Super bowl halftime show and culture

[Corraleno]

19 minutes ago, Kassia said:

I really like this 

https://whatsupmoms.com/parenting/super-bowl-halftime-show-teaching-girls/?fbclid=IwAR2ROQvVFg2X1ZzJx4pz8xQEsLmIfC4nuWk4a8wPTz8adcpKnQsqBSIiBMw

Exactly:

"...the chance that my daughter has internalized that she should don a leather leotard and learn to pole dance from a single performance is far-fetched at best. BUT the chance that she’ll learn to judge and chastise other women for their “inappropriate” behavior and fashion choices if she hears me doing it? Way higher. And that concerns me."

[Kassia]

9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Exactly:

"...the chance that my daughter has internalized that she should don a leather leotard and learn to pole dance from a single performance is far-fetched at best. BUT the chance that she’ll learn to judge and chastise other women for their “inappropriate” behavior and fashion choices if she hears me doing it? Way higher. And that concerns me."

 

My favorite part of the article.

[SKL]

A lot of people, including children, watch the super bowl even if they aren't regular all-season-long watchers.

And whatever the median or average age is, that doesn't in any way change the fact that millions of children watch the superbowl, kids are a part of the target audience, and everyone knows it.

I don't understand these gymnastics trying to disprove this undeniable fact.

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

A lot of people, including children, watch the super bowl even if they aren't regular all-season-long watchers.

And whatever the median or average age is, that doesn't in any way change the fact that millions of children watch the superbowl, kids are a part of the target audience, and everyone knows it.

I don't understand these gymnastics trying to disprove this undeniable fact.

I think you're missing the point of the argument here. No one is arguing that no children ever watch it. Clearly some children watch it, but they are not the target audience, so there is no reason that the network, the sponsors, and the NFL should have to ensure that the entertainment is Disney-level and meets the moral standards of a minority of viewers who both (1) let their children watch it and (2) object to the content. There are plenty of parents who watched it with kids and had no objections. There are people who thought it was pretty obvious that a show with JLo and Shakira was unlikely to meet their family's personal moral standards and therefore did not let their kids watch it. The issue is that some people seem to feel the network has an obligation to specifically choose performers (or types of performances) that meet their own personal standards for what children should be allowed to watch, even though children were not in any way part of the audience targeted by the sponsors who actually paid for the show. 

[Corraleno]

Women who blame sexual assault and social/political/economic oppression on other women who dress or act in a sexual way are only strengthening the arguments men use to excuse assault and oppression. If every woman in America started wearing prairie dresses and combat boots and no makeup, and every female performer sang wholesome songs while standing still, women would still be assaulted and they would still be discriminated against and paid less than men. As long as we continue to insist that the underlying cause of women's oppression is their expression of their own sexuality, the less progress we'll make on issues that actually matter: political and economic equality. Instead of joining men in slut-shaming and policing other women's bodies, we should be striving to make it clear that how women dress and how they dance has NOTHING to do with sexual assault, with our competence as workers, or our right to equal representation and compensation. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Corraleno

[EmseB]

40 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Exactly:

"...the chance that my daughter has internalized that she should don a leather leotard and learn to pole dance from a single performance is far-fetched at best. BUT the chance that she’ll learn to judge and chastise other women for their “inappropriate” behavior and fashion choices if she hears me doing it? Way higher. And that concerns me."

Sorry, but I'm going to tell my daughter that showing her crotch to millions on tv in a thong is inappropriate any time we encounter it. I also tell her we mind our business and aren't calling people out, but as a family we definitely discuss public figures putting their very public wardrobe and behavior choices on display for publicity and $$.

[SKL]

17 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I think you're missing the point of the argument here. No one is arguing that no children ever watch it. Clearly some children watch it, but they are not the target audience, so there is no reason that the network, the sponsors, and the NFL should have to ensure that the entertainment is Disney-level and meets the moral standards of a minority of viewers who both (1) let their children watch it and (2) object to the content. There are plenty of parents who watched it with kids and had no objections. There are people who thought it was pretty obvious that a show with JLo and Shakira was unlikely to meet their family's personal moral standards and therefore did not let their kids watch it. The issue is that some people seem to feel the network has an obligation to specifically choose performers (or types of performances) that meet their own personal standards for what children should be allowed to watch, even though children were not in any way part of the audience targeted by the sponsors who actually paid for the show. 

