Flutterby™! : Superbowl nudity? Not.

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Superbowl nudity? Not.

2004-02-02 16:56:48.888058+00 by Dan Lyke 7 comments

I was going to ignore the Stupor Bowl, complete with the false apology for the alleged breast-baring incident, but it's getting enough coverage on various places that I just have to offer a few notes from people who might know. Amid lots of discussion about the exact definition of "pasty" Bella Beretta points out on the Tease-o-rama mailing list:

what I love is the post scramble the "we screwed up tango" is what i like to call it.
"Her costume was not supposed to do that"..
I'll take BS for 500.00 --
Vinyl doesn't give way without considerable help..and after making considerable amounts of tear away clothing...that's a pretty clean seam for an accidental break away...

and Ms Burleyque notes:

Yeah- I think the song lyric pretty much removes any doubt that it wasn't intentional:
"As the pair wrapped up Timberlake's hit song Rock Your Body with the lyric "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," the former Mouseketeer delivered on his promise, ripping away the cloth covering Ms. Jackson's right breast."

So if you were noting that the audience was promised "shocking moments", yep, you got the whole canned package. I, however, was hanging out with friends listening to stories of the famed Hardcastle's coffee shop and San Francisco in the '60s.

[ related topics: Dan's Life Bay Area Current Events Journalism and Media Pop Culture Clothing ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: Superbowl nudity? Not. made: 2004-02-03 03:09:28.941717+00 by: baylink

Bella clearly failed to note the *snaps* all around the cup. It was a tearaway outfit. CNN has this as "there was supposed to be a red bustier underneath", but I don't know that I but *that* line either.

I've a link to vidcaps and closeups, for those who care.

#Comment Re: Superbowl nudity? Not. made: 2004-02-03 03:24:36.181507+00 by: Dan Lyke

The elder rat boy[Wiki] and I were just noticing the straps at the Daze Reader collection of photos. I guess HDTV is good for something after all.

#Comment Re: Superbowl nudity? Not. made: 2004-02-03 15:06:56.76106+00 by: meuon

After looking at the nipple jewelry.. I think that, even in Tennessee, that qualifies as a 'pasty' and she was legally clothed.. for a stripper..

#Comment Re: Superbowl nudity? Not. made: 2004-02-03 16:17:03.639059+00 by: ziffle

I have to ask - Janet Jackson? Why? and Who Cares?

I turned the channel before the event - better to watch Weather Stories on the weather channel - much more interesting and ultimatly -- useful.


#Comment Re: Superbowl nudity? Not. made: 2004-02-03 17:19:23.519989+00 by: Diane Reese

(Warning: links all go to piercing photos, don't follow if you're squeamish.)

I just realized this morning that in order to hold on a nipple shield, you do in fact need a barbell in front of it (it doesn't just "snap on"), and upon closer inspection it appears Jackson is indeed pierced. A little off-kilter (the barbell goes through at an odd angle, sort of 2:00-8:00), but yep, there's that barbell holding on the starburst. Can't believe I missed that part.

(I am attentive since I have not yet gotten up sufficient courage to do a nipple piercing. I'm still considering a tragus or daith, or an eyebrow, but on an Olde Farte, those might look silly. I'm more inclined toward the ones that aren't immediately visible. Coward, that's me.)

#Comment Re: Superbowl nudity? Not. made: 2004-02-03 19:47:24.412975+00 by: TheSHAD0W

For anyone who wants a high-res pic...


#Comment Re: made: 2004-02-04 17:15:31.856571+00 by: markd

Apparently the left breast was in talks with Apple beforehand.