From: (No Email available)

Date: 2004-04-01 01:14:41

Comment:

Let me put my two cents in...

I have come to the conclusion that I am very offended at what actually HAPPENED, not what people saw.  Justin Timberlake is a horny, selfish, insensitive scum of a man.  First off, he breaks open Britney Spears, and then brags about it on national TV (I first learned of this through a mutual contact, whose identity will remain strictly confidential).  Now, he pulls this other media stunt, by going up on stage and deliberately snatching off a portion of Janet's garb in front of 135 million viewers.  For a woman to be publicly chastised and humiliated in the manner that Janet has, is nothing short of having one's reputation RAPED!  This is very clearly evident in the distraut look upon Janet's face for the brief few seconds of shock, before she frantically tried to cover herself back up with her hands.

Too late.  In the brief ten or fifteen seconds after that had transpired, pics and images of her "magic boob" (as it was referred to in a subsequent issue of "Weekly World News") were already being dispersed and swapped about on the world-wide-web.  Her only mistakes were not suing his butt for every single cent he owned, as well as allowing herself into being cohearsed into admitting she was at fault.

And as for the nipple ornamentation:  Suppose my wife/girlfriend/fiance were to wear something of that nature underneath her blowse as she went to a job interview, WITH THE INTENT OF SURPRISING ME WITH IT when she got home later that afternoon and peeled off her clothes as she entered the door.  If, during the interview, she dropped her pen or something onto the floor, and the Boss-Man got a good eye-full as she leaned over, then does that give him the right to assume that it is his?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

So niether, then does this little nipple ornament give the American Public & Media the right to assume that the scandal was staged, or that it's sole purpose was to provide a focal point for this "dashing" display of flesh (although a close-up Polaroid would make one hell of a conversational piece!).  Basically, the truth of the matter is this one little private spot on her nicely-matured body that once belonged only to her is now up for grabs by anyone with an Internet connection.  And although I am aware of the fact that she has posed nude before (aka people have already seen it - the one with the two hands grappling her from behind on the "Janet" album is one of my favs), that is a completely different issue entirely:  Janet CHOSE to pose because she felt HAPPY & CONFIDENT with her body, however being stripped away as she was brings nothing but HUMILIATION & RIDICULE.

THIS IS WHAT OFFENDS ME:  THAT THE MEDIA HAS MADE SUCH A HUGE ORDEAL OVER AN EVENT THAT WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF HER CONTROL.  Sometimes it makes me sick the way celebs are exploited - they are human just like us, you know.

I am in no way acting as an attourney, nor am I going to debate this enormous plethera of arguments that has come to transpire as the result of this fairly insignificant issue - people could discuss the various ins & outs of philosophy until Hades freezes over and the Polar Caps melt.  I am a non-conformist as well as a born-again believer in CHRIST, and so I do not consider my self bound either by the standards of society nor to the individual practices and customs of organized religion.  I am a college student majoring in Art and Engineering, and unlike certain individuals who post on this site, I actually use what I learned in Freshman English.

Have a nice day; please feel free to comment as you see fit.