're serving tacos". and I'm like.... "good, but what does that has to do with me?"
Image

"You're only second rate!"
User avatar
Siren
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3749
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:45 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by Siren »

Two of my uncles think everyone with almond eyes and black hair must be Chinese. I recently tried Thai food and brought it home. They tried it and asked where I got it front. I told them where the Thai resturant was and they say, "Oh, that Chinese resturaunt nextdoor to your work" :roll:
User avatar
AwallaceUNC
Signature Collection
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
Contact:

Post by AwallaceUNC »

Sunset Girl wrote:"Genie in a Bottle" seems rather tame by today's standards, and hey, at least it was a song about abstinence.
Well, abstinence until someone rubs her the right way, if I recall.

-Aaron, who admits that he hasn't read much of this thread and randomly saw this one post in searching through someone else's posts. :P
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
Post Reply