What's Worse: CBS Boob, or Foley's Predatory Perversions

  • News
  • Thread starter McGyver
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the impact of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction and the subsequent increase in FCC fines and Republican's use of it for their own agenda. It also compares the harm caused by Jackson's incident versus the harm caused by the cover-up of Congressman Mark Foley's actions against teenage boys. The conversation highlights the hypocrisy of politicians and the puritanical attitude of the Republican party. Ultimately, the conversation questions the priorities of the American public and Congress when it comes to addressing issues of morality and indecency.

How Does Jackson's TV Boobflash Compare to Cong. Foley's Damage

  • Less than Foley damage to nation

    Votes: 8 88.9%

  • Equals Foley damage to nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Greater than Foley's damage to nation

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
  • #1
McGyver
I can't help but wonder WHAT the American people (and the Christian Right) will think is worse come November 7th, Janet Jackson's quick partial boob shot, or the fear posed by Cong. Mark Foley preying on the best of the best teenage boys?

It's been two years since Jackson's wardrobe malfunction and brief boob glimpse changed American television and media. FCC fines have increased by up to 100 fold, and the Republicans used that single to broaden their sex-fear initiatives that will leave their mark for years to come.

So - in contrast to the revellation of Foley's actions against an undisclosed number of teen boys (that the House leadership acted to quash), how harmful to America was Jackson's boob-flash?

I say that if you allow leaders in Washington to put visiting children's safety and mental health in jeopardy, photos of boobs and asses don't even come close. Not even in the same ball park!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This thread has no point.
 
  • #3
Rach3 said:
This thread has no point.
I think it reflects on the pretensions of modesty by those in Washington, who claim to feel responsible for protecting the public against overt sexual media content.

Definitely Foley's transgressions are much worse.
 
  • #4
Jackson's boob actually harmed anybody: pedophiles warp their victims for life.

But the larger point is not so much Foley's transgression, but the coverup by the majority leaders in congress. Just as the big effect of the priest abuse scandals was the disaster that resulted on the Catholic Church.
 
  • #5
It just points out the fact that politicians are generally either liars who say whatever they need to get the vote and sound good, or they are in opposition, not government.

Pointless excercise this.
 
  • #6
The puritanical attitude of the Republican party (as exemplified by Ascroft's ordering the Spirit of Justice statue covered because it has a bare breast) is a very thin veneer, laid on to appeal to the Christian right. Their true colors are showing right now, as they move to distance themselves from Foley, Hastert, Reynolds, and anyone else that stands to receive flak over this incident. Pedohiles cause harm, mental anguish, and often feelings of guilt and worthlessness in those that they prey upon. Nobody was ever harmed by seeing a bare breast.
 
  • #7
turbo-1 said:
Nobody was ever harmed by seeing a bare breast.
And as an aside, the American breast&nipple fixation is something rather unique. You won't find it in Europe to the extent that it is present in the US, and if you look, for example, at the Bushmen who lived in the Kalahari desert and many other "primitive" tribes, a woman's breasts are primarily seen as mammaries, rather than an intensely arousing part of the female's body, nor are the breasts hidden away in an alluring manner.
For the bushmales(?) , it is the swaying hips and rounded butts of their women that light their fire.
 
  • #8
Astronuc said:
I think it reflects on the pretensions of modesty by those in Washington, who claim to feel responsible for protecting the public against overt sexual media content.
I agree with Rach3, though -- the OP just seems like one big non-sequitor. The points that others are bringing up are just the points they want to talk about, and aren't actually present in the OP.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Hurkyl said:
I agree with Rach3, though -- the OP just seems like one big non-sequitor. The points that others are bringing up are just the points they want to talk about, and aren't actually present in the OP.
Which, in my view, is a good reason to close the thread. I can't see that it really serves any purpose beyond that in the other Foley thread.
 
  • #10
The OP is relevant. Even though it did not harm anyone, the breast incident also became a political football.

The Op is a comparison of two supposedly immoral events. In the First incident the congress exibited immediate outrage. The second, they covered up for three years.

The House and Senate held hearings this week on indecency on network television, this in the wake of Janet Jackson's now-infamous wardrobe malfunction. Mel Karmazin, the head of CBS parent company Viacom, apologized for the Super Bowl halftime show, but many lawmakers weren't satisfied.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/15/rs.00.html
 
  • #11
edward said:
The OP is relevant. Even though it did not harm anyone, the breast incident also became a political football.

The Op is a comparison of two supposedly immoral events. In the First incident the congress exibited immediate outrage. The second, they covered up for three years.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/15/rs.00.html

Precisely, the [Republican] Congress - who by the way built their current control of Congress and the White House on "moral values." They created a major incident out of a single fairly harmless inadvertant event, and sold it as an example of the immoral political Left. But American households know breasts are inadvertantly and harmlessly seen. Why then did the American people allow this Congress to push the Jackson incident as far as it did to the front lines of moral and broadcast reform?

And, if the Foley incident is worse than the Jackson incident, what would be an equivalent Congressional response?
 

1. What is the CBS Boob incident?

The CBS Boob incident refers to the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show where singer Janet Jackson's breast was briefly exposed to millions of viewers. It sparked controversy and resulted in a large fine for CBS by the Federal Communications Commission.

2. What are Foley's Predatory Perversions?

Foley's Predatory Perversions refer to the scandal surrounding former U.S. Representative Mark Foley, who was accused of sending sexually explicit messages to teenage congressional pages. It resulted in his resignation and a congressional investigation.

3. Which incident is considered worse?

Both incidents are considered serious and harmful in their own ways. The CBS Boob incident may have offended viewers and was a violation of broadcasting standards, while Foley's Predatory Perversions involved a powerful figure preying on vulnerable young people. It is difficult to compare the two as they involve different levels of harm.

4. What were the consequences of each incident?

The CBS Boob incident resulted in a $550,000 fine for CBS by the FCC and stricter censorship guidelines for live television events. Foley's Predatory Perversions led to his resignation from Congress and an investigation into the handling of the situation by other members of Congress.

5. Have similar incidents occurred since these events?

There have been other incidents involving inappropriate behavior and sexual harassment in the media and government since the CBS Boob and Foley's Predatory Perversions. However, these events sparked conversations and changes in regulations to prevent and address similar situations in the future.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top