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

  • Thread starter Thread starter McGyver
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the contrasting public reactions to Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl and the scandal involving Congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate conduct with teenage boys. It highlights the significant increase in FCC fines and the Republican Party's use of Jackson's incident to promote a narrative of moral decay, while downplaying the severity of Foley's actions, which involved the exploitation of minors. Participants argue that the harm caused by Foley's predatory behavior far outweighs the impact of Jackson's brief exposure, emphasizing the hypocrisy of political leaders who prioritize media decency over the safety and well-being of children. The conversation critiques the puritanical attitudes of the Republican Party, suggesting that their outrage over Jackson's incident serves as a facade to mask deeper issues within their ranks, particularly regarding accountability and transparency in handling misconduct. Overall, the dialogue questions the moral priorities of lawmakers and the societal implications of their responses to these events.

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 .
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
This thread has no point.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top