CBS appeals FCC fine over Janet Jackson

[simonsebs]

CBS appeals FCC fine over Janet Jackson Superbowl incident (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cbs-appeals-fcc-fine-over/story.aspx?guid=%7B422A0E70-AF25-4BA3-987D-A5487EC9729F%7D)

I don't think they'll win, but its good that they're trying.

[missouriboy]

I hope they do win. Unelected bureaucrats have way too much power in this country, and it's getting worse all the time.

[Nude in the North]

I agree that it's a good thing they are trying.
The aftermath of the janet jackson event has been taken way beyond reason.
The FCC has gone overboard with it's reaction to this silly little incedent.
I don't care if it was planned, who planned it, or what anyone could have done to prevent it from being aired.
It just wasn't that big of a deal.

Steve

[WNYjoe17]

Too bad the CBS action is not about the breasts.
The appeal is ultimately based on 3 things:
1) 10 stations at $27,500 each adds up to a lot of money
2) They "did not know or have control" over the situation.
3) The penalty does not fit the crime

I agree, it is stupid. But to make things even worse, our brilliant congresspeople HAVE passed a law making all penalties for any obscene action $325,000 EACH!!!The broadcast industry is up at arms because there is no clear definition of "obscene" multiple instances over as little as several minutes count as separate incidences, and this has the potential to bankrupt major corporations. I know there is insurance, "they are already rollin the dough" etc are all lines someone would want to say. But the bottom is this is an extreme knee-jerk reaction based very largely on the Janet incident.

Joe

[RalphVa]

These fines impinge on artistic pursuit. People don't have to watch.

I didn't watch the Janet Jackson performance, kept flipping back to it from time to time to see when the game was going to resume. The little bits I saw and heard were offensive enough. Anyone who saw and heard it should not have been surprised that a tiny little breast popped out. That would have been the least offensive thing of the whole show.

The people they should go after is the Super Bowl planners who allowed such a thing to be performed in a family atmosphere. It was not appropriate.

[Nu]

You are right, RalphVa.
The whole half time show was offensive.

The nudity was incidental.
The aggressive, ripping action at the costume staggered me.

[Bob S.]

"CBS continues to ignore the voices of millions of Americans, Congress and the Commission by arguing that Janet Jackson's half-time performance was not indecent," said Clyde Ensslin, FCC spokesman. "CBS believes there should be no limits on what can be shown on television even during family viewing events like the Super Bowl; we continue to believe they are wrong."

This shows just how out of touch the FCC is with the entire situation. CBS, I doubt, argued the decency of the performance. They are arguing that this event was an unplanned part of the show, not in any authorized script--how can they be held responsible for that?

It was also only shown for a fraction of a second from a distance. Only those with TiVO really got a good look, and even then, only with a computer enhanced freeze frame that zoomed up close could you really see any nipple.

And it is not just CBS that is in on this lawsuit. They are the complaintants as they are the ones involved, but every other major network station is involved in wanting this appeal (CBS owns the CW and NewsCorp-Fox- owns MyNetworkTV). Their arguments revolve around the lack of a coherent and consistent definition of indecent.

Also, the vast majority of people who watched didn't care about the Jackson incident. Only a small fraction of people complained, most from the same RRR group. And that is what should count more than anything else...the number of complaints compared to the number of people who watched. But the FCC wants to ignore the voices of the American viewers.

Bob S.

[WNYjoe17]

Bob,
I fully agree with you.
Except on one point. Statistics generally show about 1-2% will be active enough to comment. So, with however many millions of people watching, that should result in hundred of comments. The obvious thing that this statistic does nt mention isthis:
The ones who don't care will not comment. Only the most blatant will. So of course, they got "a lot" of complaints. Unfortunately for us, the FCC wants to put too much faith in the flawed information they have at their disposal.

Joe

[John P]

I'm ready to catch some flak for this, but I think the FCC was dead right on this issue and I hope CBS loses their case. In fact, I hope they lose their shirts, ha ha ha.

As I see it, the issue here isn't the fact that there was very brief, very partial, nudity, but the circumstances in which it was presented. That is, in a daytime show that millions of people were watching, and with no warning. How would it have been if the football game had started with a notice "This show contains nudity"? Somehow I think that showing what they did was OK with them, but telling people in advance that they were going to do it would have been totally beyond their courage.

The Jackson/Timberlake performance was a strip show, with violent overtones, performed by two highly-paid artists. It was about as far from naturism as it's possible to get. Since I'm a naturist, I claim to be as entitled as anyone to say that it was tasteless and obnoxious, and I've said it before, any time the subject comes up. If we accept that kind of thing and defend it, then we're saying that a scene in which a man rips a woman's clothes off is the kind of nudity we can enjoy. I don't see how that fits in with the idea of non-sexual nude recreation, and acceptance of the human body as normal and never as a threat or anything obscene. We can't let a scene that looked like the prelude to rape go by as the sort of thing we look forward to seeing more of. We also need to emphasize the point that the sort of nudity we're looking for isn't just where an attractive woman gets naked; it's for everyone. If you think about it, it was highly significant in that scene not just that Janet Jackson showed some skin, but that Justin Timberlake didn't.

Again not for the first time, I'll ask if the kind of show presented by Timberlake and Jackson is acceptable, what's next--farting horses?

[NakedGary]

John P

Who said the act show or planned exposure had anything to do with nudism or naturism? [Even if a few frames or seconds]

Horses’ farting is a natural occurrence; Not on demand as the intentional breast exposure or ripping off part of the dress.

I think the performers should be fined along with the station for not catching this in the delayed loop most shows use in live broadcasts.

This act or planned event probably wouldn’t have flinched and eye or resulted in many complaints if it would have been broadcast on European cable or television. As it was out of 10’s of millions who watched, very few complained except these religious right fundamentalists, and family councils groups against most anything dealing with dress, sex in ads, partial non-sexual nudity, foods, clothes and you name it.
.

[WNYjoe17]

Sorry Gary & John. I can't agree.
You are 100% right. it is not about naturism. We need to get our message out about body acceptance...but not like this.
Horses farting is an intersting comparison. I don't think it belongs on TV any more than that overhyped, inuendo filled halftime broadcast.
But as I said before, it is not fair to penalize the stations.
1) Video delays were not a common item until this incident. Sure, I guess the technology existed. Id did in radio for years. But it was not perceived as being needed.
2) An affiliate station only pipeleines the content through. They have no control over content.
3) The perfomers were fined. In a very indirect way. Janet's career certainly changed. She turned Justin into the scapegoat, and it runined his career.

Most importanly though is the idea of naturism being advanced. This did more against our ideals than any one other thing could. Yet, we all view the body in a very different way than the extremists who complained.

I just can't he;p but feel that this is an example of two wrongs trying to make a right. So, I still think the fine should be re-examined.