It is a long-standing expectation that TV during certain hours is family friendly.  This isn't some idea that just popped into my head.

"Well you should have known to turn it off" has never been an argument that succeeded before when discussing what is OK to broadcast on national TV during hours when kids watch.

Seems some people want an exception for this kind of entertainment, and use accusations of racism/misogyny to try to shush everyone else.

Just because a lot of people watching the super bowl are older and male, that doesn't change the fact that this is a TV broadcast during the normal hours when kids watch.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

It is a long-standing expectation that TV during certain hours is family friendly.  This isn't some idea that just popped into my head.

"Well you should have known to turn it off" has never been an argument that succeeded before when discussing what is OK to broadcast on national TV during hours when kids watch.

Seems some people want an exception for this kind of entertainment, and use accusations of racism/misogyny to try to shush everyone else.

Just because a lot of people watching the super bowl are older and male, that doesn't change the fact that this is a TV broadcast during the normal hours when kids watch.

 

Prime time, again, has never meant kid-friendly. That's Saturday morning cartoons. Prime time is literally defined by the number of adults watching TV. Murphy Brown, All in the Family, Law and Order...those are all successful prime time shows. None were aimed at kids.

[SKL]

From FCC website:

"Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV.  That may seem clear enough, but determining what obscene, indecent and profane mean can be difficult, depending on who you talk to.

In the Supreme Court's 1964 landmark case on obscenity and pornography, Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote: "I know it when I see it."  That case still influences FCC rules today, and complaints from the public about broadcasting objectionable content drive the enforcement of those rules.

In other words, if you "know it when you see it" and find it objectionable, you can tell the FCC and ask us to check into it.

Deciding what's obscene, indecent or profane

Each type of content has a distinct definition:

Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment.  For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that is patently offensive but does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity.

Profane content includes "grossly offensive" language that is considered a public nuisance.

Factors in determining how FCC rules apply include the specific nature of the content, the time of day it was broadcast and the context in which the broadcast took place.

Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. "

 

IMO grabbing or pretending to grab one's genitals the way JLo did is at least indecent and should not be allowed on TV prior to 10pm.

ETA I feel the same way about MJ grabbing his.  Though doing it in a thong is worse IMO.

Edited February 6, 2020 by SKL

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Plum said:

OMG I don't know why I keep coming back here. I really despise the whole football thing to begin with. I've always lived on the west coast and the super bowl halftime show (according to my Google search, because I didn't watch it or the halftime show) started around 8 p.m. Eastern/7 p.m. Central/5 p.m Pacific. That's only prime time in 1/3 time zones. 

 

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/primetime-ratings-sunday-night-football-slips-on-nbc

Prime time on Sundays includes Sunday night football.

[EmseB]

I think that believing kids aren't the target audience for this kind of thing is a bit naive anyway. I believe networks and the entertainment industry when they say shows like this aren't intended for kids about as much as I trust cigarette companies touting the same line about their products.

[ktgrok]

15 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

 

Tonight I personally benefited from this show.  I thought it might happen and it did.  I got a few new students in my bellydance class because they saw the halftime performance and were inspired to seek out a class.  They were happy and moving and learning and smiling and meeting a whole new group of women from all walks of life.  It is wonderful and empowering to do new, hard things for yourself because you decided to give it a try.  Even though a lot of people on here don't like the 'message' the act sent, in my world a couple of middle aged women liked what they saw, rallied their friends, left the house on a Wednesday night and got to sweat, dance, and play zils all at the same time for the first time in their lives.   They did if for themselves AND I have new students and more money in my pocket. Not one man was in the studio. One of them even mentioned that she's got two years until she's 50 so she's going to start moving now so she can look great at 50.  She looked great TODAY.  She'll just be more fit and know more when she's 50 if she sticks with it.  

I actually thought of making tonight's class about the 5 moves that Shakira does on stage, but I stuck with my original lesson plan.  Maybe next week. 🤣 

 

Well, some of us were fine with Shakira's belly dancing, and are upset by JLo's crotch grabbing vagina focused antics. 

They were not the same thing, at least in my opinion. 

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

And now for some real numbers...

