Posted by Brian from Shawnee on February 06, 2004
In Reply to: Can you believe it? posted by Legal Beagle on February 06, 2004
: : : :
: : : : I would like to draw attention to the New York Times's referring today to Janet Jackson's famous metallic nipple covering ("pastie," to some) as a "nipple brooch."
: : : : Haven't read that one before. Perhaps because not that many opportunities arise.
: : : : michael jahn
: : : Another source called it a medallion. Apparently there was piercing involved. In either case, I kept hearing the Beatles singing, "Here comes the sun."
: : I've heard it called a hub cap.
: Somebody is suing the networks for an outrageous amount of money for broadcasting that boob.
: The claim is that children will have been emotionally scarred by seing part of a breast during the game. For goodness sake - breasts are almost omnipresent natural phenomena. Not only that, they are functional and aesthetic. How can a child be harmed by seeing part of a breast? For goodness sake! a child is supposed to be nurtured on the breast for a considerable part of early life.
: Breasts are wonderful, -pleasant to handle, have a function and are all around the world. They represent womanhood/motherhood and have no negative connotations. they are not even intrinsically rude, even if they can be displayed in a cheeky manner.
Of course I believe it. This is America.
The trouble with saying "breasts are natural so what's the big deal" is, lots of things are natural. If you have to urinate, then use the bathroom, not the living room. I understand that if you don't urinate you'll die from a buildup of toxins, but really, please use the bathroom if you can, and if you can't make it and you pee on my living room floor then it's an accident. But don't do it because you're too lazy to climb the stairs.