Our goal should be together to help educate the public on good nudity, bad nudity, sex vs nudity, etc.

Joe

[Bob S.]

The halftime shows will definitely be on a delay from now on. But since this one did not, CBS should not be fined for something that was unplanned. They did not stay on the shot and quickly went to another as soon as it happened.

I agree that the incident was not exactly nudist. It was sexual in nature--combined with the song and dance. I also believe it was unplanned (the exposure)--and more than likely not approved by CBS (the ripping of the shirt).

But arguing against the fine is not the same thing as endorsing the act. In part, the FCC needs to establish absolutes regarding what will be fined and what will not be fined. They already do not use their regulations the same in all cases.

The definition for determining if something is "patently offensive":

(1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative.

I will grant you that the lyrics were not family friendly, but did they fall under these guidelines? Did the dance fall under these guidelines? Did the half-second exposure of a pierced nipple fall under these guidelines? Do they all taken together fall under these guidelines?

I do not believe they do.

Bob S.

[John P]

You haven't convinced me. It was a ridiculous lie on the part of Justin Timberlake to claim that that the incident was a "wardrobe malfunction"--part of Jackson's costume was designed to tear away, and she was wearing some kind of shiny decoration underneath--or are we meant to believe that she dresses that way every day? If it makes it "unplanned" in the sense that the president of CBS didn't know what was coming, then maybe, but the two performers didn't cook it up on their own. CBS or its agents knew what was going to happen, and if there was ignorance at some level, then let's say the fine is for failing to supervise underlings. Either way you look at it, CBS was to blame. Anyway, they got off lightly: if this kind of thing happens again, the fine will be a lot worse.

Unfortunately it's really impossible for the FCC to establish clear rules on exactly what's allowed and what isn't, at least not if there's any pretense at freedom of speech involved. A stripper's bare breast presented during a football game was considered illegal, but (let's say) a bare breast in part of a progam about breast cancer might be perfectly OK.

Another quote from the FCC's web site makes a statement that explains it as well as they can (the boldface type appears that way on the FCC site):

In making obscenity, indecency, and profanity determinations, context is key. The FCC staff must analyze what was actually aired, the meaning of what was aired, and the context in which it was aired.

In my opinion, they're quite correct in emphasizing the word "context". Nudity used as entertainment in a program that people won't expect to contain sexually-oriented material is what a lot of people would (and did!) call "obscene". Nudity in some other program might not be regarded the same way, and the FCC would be fully capable of telling complainers that the FCC didn't agree with them. That's what happened with the bad language in "Saving Private Ryan" for instance--viewers were warned what to expect, but even so there were complaints and the FCC said that swearing by soldiers in battle was exactly what would happen; there were no penalties.

Maybe they ought to say "Nudity is illegal in any program which is being used to sell beer" and that would pretty much solve the problem.

[simonsebs]

Court Hears Jackson Costume Malfunction (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxWZDyth2Gc_b-Zc5-HE4ybQeg8A)

Here's an update to the story.

[TANZ]

Although nothing to do with naturism in particular,the uproar it caused is a direct result of mainstream publics general phobia towards nudity.This in turn is the same attitude that fosters the various prejudices towards nudists,naturists and our various lifestyles.
If the top had have been torn,revealing a lacy bodice instead of naked flesh,it would not have caused half the panic or over-reaction it did.Suggesting to me it was the end result,namely a naked breast,not the act that all these idiots are offended by.
The most reported and talked about non-event in the history of man kind,and one way past it's use by date.IT WAS JUST A BREAST....WHOPPEEEE

Cheers
Kiwi

[BobInCA]

A federal appeals court threw out the $550,000 fine the FCC levied against CBS today!

The Associated Press story is here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CBS_JANET_JACKSON?SITE=CARIE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The court ruling is here:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063575p.pdf

[steve-o]

Has anyone been to an NFL game lately and seen what the cheerleaders (aka exotic dancers) who surround the field wear? ...er, what little they wear? They reveal much much more than Janet Jackson did in that split second. Making such a big deal out of a flash of woman's nipple is what's obscene.

If I were a woman I would be very insulted if I was told that a part of my anatomy was "obscene". (Perhaps Micheal Jackson's voluntarily disfigured body could be called "obscene", but not his sister's. :-)

Prudish Americans and our government bureaucrats' priorities are completely screwed up.

[Fitz1980]

The rest of the civilized world is laughing at us for that. 4 years and God knows how many man hours spent on a less than a second long exposure of a part of the body that everyone has.

[Agde]

Just a quick point that performance and publication rules/laws are of course different and separate from issues of civic naturism. Just as in cases where naturists are caught up in laws meant to regulate the "adult entertainment" industry, we need to be very clear that rules governing performances have nothing to do with informal naturism. Naturism is not striptease.

That said, the "wardrobe malfunction" incident may have the unintended effect (sorry PTC!) of clarifying the legal distinctions (and hence court decisions) between "inappropriate", "shocking", "sexual", "indecent", etc. I hope NAC is monitoring the upcoming Supreme Court consideration of indecency rules this fall as closely as the Parents Television Council is. Choosing to be clothed or not in casual public situations should be just a matter of personal choice, not lumped together with publication and performance First Amendment issues.

[Running Bear]

Has anyone been to an NFL game lately and seen what the cheerleaders (aka exotic dancers) who surround the field wear?
No, as an Englishman I will have to google 'cheerleader' and see what you mean :-) We have pretty ballerinas over here; much more cultured and as scantily clad :-)

[BearEater]

No, as an Englishman I will have to google 'cheerleader' and see what you mean :-) We have pretty ballerinas over here; much more cultured and as scantily clad :-)

That is very funny Running Bear. I tend to believe that the pretty ballerinas you mention are not performing any of the provocative moves that said cheerleaders are doing in a public stadium. I think that the reference to them as exotic dancers, or was that erotic dancers is quite appropriate.

I definitely believe that most of the world is laughing at us about this whole situation. For the 3/16 second view of Janet Jackson's breast we show just how hypocritical we are in our laws and public standards. The cheerleaders, who, though great to watch, display so much more and elude to definite sexual undertones in their actions are seen as just an acceptable part of the show. And that is even by the parents who complained so intensely about the "malfunction" incident. Do channels displaying their antics receive weekly fines however? Of course not. How silly it all seems to me.

Bear.

[Naturist Mark]

No, as an Englishman I will have to google 'cheerleader' and see what you mean :-) We have pretty ballerinas over here; much more cultured and as scantily clad :-)

Do your ballerinas perform on the sidelines during Fútbol matches?