The average age of an NFL fan/regular viewer is about 45-50 years old.  About 53% are men. 47% are women. Less than a third of fans are 18-35 years old. They overwhelmingly have 75K and up in household income. When you see the average age of viewers number, you know MOST are over 35. These viewers do not want to see a magic show or men playing drums wearing blue paint. They ARE NOT KIDS. The NFL is trying to appeal to their customers. People who tune in merely to watch Super Bowl commercials are not their bread and butter.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-look-inside-the-modern-sports-fan-nfl-vs-ncaa-vs_b_5a3a9ed9e4b0df0de8b061a3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nfl-is-losing-its-core-audience-a-wsj-nbc-news-poll-finds-1517569200

And none of those men have kids watching the Super Bowl with them?

1 hour ago, SKL said:

It is a long-standing expectation that TV during certain hours is family friendly.  This isn't some idea that just popped into my head.

"Well you should have known to turn it off" has never been an argument that succeeded before when discussing what is OK to broadcast on national TV during hours when kids watch.

Seems some people want an exception for this kind of entertainment, and use accusations of racism/misogyny to try to shush everyone else.

Just because a lot of people watching the super bowl are older and male, that doesn't change the fact that this is a TV broadcast during the normal hours when kids watch.

Right. That was my whole complaint. Not that JLo is a slut who should be shamed. But that her performance wasn't appropriate for the time/event. 

[Sneezyone]

18 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

And none of those men have kids watching the Super Bowl with them?

 

Again, no one has claimed that there aren't or weren't kids watching the show but that any/all entertainment on TV needn't be designed to suit the tastes of kids that aren't the target audience. If I'm hosting a dinner for DH's coworkers to celebrate a big promotion and tell them, in advance, the menu will include chateaubriand and asparagus tips with popovers and roasted fingerling potatoes and they show up with kids... it's not exactly reasonable for them to complain that there are no nuggets and hotdogs on offer. They weren't my target audience.

3 minutes ago, OKBud said:

I was talking to a friend about it last night and she pointed out that lots of Americans are extremely resistant to situating women as a class of people with specific capacities, needs, and historical context largely in common at all. So conversation involving evaluation on those grounds becomes impossible. A huge swathe of people prefer to think of women as all the other things they also are, but NOT as part of the sex class "women" right now for whatever reason.  

 

I would posit that's largely because the needs and preferences of large groups of American women are not aligned. There are some significant schisms.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, OKBud said:

OK, you just said yesterday that you have never thought about any of this, but I'll play. What are some issues that disproportionately effect women [this mean largely doesn't effect men] in the USA that effects only some groups of women and all the other women are immune from them. 

 

I said yesterday that I have no connection to or affinity for a certain segment of feminist thought, not that I haven't thought about how my own interests diverge markedly from other women. Quite frankly, getting into why I do not associate myself with "all women" would involve discussing politics. Can't do that.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

22 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Again, no one has claimed that there aren't or weren't kids watching the show but that any/all entertainment on TV needn't be designed to suit the tastes of kids that aren't the target audience. If I'm hosting a dinner for DH's coworkers to celebrate a big promotion and tell them, in advance, the menu will include chateaubriand and asparagus tips with popovers and roasted fingerling potatoes and they show up with kids... it's not exactly reasonable for them to complain that there are no nuggets and hotdogs on offer. They weren't my target audience.

 

I would posit that's largely because the needs and preferences of large groups of American women are not aligned. There are some significant schisms.

But it is widely known that kids will be a large part of the audience, targeted or not. I mean, elementary schools have super bowl themed events, bake sales, etc for crying out loud - it isn't like the kids are showing up unexpectedly. 

[LMD]

I would just like to clarify that pointing out the so-called empowerment in selling (a very specific kind of) sexuality as a commodity in our pornified society is not the same as thinking any individual woman is a s!ut! Nor does it imply teaching my children to judge other women as having less value. Amazed it needs to be said.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

And now for some real numbers...

The average age of an NFL fan/regular viewer is about 45-50 years old.  About 53% are men. 47% are women. Less than a third of fans are 18-35 years old. They overwhelmingly have 75K and up in household income. When you see the average age of viewers number, you know MOST are over 35. These viewers do not want to see a magic show or men playing drums wearing blue paint. They ARE NOT KIDS. The NFL is trying to appeal to their customers. People who tune in merely to watch Super Bowl commercials are not their bread and butter.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-look-inside-the-modern-sports-fan-nfl-vs-ncaa-vs_b_5a3a9ed9e4b0df0de8b061a3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nfl-is-losing-its-core-audience-a-wsj-nbc-news-poll-finds-1517569200

Yes. Horny men who want to ogle sexy performers. 

I thought we were trying to move away from that as a society, though. 

