Okay, so Janet Jackson's nipple was seen on TV during the Superbowl--we know that--in fact, every person on the planet seems to know that whereas not many noted that 139 people were killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq that same day.
I don't know if the incident was planned as a publicity stunt or it really did happen by accident--that is really immaterial (so to speak). But here's the thing: first of all, what is the big deal? The famous Superbowl commercials had women baring everything but their nips and that was okay. It was also okay for a bunch of supermodels to play football in their underwear at the "Lingerie Bowl" (now that's a cultural event we can be proud of!) and I'll bet ya could see a bit of T&A on TV that day! And the television show "ER" was going to bare an older woman's breast on primetime but the producers cut the segment after the Janet mishap. Darn that Janet Jackson--now we can't even see boobs on medical shows. Maybe they should have digitally erased the pink part and just aired the rest.
And then there's the fact that Janet didn't rip off half her top by herself, in fact she didn't rip it off at all--Justin Timberlake did. So Janet is being ostracized 'cause we saw her (woohoo) nipple, but what about the guy who bared it? He wasn't banned from the Grammys. He attended and picked up 2 awards. Maybe it should have been three--one for acting the innocent. It seems to me that he should shoulder half the blame here. Afterall, if he would have refused to do it, it wouldn't have happened.
Ladies--let's all rush out to buy nipple shields justin case.
Recent Comments