-Mark

[Illinois59]

Somehow I'm completely confused about how one branch of our government can go completely off the deep end about a split second exposure of a small portion of Janet Jackson's body and another branch of our government will be subjecting airline passengers to what amounts to a high tech full body strip search with the new imaging systems at airports. Its true that the imaging systems don't provide a high definition TV quality picture but then again the average person would have no problem figuring out what he is looking at on the screen. I would also think that children would be subject to this type of video examination. How do the people who scream "child pornography" about a photograph of a young girl without a top feel about the screeners looking at the images of children passing through these imaging systems? 80% of Americans feel this country is on the wrong track. The other 20% scares me.

[Pete Knight]

Do your ballerinas perform on the sidelines during Fútbol matches?

-Mark

No, all our 'prima donas' are on the pitch!

Pete Knight

[simonsebs]

Just a thought I had recently. Now that CBS's appeal has been a success there has been little coverage about it in the media. Yet when this whole thing happened and the fines were handed out, people were coming out of the woodwork to express their outrage. I know there are more important things going on in the world right now, but weren't there more important things going on when everyone was complaining about Janet Jackson's nipple?

[Pete Knight]

Just a thought I had recently. Now that CBS's appeal has been a success there has been little coverage about it in the media. Yet when this whole thing happened and the fines were handed out, people were coming out of the woodwork to express their outrage. I know there are more important things going on in the world right now, but weren't there more important things going on when everyone was complaining about Janet Jackson's nipple?

In a word 'sensationalism' is what it was all about, but there isn't very much sensationalism to be extracted with the latest story, unless an ultraconservative religious group kicks up a fuss.

Pete Knight

[simonsebs]

United States Appeals Wardrobe Ruling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/arts/television/22arts-UNITEDSTATES_BRF.html?ref=television)

Looks like its not over yet. Honestly, with the economy going down the tubes, two wars, and the auto industry about to go bankrupt you would think the government would have more important things to worry about. Hopefully the government will start to focus on the big stuff once Obama takes office.

[nakedstudent]

I think both sides are pretty rediculous here. CBS is responsible for the content of its brodcast. I don't think the super bowl is the place for such battles to be fought.

There is no indication that the initial action was intended to increase awareness of the nudist lifestyle. For this reason, Jackson and her boss (CBS) are responsible for their actions which put parents in the odd predicament of trying to explain behaviors. God knows how the majority of parents addressed it. I know mine kind of ignored it. I would say the ideal situation would be "Well your body is your body and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It isn't right to let people touch your body anywhere without your consent. On the other hand, even if you have consent to touch another person's body, you should not engage in such behaviors unless you have taken the feelings of everybody who is exposed into consideration."


I also think the government is too freaked out about such things. I tent to agree with a libertarian approach to such subjects. We should allow the broadcasters to make their own decisions. If the incident wasn't in the best interest of CBS, they would sue Janet Jackson. If it isn't in the best interest of the US citizenship, we have the power to affect ratings.

[Bob S.]

OK, now that you all got that out of your systems, let's return to regularly scheduled CBS/FCC/Janet Jackson discussion already in progress. Political discussions can be taken to the Open Conversation forum which conveniently has a few political discussions going on.

Thank you.

Bob S.
Moderator

[nakedstudent]

OK, now that you all got that out of your systems, let's return to regularly scheduled CBS/FCC/Janet Jackson discussion already in progress. Political discussions can be taken to the Open Conversation forum which conveniently has a few political discussions going on.

Thank you.

Bob S.
Moderator

haha... fair enough... Can't wait for the weekly update... Trust me I'll sure be watching to see what slap on the wrist an action that was definitely not nudism gets from the government.

[simonsebs]

My apologies everyone, its my fault the topic has gone in the direction it has. I knew better than to say anything remotely political on this board, but did it any way. I suppose I was still on a high from what happened a few weeks ago and didn't think anything would happen.

So with that being said, lets get back on topic. The FCC should go lick their wounds and accept that they lost this one. There has to be something more important they could be doing with their time.

[Fitz1980]

Well the FCC is necessary to regulate who uses what frequencies to do what. If it wasn't there anyone could just open up a radio or TV station and broadcast over someone else's broadcast at the same time. What I don't like is them regulating content or wasting taxpayer money to regulate content and bring them more into line with what your grandmother might find acceptable.

[Bob S.]

OK, I got tired of everyone disobeying me so I deleted everything!!!!:sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:

No, just kidding. :laugh: I used this thread to discover how to move posts from one thread to make a new thread. I was successful! :D

The posts can now be found at From FCC to the next administration (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=13682) in the Open Conversation board. I know, it sounds terrible, so if anyone has any suggestions for a better title for that thread, feel free to PM me (PMs only, please).

We now, seriously, return to our regularly scheduled FCC discussion.

Bob S.
moderator

[nimrod]

What I don't like is them regulating content or wasting taxpayer money to regulate content and bring them more into line with what your grandmother might find acceptable.

I agree with you on that point. I thought that with the rating system there might be less of that going on because if someone in the FCC thought that some content might offend a viewer, the rating system would be fair warning as to what the "questionable" content might be and let the viewer decide if they would want to watch, but that did not happen and things got worse after the Jackson incident. Even with the rating system nudity is not really seen, but they can show an autopsy on CSI.

[steve-o]

... Even with the rating system nudity is not really seen, but they can show an autopsy on CSI.

And so much violence on TV. But nudity is a bad thing? Their prioritizes are really screwed up.

[nakedstudent]

I agree with you on that point. I thought that with the rating system there might be less of that going on because if someone in the FCC thought that some content might offend a viewer, the rating system would be fair warning as to what the "questionable" content might be and let the viewer decide if they would want to watch, but that did not happen and things got worse after the Jackson incident. Even with the rating system nudity is not really seen, but they can show an autopsy on CSI.

You know I'm starting to disagree with this statement. Judging by some of what you can dig up in the nudes in the news section and other places in these forums, nudism has decayed pretty markedly in what has become acceptable.

Take my naked truth for example: http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=13634

This whole website engages in discussion of drugs and sex which are hardly in line with the stated mission of nudists.

If we're going to truly advance social nudity, we can't be afraid to stand up to the sexual acts that many misconceive as nudism. Jackson's actions were clearly not nudist and clearly sexually explicit in the context of the song "Gotta have you naked by the end of this song."

http://www.lyricsondemand.com/j/justintimberlakelyrics/rockyourbodylyrics.html

There is no way that singing a song like this coupled with an "accident" like that should be acceptable. I say fine the snot out of them.

The nudist lifestyle would be much better off and gain much more respect and intrigue from textiles if we recognized the incident for what it was. A clear sign of decaying social and family values in this country.

[Qikdraw]

A clear sign of decaying social and family values in this country.

Who decides what is 'proper' social and family values?

But I do agree that the whole 'wardrobe malfunction' was intentional.

[nakedstudent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOLbERWVR30

Here's the actual link. I think when you look at the grinding and costumes of the act, this one becomes a no brainer. That's just my penny's worth though...