[LMD]

Nah, it's just conveniently rebranded as empowering

meet the new boss same as the old boss...

[GoodGrief]

I enjoy pop music, but let's face it, these days many lyrics are a biology lesson. A crotch flash is par for the course. That said, I did not see the show in question and I don't really care. I'm sure it was planned to bring about a bit of controversy and thus more attention and $$$$. In that regard, well done!

Don't think I'm a prude or a Becky (maybe I am), but I'd love to see a societal shift toward affirming s**ual activity as life giving and a bonding force for humans. This current focus on s** as extreme sport or entertainment is not doing us any good. The pursuit of the most intense or***m is confusing us. Hookup culture...ugh. I've already seen negative effects on my grown children and their friends, and still bringing a teen through it.

Not a bad thing for older women to be fit, of course.

Not sure what it takes to have my post flagged; hoping I took out the right letters.

Edited February 6, 2020 by GoodGrief

[Laurie]

5 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Prime time, again, has never meant kid-friendly. That's Saturday morning cartoons. Prime time is literally defined by the number of adults watching TV. Murphy Brown, All in the Family, Law and Order...those are all successful prime time shows. None were aimed at kids.

My daughter was watching an animated show on the Disney channel yesterday.   I couldn't believe what I was hearing, so I went in to see what show it was, and sure enough ...the kids in the classroom were indeed calling their teacher "Miss Bustier".    

I've never heard that surname before, and I'm surprised I heard it on the kid-friendly Disney channel!  

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

But it is widely known that kids will be a large part of the audience, targeted or not. I mean, elementary schools have super bowl themed events, bake sales, etc for crying out loud - it isn't like the kids are showing up unexpectedly. 

 

They are not a large part of the audience nor the target audience. If they were, you'd see ads for My Little Pony and not Buick. I get that there are a number of people that think kids should be catered to wherever they are and however they get there but I'm not one of them. Both of my children attend schools and neither one has experienced anything like a Super Bowl themed anything so I don't now how common that is. 

[EmseB]

No one is arguing for a show oriented towards children or catering to children. There's a wide chasm between a woman flashing their thong into a camera on a major network during a major sporting event during dinner hours and...My Little Pony.

Edited February 7, 2020 by EmseB

[KungFuPanda]

I'm not sure "inappropriate" really MEANS anything.  It's so random.  It may be inappropriate by your personal house standards, but I didn't see anything that wouldn't be shown on prime time television any night of the week. By modern standards of television decency, the halftime performance probably didn't even push the envelope.  It's been over a decade since we've had regular commercial television, so I may be wrong, but I can't imagine standards have gotten higher over the years.  Was this show really worse that what is usually seen on that channel during those hours?

[Jenny in Florida]

On 2/4/2020 at 11:55 AM, regentrude said:

I am not watching football or the half time show, but  I seriously wonder how any show can be inappropriate compared to adults giving each other concussions that can lead to permanent brain damage.

 

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing, that I really don't understand the outrage and pearl grasping about women wearing some skimpy outfits when the whole football industry perpetuates violent sport for mass entertainment.

But your version was a lot more succinct. 

[Jenny in Florida]

On 2/4/2020 at 7:29 PM, regentrude said:

As I said, I didn't watch the show, but I want to ask a question which I mean seriously and not snarky: what exactly is the damaging effect this is supposed to have on a child? 

I get censoring gruesome violence because that can give a kid nightmares. But what harm does watching a scantily clad dancer moving her body do?

 

I don't watch sports, either, especially football. However, I will share what my husband always told people who scratched their heads at some of our viewing decisions for our kids when they were younger: We sincerely hope that our children will grow up to have fulfilling and happy sex lives and sincerely hope that they never have reason to act violently against another human being. For us, it was a no-brainer which we were more worried about having them watch on screen.

[Happy2BaMom]

34 minutes ago, Jenny in Florida said:

 

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing, that I really don't understand the outrage and pearl grasping about women wearing some skimpy outfits when the whole football industry perpetuates violent sport for mass entertainment.

But your version was a lot more succinct. 

Yep.

I'm not going to argue for/against other people having strong opinions re: the entertainment, but I think certain things accompany football in this country, including an uber-macho culture, hyper-identification (by far too many people) with/for the players/teams, a pretty-much disregard for women as anything other than sexual playthings (aka young, single women) or boring wives/mothers, a complete dis-interest in the (now) widely documented & compelling evidence of football-related CTE, and a resulting group-think on all of the above (and more) that flat-out gives me the creeps. I don't watch FB or the SB for all these reasons.  I don't fault anyone else for watching, or for wanting more family-friendly entertainment, but (IMHO & as my grammy always used to say) when you spend time with a dirty dog, don't be surprised if you end up covered with fleas as part of the process.