[nimrod]

Nakedstudent, I am not sure what you are in disagreement with. I agree that the Jackson incedent is not what true nudism is about, but my points were on what content is or is not OK to show on TV, and how the rating system should have been a losening of the FCC's tight reins, when the reverse is true due to the Jackson incedent.

[Fitz1980]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOLbERWVR30

Here's the actual link. I think when you look at the grinding and costumes of the act, this one becomes a no brainer. That's just my penny's worth though...

That I actually agree on. When you look at the sexy moves and the costumes I'll agree that it was the sexual part; and if you don't want that at the Superbowl that's a very fine and understandable position that we, as a society, should discuss. But that's not what we're talking about fining the stations for. It's the .5 second that her nipple was visible. Even after it happened I remember even those who supported huge fines for the stations and the network were flipped out about the brief nipple exposure, not the sexy dancing.

[nakedstudent]

That I actually agree on. When you look at the sexy moves and the costumes I'll agree that it was the sexual part; and if you don't want that at the Superbowl that's a very fine and understandable position that we, as a society, should discuss. But that's not what we're talking about fining the stations for. It's the .5 second that her nipple was visible. Even after it happened I remember even those who supported huge fines for the stations and the network were flipped out about the brief nipple exposure, not the sexy dancing.

So if you don't fine CBS for the ".5 seconds" which I think is an underestimate, how can you fine producers who have an actress do the same thing in a sexually charged manner?

The actual tearing of the suit was a continuation of the sexual action. How can you separate the result from the actions and call the result non sexual while the entire halftime show was basically a big orgy?

[nakedstudent]

Who decides what is 'proper' social and family values?

But I do agree that the whole 'wardrobe malfunction' was intentional.

Well the easy answer to that question is the society and family isn't it? I am only trying to speak from the nudist perspective in all of my replies. I think with the sexual nature of the act, it's a no brainer. There is no way that exposing a breast after grinding the way they did for 20 minutes is non sexual in nature. I just can't see it that way...

[Qikdraw]

Well the easy answer to that question is the society and family isn't it? I am only trying to speak from the nudist perspective in all of my results. I think with the sexual nature of the act, it's a no brainer. There is no way that exposing a breast after grinding the way they did for 20 minutes is non sexual in nature. I just can't see it that way...


I don't disagree that that act was on purpose and sexually charged, although just because a breast was exposed doesn't mean its a nudist issue. Or are you going to complain about 50+ years of advertising and movies and thousands of years of art? I think nudists get too sensitive about it.

As for 'society and family' deciding our morals, who becomes our spokesperson? I simply do not trust those spouting off that they speak for us now. Our nation was NOT founded on the christian religion, no matter how many times that is spouted off.

[nakedstudent]

I don't disagree that that act was on purpose and sexually charged, although just because a breast was exposed doesn't mean its a nudist issue. Or are you going to complain about 50+ years of advertising and movies and thousands of years of art? I think nudists get too sensitive about it.

As for 'society and family' deciding our morals, who becomes our spokesperson? I simply do not trust those spouting off that they speak for us now. Our nation was NOT founded on the christian religion, no matter how many times that is spouted off.

It isn't about being Christian. It's about being moral. Morality is not decided by a religion. It's decided society and by the people who make it up.

On the other hand, we were not founded on the base of NO religion either but that's a whole different argument.

I was not aware that were were talking about art , movies, and advertising. I would counter on the movies though that you still have the ability to see movies with nudity in it as long as people are willing to make them. You just have to have the appropriate rating that tells consumers what they can expect. I disagree with some of the strictness and such in the ratings.

It is one thing to argue a completely non sexual add, movie scene, or classical painting. It is another thing entirely to protect treating women like sexual objects the way the super bowl act was conducted.

I think all of those classical artists would be rolling over in their graves if they heard you make that comparison to their art.

I will never support FCC restrictions or modifications of artistic work or non sexual nudity. I just don't think JJ fits into that category and we would be much better off as a lifestyle if we banned together and said "We don't approve of this garbage." Because the way it's occurring now, all of those nasty religious people you talked about are looking at us and saying "Bull crap it's not sexual. Look at how they support the slut at the super bowl."

It does nothing to promote nudism. I think it actually detracts from the perceived legitimacy of our position.

[Bob S.]

nakedstudent: "There is no way that singing a song like this coupled with an "accident" like that should be acceptable. I say fine the snot out of them."

Whether the exposure was intentional or not (and by looking at Janet's reaction, it seems to have not been intentional) is irrelevant. What is relevant is the FCC's actual rules and regs regarding indecency. Here is an important part of those rules about what constitutes patently offensive material (from their website http://www.fcc.gov ):

(1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

Let's go through the factors one by one. Was the extremely short exposure explicit or graphic? I would say no. Did CBS dwell on or repeat the exposure of the breast? No they absolutely did not. When the director realized what was on the screen, he went to a wide shot. Did CBS intend to pander, titillate, or shock the viewing audience? No they did not.

Realize that there would have been no problems without the very brief exposure. Yes, the whole performance was a bit sexual, but CBS clearly had no problem with that and the FCC could not have done anything about it.

Realize that this crusade against Janet's exposure has caused ripples that affected other shows that wanted to show normal nudity. AN episode of ER was edited as they were going to show a woman patient with her breast exposed in a typical hospital ER setting.

The ultimate problem with the FCC fines was that the FCC went against its own rules for defining indecent material. Just like incidents when nudists have to side with strip clubs in order to fight overly broad public nudity laws, so nudists have also the need to fight against unfair FCC fines against nudity on TV, even if we don't agree with the content of the nudity shown.

Bob S.

[nakedstudent]

nakedstudent: "There is no way that singing a song like this coupled with an "accident" like that should be acceptable. I say fine the snot out of them."

Whether the exposure was intentional or not (and by looking at Janet's reaction, it seems to have not been intentional) is irrelevant. What is relevant is the FCC's actual rules and regs regarding indecency. Here is an important part of those rules about what constitutes patently offensive material (from their website http://www.fcc.gov ):

(1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

Let's go through the factors one by one. Was the extremely short exposure explicit or graphic? I would say no. Did CBS dwell on or repeat the exposure of the breast? No they absolutely did not. When the director realized what was on the screen, he went to a wide shot. Did CBS intend to pander, titillate, or shock the viewing audience? No they did not.

Realize that there would have been no problems without the very brief exposure. Yes, the whole performance was a bit sexual, but CBS clearly had no problem with that and the FCC could not have done anything about it.

Realize that this crusade against Janet's exposure has caused ripples that affected other shows that wanted to show normal nudity. AN episode of ER was edited as they were going to show a woman patient with her breast exposed in a typical hospital ER setting.

The ultimate problem with the FCC fines was that the FCC went against its own rules for defining indecent material. Just like incidents when nudists have to side with strip clubs in order to fight overly broad public nudity laws, so nudists have also the need to fight against unfair FCC fines against nudity on TV, even if we don't agree with the content of the nudity shown.