 

[LMD]

2 hours ago, Jenny in Florida said:

 

I don't watch sports, either, especially football. However, I will share what my husband always told people who scratched their heads at some of our viewing decisions for our kids when they were younger: We sincerely hope that our children will grow up to have fulfilling and happy sex lives and sincerely hope that they never have reason to act violently against another human being. For us, it was a no-brainer which we were more worried about having them watch on screen.

It is precisely this reason that I prefer to guard against absorbing a pornographic and exploitative understanding of sexuality. 

[SKL]

Just for the record, I used to watch football with my dad and brothers and sisters.  None of us was watching it to get sexual jollies.  My dad or brothers watching football was not a message to us girls that we are sexual playthings ???

In my current house, there are no males and nobody is in their 40s, yet we all enjoy a good football game.

[StaceyinLA]

Coming in late, as usual, but I had to throw in my 2 cents.

I didn't watch the Superbowl, but saw so much about it on my FB feed, I decided to watch the video of it. Let me just say it was 14 minutes of my life I can't get back, AND I'm surprised at how much more of a prude I've become. I just do NOT want my granddaughters watching stuff like this, and thinking that is appropriate. I am also a bit burnt out on the complaints from women about being objectified when this seems to be the norm for entertainment these days. Really ladies, we can't have it both ways. 

And just let me add - I'm not a Fifty Shades watcher, and don't prefer Adam Levine with half his clothes off, so this isn't a double standard for me. 

[ktgrok]

And I should add that while we watched the game, i explained to my kids that the reason we don't watch much football was that I was uncomfortable with the medical risks these players take, that the NFL was found to lie about it, etc. We also discussed the commercial about the homeless boy who became a famous player, and how that ws nice but we believe ALL kids deserve a safe and productive life, not just the ones that play football. That it shouldn't be the kid's responsibility to get himself out of that situation, but society should take care of all kids, etc. Then we also discussed what is cancer after a commercial. And honestly, after all those deep discussions, I was just not looking to have another one about pole dancing and societal expectations of women, empowerment vs exploitation and the monetary value of sexualization, etc. 

I was tired. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Ktgrok

[EmseB]

18 hours ago, Jenny in Florida said:

 

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing, that I really don't understand the outrage and pearl grasping about women wearing some skimpy outfits when the whole football industry perpetuates violent sport for mass entertainment.

But your version was a lot more succinct. 

It's too bad a person can't be at all critical or concerned without being outraged or pearl-grasping.

[Sneezyone]

9 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

And I should add that while we watched the game, i explained to my kids that the reason we don't watch much football was that I was uncomfortable with the medical risks these players take, that the NFL was found to lie about it, etc. We also discussed the commercial about the homeless boy who became a famous player, and how that ws nice but we believe ALL kids deserve a safe and productive life, not just the ones that play football. That it shouldn't be the kid's responsibility to get himself out of that situation, but society should take care of all kids, etc. Then we also discussed what is cancer after a commercial. And honestly, after all those deep discussions, I was just not looking to have another one about pole dancing and societal expectations of women, empowerment vs exploitation and the monetary value of sexualization, etc. 

I was tired. 

 

All that effort was better than denying the NFL Nielsen ratings and not watching the darn game at all? I am so confused.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

53 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

And once again, that’s the desires of the adults. I doubt kids 5 to 10 are coming up with Super Bowl themed events, lol. It’s the grown ups. Same as the grown ups who choose to watch the game, plan the football shaped cakes and subs and other crap food, plop their rears on the couch, then whine like a baby when their kids see something they deem inappropriate, as if these crotches/breasts/dances were so damn unexpected. But keep trying. Don’t like it? Use your super powers and remove the kids for a few minutes.

 I just read some conservative groups swear they’re going to sue. Best retort ? Imagine being so horny you’ve got to call your attorney.

Really,  this thread is a hoot. Haven’t seen this much twisting in weeks. But you know what? Let’s say it is known kids are watching, targeted or not. Guesswhat- the shows will still go on! They’re not going to tame it to appease you. You don’t have the power or the money  or the numbers to make it into the Sugar Bowl Does Ice Capades with a G Rated Singer . Get your kids out of the room or vote with your remote control finger. It’s a losing  battle and you’re on the defeated team.