Bob S.

Ok... All of this is fair enough. But analyze it from Justin and Janet's side now. I think the answer to all 3 is yes. So maybe what we need to consider in ambiguous cases like performances that are live is actor/ artist responsibility from the FCC. Additionally, I would say that the increase to I believe a 7 second delay is effective.

The only thing I really have to say is that I hope this blows over because I don't know how many more Paul McCartney and Jonas Brothers performances I can take... haha... kidding... I think Paul did a pretty good job but I'm not that enthralled with the musicianship of the Jonas Brothers... They're like boy band retreads...

[Qikdraw]

It isn't about being Christian. It's about being moral. Morality is not decided by a religion. It's decided society and by the people who make it up.

But the people arguing the 'moral' war are the chrstians conservatives, claiming they know what is right for America. This is the problem.

On the other hand, we were not founded on the base of NO religion either but that's a whole different argument.

We were founded on seperation of government and church, and the church needs to stay out of politics.

I was not aware that were were talking about art , movies, and advertising. I would counter on the movies though that you still have the ability to see movies with nudity in it as long as people are willing to make them. You just have to have the appropriate rating that tells consumers what they can expect. I disagree with some of the strictness and such in the ratings.

If you're going to complain about one thing, you're going to complain about something else, which has held true. There are religious grooups that do nothing but start to complain about nudity. Its idiocy.

It is one thing to argue a completely non sexual add, movie scene, or classical painting. It is another thing entirely to protect treating women like sexual objects the way the super bowl act was conducted.

Remember the statue of justice was covered up because a breast was exposed? Yeah, non-sexual, classic art and a symbol, but got covered up at the expense of $8,000 taxpayer dollars.

I think all of those classical artists would be rolling over in their graves if they heard you make that comparison to their art.

I think all of those classical artists would be rolling over in their grave if they heard their art was deemed sexual and immoral by religious zealots pushing their 'morality' on everybody else.

I will never support FCC restrictions or modifications of artistic work or non sexual nudity. I just don't think JJ fits into that category and we would be much better off as a lifestyle if we banned together and said "We don't approve of this garbage." Because the way it's occurring now, all of those nasty religious people you talked about are looking at us and saying "Bull crap it's not sexual. Look at how they support the slut at the super bowl."

Well I agree it was done on purpose, but I don't think its that big of a deal, not as big as some make it out to be. Nor is this a nudist issue at all. If it violates FCC rules, they should be fined, but its not an issue other than that.

It does nothing to promote nudism. I think it actually detracts from the perceived legitimacy of our position.

And screaming about idiotic stuff that has nothing to do with nudism, claiming it has something to do with nudism doesn't help nudism either.

[Qikdraw]

Whether the exposure was intentional or not (and by looking at Janet's reaction, it seems to have not been intentional) is irrelevant.

JJ's reaction is called 'acting'. :D

[nakedstudent]

But the people arguing the 'moral' war are the chrstians conservatives, claiming they know what is right for America. This is the problem.


As long as you draw this religious line before you criticize me I don't have any objections to it. I am a Christian and a conservative as well. With that being said, I don't push those views on anyone and will never do it. I am simply trying to expose what is in my opinion a fact:

Janet Jackson's actions were not simple social nudity. They were in fact sexual in nature and for that simple fact, they should be punished. I don't buy this argument that we need to sell ourselves out and ride the backs of one enemy to take on a bigger one.


We were founded on seperation of government and church, and the church needs to stay out of politics.
I don't think the church is involved in very much politics aside from their strong disapproval of Roe V Wade. That's just how I see things. If you have indications of PAC's from any churches, please pass that info to me so I can cross off churches to be a member of.

With that being said, I certainly hope you aren't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many (not all but many) people derive their morals from their family and the religion practiced in it. There is no way you can expect all religious people in this country to sit back and not have an input in any of our decisions. That misses the entire point of the amendment.



If you're going to complain about one thing, you're going to complain about something else, which has held true. There are religious grooups that do nothing but start to complain about nudity. Its idiocy.

I'm not sure whether or not to take this comment as stereotypical or what? I want to make sure you're not painting religious people with too broad of a brush here. How often have you talked rationally about social nudity with religious people? Is your view one of conversational experience or one of media observation? I think if you really dug deep into your friendships with religious people and networked for some more research, you would find that religious people aren't out to end your skinny dipping days or right to visit a nudist beach or resort.

"The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty... Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person...The human body is not in itself shameful... Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person." --Pope John Paul II



I think all of those classical artists would be rolling over in their grave if they heard their art was deemed sexual and immoral by religious zealots pushing their 'morality' on everybody else.

I agree with all of this. I'm just saying we need to "be Switzerland" here. This notion that we need to jump in bed with communists to defeat nazi's is pretty confusing to me. If you agree that JJ's actions were sexual in nature and you are a true nudist, how can you support riding on her back (Just like JT did haha) to promote your differing view?



Well I agree it was done on purpose, but I don't think its that big of a deal, not as big as some make it out to be. Nor is this a nudist issue at all. If it violates FCC rules, they should be fined, but its not an issue other than that.

agreed.



And screaming about idiotic stuff that has nothing to do with nudism, claiming it has something to do with nudism doesn't help nudism either.
100% agreement here... I actually hoped this would be the overwhelming point of my post.

We are just on the other side so we need to show that it has nothing to do with nudism by either avoiding casual conversation about it or denouncing it.

[Qikdraw]

As long as you draw this religious line before you criticize me I don't have any objections to it. I am a Christian and a conservative as well. With that being said, I don't push those views on anyone and will never do it. I am simply trying to expose what is in my opinion a fact:

My point is that there are some that do push their opinion on others, claiming they hold the high moral ground, and know what is best for everybody.

Janet Jackson's actions were not simple social nudity. They were in fact sexual in nature and for that simple fact, they should be punished. I don't buy this argument that we need to sell ourselves out and ride the backs of one enemy to take on a bigger one.

Right, but because a nipple was barely shown for half a second does not make it a nudist issue either. Its an FCC issue, and should be left there.

I don't think the church is involved in very much politics aside from their strong disapproval of Roe V Wade. That's just how I see things. If you have indications of PAC's from any churches, please pass that info to me so I can cross off churches to be a member of.

Look at Prop 8 in California, mostly funded by the mormons and the catholic church. Mega churches like Saddleback do everything but tell you who to vote for, but they certainly push you in a direction they want you to go.

While I do not have a problem with them at the table to talk about issues, I do not think they should be the ones deciding policy. Policy is about laws and rights, not religion.

With that being said, I certainly hope you aren't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many (not all but many) people derive their morals from their family and the religion practiced in it. There is no way you can expect all religious people in this country to sit back and not have an input in any of our decisions. That misses the entire point of the amendment.