ETA- I seem to be replying to you a lot, but I’m not pointing to you personally, just the whole group of those who genuinely seem to think this was a surprise, somethingthey never thought could happen.

Did you miss the several times now I said I DID send the kids out of the room? I told them to go brush their teeth to get them out. 

Saying, "wow, I thought that performance was too explicitly sexual for that time slot" is not getting my panties in a twist. I wasn't writing my senators or up all night in tears, horrified, lol. I can have an opinion on the matter without being 10 flavors of dramatic about it. My opinion is that it was too risqué for prime time. 

Others disagree. Others didn't find it at all sexual and those, well, I'm confused by those, lol. If that wasn't sexual I'm not sure what is anymore. 

45 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

All that effort was better than denying the NFL Nielsen ratings and not watching the darn game at all? I am so confused.

Does watching on a free trial of youtube tv even effect Nielsen ratings, I wonder?

And yes, it was worth it to me. I want my kids to have a basic cultural knowledge of the game, the rules, etc and they enjoyed watching. My husband didn't grow up knowing anything about any sports and he has expressed regret many times about that as it left him out of conversations, etc more often than he liked. We will not be watching every week, but it was as good a chance as any to sit and do that, have some fun snacks, discuss my reasons for not wanting them to play, other options, etc. 

That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to find the halftime show more explicit than I expected. 

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Did you miss the several times now I said I DID send the kids out of the room? I told them to go brush their teeth to get them out. 

Saying, "wow, I thought that performance was too explicitly sexual for that time slot" is not getting my panties in a twist. I wasn't writing my senators or up all night in tears, horrified, lol. I can have an opinion on the matter without being 10 flavors of dramatic about it. My opinion is that it was too risqué for prime time. 

Others disagree. Others didn't find it at all sexual and those, well, I'm confused by those, lol. If that wasn't sexual I'm not sure what is anymore. 

Does watching on a free trial of youtube tv even effect Nielsen ratings, I wonder?

And yes, it was worth it to me. I want my kids to have a basic cultural knowledge of the game, the rules, etc and they enjoyed watching. My husband didn't grow up knowing anything about any sports and he has expressed regret many times about that as it left him out of conversations, etc more often than he liked. We will not be watching every week, but it was as good a chance as any to sit and do that, have some fun snacks, discuss my reasons for not wanting them to play, other options, etc. 

That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to find the halftime show more explicit than I expected. 

 

Online viewing actually does impact ratings. Nielsen keeps track of all viewing enabled for measurement across all platforms, including computers, tablets and smartphone devices, happening up to seven days after an original broadcast when calculating ratings. I just find it so odd that folks would support something with money and eyeballs that they find so problematic. Our dollars and viewing support are powerful tools for good/evil, perhaps even more than marching in the streets.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[MercyA]

4 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Saying, "wow, I thought that performance was too explicitly sexual for that time slot" is not getting my panties in a twist. I wasn't writing my senators or up all night in tears, horrified, lol. I can have an opinion on the matter without being 10 flavors of dramatic about it.

Right?!? 

I'm not shocked, horrified, surprised, or planning any sort of protest. Generally speaking, I don't expect popular culture to reflect my beliefs or preferences.

That said, I do believe the performance was indecent by virtue of including pole dancing, bondage-related costumes, and other sensual content (I'm thinking of the nearly-bare booty shaking, for one). It shouldn't have been broadcast at that time according to FCC regulations: "Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." 

I love femininity and sex appeal. There is a time and place for that. This wasn't it. (And, personally--I didn't find the act either sexy or especially feminine. Others' MMV.) 

[ktgrok]

11 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Right?!? 

I'm not shocked, horrified, surprised, or planning any sort of protest. Generally speaking, I don't expect popular culture to reflect my beliefs or preferences.

That said, I do believe the performance was indecent by virtue of including pole dancing, bondage-related costumes, and other sensual content (I'm thinking of the nearly-bare booty shaking, for one). It shouldn't have been broadcast at that time according to FCC regulations: "Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." 

I love femininity and sex appeal. There is a time and place for that. This wasn't it. (And, personally--I didn't find the act either sexy or especially feminine. Others' MMV.) 

Right. I just personally felt it was more post 10pm content than prime time content. 