Not at all, religion plays an important role in our lives, I just do not think that policy should be set around religious values. Religion has caused too much wars, hate and death to be used directly to dictate policy onto countries.

I'm not sure whether or not to take this comment as stereotypical or what? I want to make sure you're not painting religious people with too broad of a brush here. How often have you talked rationally about social nudity with religious people? Is your view one of conversational experience or one of media observation? I think if you really dug deep into your friendships with religious people and networked for some more research, you would find that religious people aren't out to end your skinny dipping days or right to visit a nudist beach or resort.

Its funny, I've said a number of times that I think that those of us that disagree the most would really enjoy sitting around a table and talking about issues, and that we'd find a lot of common ground. In talking with regular people in a regular way you can find all kinds of things to agree with. However when it becomes a crusade brought on by a few religious groups you do not get a decent conversation going. This is done by selectively informing people or saying things in a certain way to get people to follow a certain path. Here are a few examples.

Using a simple yes or no answer for each question:

If you asked people if they thought any child in America should go hungry, the majority of people would say no.
If you asked people if they support social programs about half would say no.

If you asked people if they believed everybody in America deserves equal rights as defined in the Constitution, they'd say yes.
If you asked people if they supported a ban on same sex marriage about half would say yes.

Which is why you have to look at the questions in polls to figure out if it was a fair poll or not. Polls are generally just trying to prove a specific point, which is usually why I disregard them.

"The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty... Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person...The human body is not in itself shameful... Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person." --Pope John Paul II

Smart guy.

I agree with all of this. I'm just saying we need to "be Switzerland" here. This notion that we need to jump in bed with communists to defeat nazi's is pretty confusing to me. If you agree that JJ's actions were sexual in nature and you are a true nudist, how can you support riding on her back (Just like JT did haha) to promote your differing view?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, can you expand a bit please? :)

I don't know if I'd qualify as a 'true' nudist, the only times my wife & I are able to be nude is at resorts, so I guess we are 'resort nudists'. :D

I do think the whole thing was planned and it was only backtracked on because of a small group who rewound that spot to find that half second of boob. I see a lot more problems with 'news' using sex to drive up ratings.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XNUEINIVFo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XNUEINIVFo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

100% agreement here... I actually hoped this would be the overwhelming point of my post.

We are just on the other side so we need to show that it has nothing to do with nudism by either avoiding casual conversation about it or denouncing it.

Well like I said before I think nudists get too sensitive over any sort of nudity that is remotely sexual and say its bad for nudism. I do not think nudists have any sort of monopoly on nakedness, although some seem to act like they do.

Y'know when my wife & I were first trying out nudism we talked about it a lot with our hairdresser. (what don't you talk about with haridressers?? :D ) She's deeply catholic and while she was happy we found it great, she never thought it would be something she would try. Well after a few bad boyfriends she finally found her man and got married, on their honeymoon they went to an island that each cabin had their own private area of the beach. She said her and her new husband layed out on the beach naked and really enjoyed it. She was actually excited to tell us about it. Will she ever try a nude resort? I don't know, but I hope she will. :)

And just to point something out... I'm not anti religion by any means. I grew up in a baptist home, I've been baptised and annointed with oil before my major surgery, and I used to have a deep faith. While I no longer go to church I still have my faith. My only problem with religion is its entrance into politics, and while you may say there is not much religion in politics you have to realise that in the US a politician will probably not get elected unless they talk about their deep faith in God. How many religious questions were asked of McCain and Obama? Compare that with Canada, (where I originally come from) and the US is virtually a theocracy.

[nakedstudent]

Look at Prop 8 in California, mostly funded by the mormons and the catholic church. Mega churches like Saddleback do everything but tell you who to vote for, but they certainly push you in a direction they want you to go.

While I do not have a problem with them at the table to talk about issues, I do not think they should be the ones deciding policy. Policy is about laws and rights, not religion.

You know it's funny... you could substitute the word 'union' for 'church' and I think all of your statements would still be true. The long and short of the world today is that you need to have money and power to make decisions. Churches and unions have money and power and therefore will always have a say in certain processes.

Isn't it a good thing for a pastor to say "On these issues, one candidate best matches the teachings of the church but on these the other candidate does?" I think the only thing religion would win out on are the polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortions which in my opinion shouldn't even be considered when determining one's social ideology. Those two issues are for some reason more hot buttoned than things like sex education or national language. Why?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, can you expand a bit please?

I don't know if I'd qualify as a 'true' nudist, the only times my wife & I are able to be nude is at resorts, so I guess we are 'resort nudists'.

I do think the whole thing was planned and it was only backtracked on because of a small group who rewound that spot to find that half second of boob. I see a lot more problems with 'news' using sex to drive up ratings.


1. You are more of a nudist than me then. I'm confined to my room for now.

2. I just think we need to be careful when deciding what we support and what we don't. I think we're seeing our values decay when we support things like "My Naked Truth" where all they talk about is exotic dancing, prostitution, and drugs. We also need to be careful that we don't slip into accepting things like swinging and pornography to support our completely different ideology. We don't need to run and defend these actions just because there is nudity involved.

Nakedness is only social nudity when it is in the context of otherwise "socially acceptable" behavior. Like a group of people who get together and have an orgy and claim to be nudists for that action should not be viewed as nudists. We shouldn't defend their orgies as if they were part of our lifestyle. We need to stand up and defend our more moral tendencies. We need to stand up and say "There is a point where nakedness no longer serves the purpose of body image and personal freedom."

[nakedstudent]

Well like I said before I think nudists get too sensitive over any sort of nudity that is remotely sexual and say its bad for nudism. I do not think nudists have any sort of monopoly on nakedness, although some seem to act like they do.

I don't believe I've ever said anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that eventually we're going to have to draw a line. If you don't think Jackson crossed it, fine... we respectfully disagree considering the context of the "malfunction."

I just don't feel we need to be more careful about what we choose to defend. If we're seen as naked people who defend pornography on PBS and Nickelodeon, we have chosen to further alienate the non-nudist segment of society for (in my opinion) justifiable reasons.

I really hope my generation changes some of the "socially acceptable" practices and loosens up a bit. I just personally feel that appearing to defend Jackson is in the best interest of the nudist movement.

[Bob S.]

nakedstudent: "So maybe what we need to consider in ambiguous cases like performances that are live is actor/ artist responsibility from the FCC. Additionally, I would say that the increase to I believe a 7 second delay is effective."

I'm surprised that wasn't the case. I wonder if the networks can actually sue the individuals for collection of fines for live performances? But really, a 2-3 second delay is plenty of time to spot something untoward. I think since that event, the Halftime shows have all been on a few second delay just as the MTV awards shows have been on a similar delay since Andrew Dice Clay's infamous performance that got him banned from MTV for life.