Apparently, that equates to pearl clutching and panty twisting. 

[Storygirl]

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/about-us/panels/ratings-and-families/

But Nielsen is not measuring the viewing of every US family. They measure a sample and then calculate the ratings. According to their web page, only the people who are "Nielsen Families" will have their actual data collected, and those people have agreed to it and will know if they are being counted in audience numbers.

A few decades ago, we agreed to be part of this, but it was only for something like two weeks, and since it was before this connected digital age, the only thing they monitored was what was playing on our two television screens. I don't think I would agree to it today.

[LucyStoner]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:00 PM, LMD said:

I would just like to clarify that pointing out the so-called empowerment in selling (a very specific kind of) sexuality as a commodity in our pornified society is not the same as thinking any individual woman is a s!ut! Nor does it imply teaching my children to judge other women as having less value. Amazed it needs to be said.

This is more or less where I am in some respects. I do not think that sexualized performances are a source of or a reflection of empowerment but at the same time, I definitely don’t particularly find the content of the halftime show morally offensive or think that the performers are any of a range of slurs.  I also see the cultural and political references in the performance and see merit to many elements of the performance.  I think some of the backlash is racist in nature (I don’t think Taylor Swift or Katy Perry would be getting as much of a reaction for a similarly sexualized performance).  Also, cheerleaders and female backup dancing and vocals for male performers often wear practically nothing and somehow that’s ok but when the women are out front, it’s scandalous.  I see how THAT works.  

Empowerment is never going to to be found for me in a commercial performance for a problematic business entity, no matter the clothing involved or the cultural and political references.  

I still think that parents who are very sensitive about what their kids see are 100% responsible for prescreening the content their kids watch.  When my kids see something I find objectionable, it’s a time for conversation and instruction.  There’s a lot of objectionable things in our culture.  Frankly, my kids are far more affected by seeing homeless people on the street from the car window or seeing a woman passed out on the sidewalk than they could possibly be by a flashy performance.  Parenting is full of explaining, teaching and helping kids understand the world around them.  At the end of the day, no one needs to watch the Super Bowl live if they aren’t prepared to see whatever airs.  there have been enough controversies about the performances that

1. I think it’s intentional and manufactured for publicity.  

2. People like me who don’t even watch the super bowl KNOW FULL WELL that the halftime shows have a history of sparking some controversies. So if you do watch it, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Give me a break.  

on a lighter note, I will say that it’s harder for me to explain to my kids why Adam Levine has a career in music at all than it would be for me to discuss the parts of this year’s performance people are objecting to, including the parts I find problematic.  My sons haven’t seen it and now I may have to show it to them for the discussion opportunities.  🤣  I will be sure to get in an Adam Levine dig when I do.  But there would also be a feminist critique on a couple of the elements.   

Who is up too late, is typing with two thumbs, and REALLY HATES Maroon Five?  This feminist right here.  

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Scarlett]

15 hours ago, MercyA said:

Right?!? 

I'm not shocked, horrified, surprised, or planning any sort of protest. Generally speaking, I don't expect popular culture to reflect my beliefs or preferences.

That said, I do believe the performance was indecent by virtue of including pole dancing, bondage-related costumes, and other sensual content (I'm thinking of the nearly-bare booty shaking, for one). It shouldn't have been broadcast at that time according to FCC regulations: "Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." 

I love femininity and sex appeal. There is a time and place for that. This wasn't it. (And, personally--I didn't find the act either sexy or especially feminine. Others' MMV.) 

To both bolded, me either. 

15 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Right. I just personally felt it was more post 10pm content than prime time content. 

Apparently, that equates to pearl clutching and panty twisting. 

Lol...that is what I was thinking.  

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, the thing is, Katy Perry's Super Bowl Half Time Show WASN'T similarly sexual.  She had people dancing around in shark costumes.  I seem to recall a robotic tiger?  

She did not do pole dancing.

 

Has Taylor Swift done a SuperBowl Half time show?  I don't think she has, but honestly, I struggle to imagine her having a similarly sexual performance.  Miley Cyrus maybe.  

Well, actually...

In terms of female performers seeming to feel pressure to sell sex in order to preform...................yeah, actually it is a problem.  Why why why is the female on stage most often the one wearing nothing....even when she's a background dancer?  I wish so many female performers just didn't feel like they have to do that.  

We can’t change the fact that female performers feel they have to be highly sexualized or scantily clad without removing the pressure.  That pressure flows from the exact same culture that uses misogynistic slurs to describe scantily clad women.  