And as you mentioned, the other legacy of Janet Jackson was how dull the halftime performances have become. They have preferred to stay safe since then.

nakedstudent: "We are just on the other side so we need to show that it has nothing to do with nudism by either avoiding casual conversation about it or denouncing it."

Nothing can be gained by avoiding the conversation. As for denouncing the action, realize that no one is really trying to defend the exposure. The conversation would not have gone on for so long had the FCC not decided that it had to fine the telecast in order to make it look like it was doing something. It is possible to decry the halftime show while also defending the treatment of CBS and Janet Jackson.

I will say that she probably should have had on a bra that did not have a removable front piece, especially if part of the performance involved Justin ripping off a panel of her shirt right in front of her breast. If all she revealed was a sexy bra, there would have been the detractors who felt the performance was a bit too risque for a SB halftime show, but would not have incurred any fines.

Again, remember that sometimes it is necessary to defend those who you feel are being treated wrongly even if you despise the behaviour that got them into trouble.

Bob S.

[Qikdraw]

You know it's funny... you could substitute the word 'union' for 'church' and I think all of your statements would still be true. The long and short of the world today is that you need to have money and power to make decisions. Churches and unions have money and power and therefore will always have a say in certain processes.

No, I don't think you can compare unions and churches at all. Unions exist to make sure employees are not taken advantage of by their companies. I do agree that money equals power and moneyed churches getting involved in politics is a bad thing.

Isn't it a good thing for a pastor to say "On these issues, one candidate best matches the teachings of the church but on these the other candidate does?" I think the only thing religion would win out on are the polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortions which in my opinion shouldn't even be considered when determining one's social ideology. Those two issues are for some reason more hot buttoned than things like sex education or national language. Why?

Because both have been 'moral' issues used to create a talking point when republicans do not want to talk about the economy. When the republicans and the christian conservatives came together there was a price to be paid by republicans and it was these 'moral issues'.

We also have christian conservatives wanting to put conservative judges on the benches to push their agenda. I don't want liberal, conservative or religious idealogy on the supreme court, I want judges that will rule based on the Constitution and our laws.

1. You are more of a nudist than me then. I'm confined to my room for now.

I'm sorry to hear that. Have you thought about find nude swims in your area?

2. I just think we need to be careful when deciding what we support and what we don't. I think we're seeing our values decay when we support things like "My Naked Truth" where all they talk about is exotic dancing, prostitution, and drugs. We also need to be careful that we don't slip into accepting things like swinging and pornography to support our completely different ideology. We don't need to run and defend these actions just because there is nudity involved.

But then we come back to 'who's values'? I may have a different set of values than you do, so who's values get listened to?

I'm not familiar with that web site, so I really cannot comment on what happens there.

Nakedness is only social nudity when it is in the context of otherwise "socially acceptable" behavior. Like a group of people who get together and have an orgy and claim to be nudists for that action should not be viewed as nudists. We shouldn't defend their orgies as if they were part of our lifestyle. We need to stand up and defend our more moral tendencies. We need to stand up and say "There is a point where nakedness no longer serves the purpose of body image and personal freedom."

I don't disagree that there are things that misrepresent nudism, but the superbowl thing is definately not one of them. I agree that if there is a web site that says its 'nudist' but its clearly a sex site that misrepresents nudists. But really, other than that I don't see a problem.

[Qikdraw]

Sorry I didn't answer this last night, but it was close to bedtime and I wanted some Fallout 3 time. :D

I don't believe I've ever said anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that eventually we're going to have to draw a line. If you don't think Jackson crossed it, fine... we respectfully disagree considering the context of the "malfunction."

Well I don't think it was just JJ that corssed the line. CBS planned this. I sem to remember CBS promoting the half time show and that something 'unexpected' would happen. Considering that, the lyrics of the song, and the fact that it wasn't a bare breast, but had a nipple clasp thingy on JJ, I do think it was intentional. DO I think its that bog of a deal? No. However if it violates the FCC they should be fined.

I just don't feel we need to be more careful about what we choose to defend. If we're seen as naked people who defend pornography on PBS and Nickelodeon, we have chosen to further alienate the non-nudist segment of society for (in my opinion) justifiable reasons.

But here is the rub, nudism and pornography are two seperate issues, and it is up to us to seperate that. If a nudist is asked about being a nudist and pornography, they need to say that. I don't think that means that as a nudist you have to bash pornography either. Did you know that there are christian se shops and christian adult videos? The one thing I have never understood is the demonization of sex by christians. Its natural, God made it pleasurable for a reason, and having great sex with your partner is wonderful. If that means using aids of some sort there is nothing wrong with that. God never said 'Thou shalt not use a vibrator'. Its been people who have decided what is acceptable and what is not, then they instatutionalize it in the church, and then it becomes a 'sin', even though God never said anythng about it.

I really hope my generation changes some of the "socially acceptable" practices and loosens up a bit. I just personally feel that appearing to defend Jackson is in the best interest of the nudist movement.

I have to disgaree with you on this. I don't think its in the best interest at all. Social nudism is what needs defending, not anytime a boob is shown on tv. Its a completely seperate issue.
I do agree that I hope following generations will become more relaxed about social nudity.

[nakedstudent]

But here is the rub, nudism and pornography are two seperate issues, and it is up to us to seperate that. If a nudist is asked about being a nudist and pornography, they need to say that. I don't think that means that as a nudist you have to bash pornography either. Did you know that there are christian se shops and christian adult videos? The one thing I have never understood is the demonization of sex by christians. Its natural, God made it pleasurable for a reason, and having great sex with your partner is wonderful. If that means using aids of some sort there is nothing wrong with that. God never said 'Thou shalt not use a vibrator'. Its been people who have decided what is acceptable and what is not, then they instatutionalize it in the church, and then it becomes a 'sin', even though God never said anythng about it.
1. I agree that they are separate issues. This is why I don't think we should try to ride this lawsuit to more acceptability among textiles.

2. I don't understand why you are using a "sex with partner" argument and also a "sex with toy" argument. Those are 2 completely different things. He gave us a gift in sexuality. That gift is supposed to be used for 2 things:

a. To glorify Him.

b. To glorify ourselves.

This argument falls apart in many other categories of life because of things like disease and drugs. If too much frivolous sex is not bad, why are there STD's? In my opinion it's because God's other punishment wasn't a big enough deterrent to the behavior.

If too much drug use is not bad, why do we suffer from blackouts, hangovers, coma, and death?

The other beautiful thing about God is that he gave us the gift of free will. So as long as we are prepared to "live" with the consequences, he doesn't really care what we do. So if you don't believe something is wrong, go ahead and do it. Just be aware that there are consequences.

I have to disgaree with you on this. I don't think its in the best interest at all. Social nudism is what needs defending, not anytime a boob is shown on tv. Its a completely seperate issue.
I do agree that I hope following generations will become more relaxed about social nudity.

haha I noticed that I mistyped the first part. If this was your actual response, I'm wondering how we ever got into an argument in the first place?

In the early part of this thread, it was my position that we needed to distance ourselves from Jackson's actions.

[Qikdraw]

2. I don't understand why you are using a "sex with partner" argument and also a "sex with toy" argument. Those are 2 completely different things. He gave us a gift in sexuality. That gift is supposed to be used for 2 things:

a. To glorify Him.

b. To glorify ourselves.

Who said? Who said that sex is used only to glorify him or glorify ourselves. (I'm not sure what you mean by glorify ourselves though) Sex is a very important part of marriage Christianity's hard stance of sex is one reason why ther bible belt has the highest rate of divorce in the country. When you oppress sex because 'its a sin', when you preach 'abstinance only' you get kids marrying for sex only, then when that wears off they get divorced.

And sex with a partner and sex with a toy can be accomplished at the same time, which is why I said that. Sex is very important in a relationship and doing what you can to keep things interesting is important.

This argument falls apart in many other categories of life because of things like disease and drugs. If too much frivolous sex is not bad, why are there STD's? In my opinion it's because God's other punishment wasn't a big enough deterrent to the behavior.

If too much drug use is not bad, why do we suffer from blackouts, hangovers, coma, and death?

So are we going to go with that excuse? That God allows disease to punish us? So what offence did New Orleans give to get that punishment? What about 9/11? What did the US do that was so horrible innocent people had to die?

The other beautiful thing about God is that he gave us the gift of free will. So as long as we are prepared to "live" with the consequences, he doesn't really care what we do. So if you don't believe something is wrong, go ahead and do it. Just be aware that there are consequences.

There are always consequences to our actions, but I do not believe God has a hand in every single thing I make my own choice about, otherwise its not really a choice is it? Do this and get punished, or do this and not get punished. That is not the choice of free will that God talks about. I will get my rewards, or just desserts, when I die and go before God and he casts his judgement on me, not before, and not through people who decide they have the right to judge me or my actions.

haha I noticed that I mistyped the first part. If this was your actual response, I'm wondering how we ever got into an argument in the first place?

In the early part of this thread, it was my position that we needed to distance ourselves from Jackson's actions.

We disagree on your talk about 'morals' basically. :D

[KNude]

In the field I work in this is where true strength is found. From your higher power.

"Religion is for those afraid of going to hell.
Spirituality is for those who have been there."

[nakedstudent]

In the field I work in this is where true strength is found. From your higher power.

"Religion is for those afraid of going to hell.
Spirituality is for those who have been there."

Our discussion was originally about morality not religion.

I maintain that morality is defined by society. If the majority of a society is religious, the religious views will be the ones that win out. It's not a matter of the church wielding a sword in the political arena. It's a matter of the collective efforts of many like minded people.

Qikdraw and I seem to disagree with how the moral structure of the country is formed. We also seem to disagree on those actions we need to protect and those we need to denounce.

[KNude]

I think morality is seperate from religion. Many non-religious people have a good or better morals than most religious people. The religious morals are defined by what is effective in governing behavior for the common good and to reduce socially damaging behaviors. These basics are pragmatically and evolutionary derived and given a "glossy coat" by the religion which says its from this god or that god. As a result much material is included as religious which is is fact a power and control device for the priest class and really not relivant to true social growth and moral behaviors.

[Ita3rd]

So are we going to go with that excuse? That God allows disease to punish us? So what offence did New Orleans give to get that punishment? What about 9/11? What did the US do that was so horrible innocent people had to die?


It may be a bit of a cliche but I've always believed that everything happens for a reason. Sometimes those reasons aren't immediately clear and we may never understand why certain tragedies have to take place, but I trust that God has a plan for the world He created.

Just think about how different the world would be right now had those two events you mentioned above never happened.

[Qikdraw]

It may be a bit of a cliche but I've always believed that everything happens for a reason. Sometimes those reasons aren't immediately clear and we may never understand why certain tragedies have to take place, but I trust that God has a plan for the world He created.

I've bolded part of your post because there are people in the world who pretend they know God's will and his purpose. This is what I have a problem with. I have a problem with some people telling me that 9/11 happened because there are too many gays in America, that people are living in sin, that our moral fabric has fallen into darkness. (Falwell said similar things) I have a problem with religious people telling me they know God's plan on this earth and use their own bigotry and hate and say they are furthering God's plan. Too many people believe 'men of God' and trust in what they say, when that trust is betrayed.

God is our judge, not man, God. God did not say unto his flock, 'Go and judge each other and I will follow your lead.'. In the bible it says, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged'. (Matthew 7:1) And if you follow the verses after that it says that people that judge, will be judged by God the same way. The problem comes in verse 5, 'Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam in thine own eye; and thou shalt see clearly to cast out teh mote out of they brother's eye.'. (sorry I like the King James version :D) Some religious people don't think they are wrong at all, that they are perfect and that God is telling them to judge other people. I do not agree. Jesus talked about love, he didn't talk about hate, nor judging people, he talked about love. We are all God's children, and while we may not always agree with each other, we should show each other love, not judgement, not hatred, not bigotry. When each of us dies, that is our judgement day, not before.

Someone can be the best christian on the planet, and that person will not know God's plan. When someone tells you they know God's plan, run away from that person, they are trying to push their agenda on you.

Just think about how different the world would be right now had those two events you mentioned above never happened.

Yes, George Bush might be loved. :D Sorry could not resist a little joke. Yes the world would be a different place, and I do not doubt that God has his own plan to come from that, but I do not know what that is, and I suspect I never will. I also suspect no one on this planet knows either, or will ever know.

[nimrod]

Trying to get this topic back on track.

I have gave this some thought, and even though that performance does not reflect nudism I do not think there should be any fines for anyone just for the exporsure of a breast, and that is what it comes down to in this case, the half second of an exposed breast. If there is to be fines then it should be based on the whole performance not just that half second. We as nudist need to defend the exposure as something not to be shocked about, it was just a breast, but then explain that we do not support the behavour in which it was displayed which was as a sexual object.

[nakedstudent]

I think morality is seperate from religion. Many non-religious people have a good or better morals than most religious people. The religious morals are defined by what is effective in governing behavior for the common good and to reduce socially damaging behaviors. These basics are pragmatically and evolutionary derived and given a "glossy coat" by the religion which says its from this god or that god. As a result much material is included as religious which is is fact a power and control device for the priest class and really not relivant to true social growth and moral behaviors.

*pounds head against wall*

It wasn't about better people or worse people. We are all human and therefore imperfect. The argument was that religious people have a say in the process and to expect them to drop the morality instilled in them for either religious purposes or otherwise is a ridiculous demand.

We need to remain tolerant.