Many women performers don’t feel the need to be bow to this pressure but lots of female performers also live out their careers with limited to no commercial success.  
 

[LucyStoner]

5 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Maybe we can't change it.

That doesn't mean we can't voice our opinions on such a subject.  I do find it weird that so many women find the voicing of negative opinions to be so extreme.

1. Is there anything in my posts to suggest I have an issue with women voicing negative opinions?  Adam Levine fans, for one, would disagree.  By all means, have your opinions, negative or not.  I have mine and I examine them and own them.  We should all be prepared to be disagreed with.  Anyone who doesn’t see the racial components here is, in my opinion, oblivious to racism.  

2. Voicing negative opinions, without tackling the issue of why female performers do this, is literally pointless (there I go again, expressing my own negative opinions!).  I would rather talk to my sons about my objections to sexual commodification of women’s bodies than about the relative level of appropriateness.  For lots of reasons, not the least of which is I won’t raise them to shift the blame misogynistic culture back onto women who have been commodified sexually either for no money or a lot of money.  

3. Misogyny and racism go hand in hand.  It’s darn near impossible to attack one without the other.  Miley Cyrus has done some intentionally provocative and sexualized performances.  I heard some criticisms of her but it has a much different flavor this time around, and one that, gives me pause about distilling a feminist critique down to negative comments about what someone was wearing.  

My issue will always be why do we put it back on women in a misogynistic culture to resolve the impacts of misogyny?  Why not put it back on, I dunno, the sources of the misogyny? 

Yep, I’m not the fun or agreeable sort of feminist.  

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Joker]

Yeah, I know no one here is doing it, but so much of the "criticism" I've personally been seeing is seriously racist. I unfriended some on social media for sharing awful memes. One of which stated something about wishing they could press 2 for English during the performance. I've seen much less criticism over much worse, so I'm just having a hard time not thinking for many the issue is who these two ladies were and not really so much about a pole.

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Joker said:

Yeah, I know no one here is doing it, but so much of the "criticism" I've personally been seeing is seriously racist. I unfriended some on social media for sharing awful memes. One of which stated something about wishing they could press 2 for English during the performance. I've seen much less criticism over much worse, so I'm just having a hard time not thinking for many the issue is who these two ladies were and not really so much about a pole.

The people I know were definitely more about what they did - really just Jlo, not Beyonce. And many were not happy with Miley Cyrus's attempt at twerking a few years back. 

[Junie]

I found this slideshow today.  I thought that it was relevant to the discussion.

https://www.elle.com/fashion/celebrity-style/g25614/super-bowl-halftime-costumes-history/?utm_source=taboola_arb&utm_medium=cpm&utm_campaign=arb_tb_elm_d_t_g25614

Some of the performers definitely have dressed in more revealing clothing.  At first glance, I thought maybe the common factor was youth, but I'm not really sure.  Most of the men are dressed decently (well, decently for rock/pop stars).  Some of the women are dressed modestly (most of them are white).  Some of them are dressed immodestly.  (Some of them are black or Latina, some are white.)

 

 

[Meriwether]

43 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Miley Cyrus has done some intentionally provocative and sexualized performances.

 

I thought I had responded the first time someone mentioned Miley Cyrus, but I guess not. If she had been performing, we wouldn't have even attempted watching it. I appreciated the cultural influences in Shakira's performance. With all this talk about the performers, I have learned that she speaks 4 languages and is a philanthropist. I admire that so much. There were parts of the show that I strongly disliked, but it had nothing to do with who the performers were. The first (of two) person who posted something negative about the show on my Facebook wall was Latina. The other had the same objections as I did, and they didn't seem to be racially motivated (nor would I expect that from her). I'm not saying race wasn't a factor for some people, but I didn't see it among any of my acquaintances.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Who would post a thread asking if Miley Cyrus’s ethnic culture was into revealing clothing or sexual moves?  I am guessing no one. 

[Garga]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Who would post a thread asking if Miley Cyrus’s ethnic culture was into revealing clothing or sexual moves?  I am guessing no one. 

Miley Cyrus is from our own culture, so we already know the answer as to whether or not the people of her culture were into revealing clothing or sexual moves. However, someone from another country might very well ask, wondering if everyday Americans were generally ok with her wrecking ball routine or not. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Garga

[Jean in Newcastle]

25 minutes ago, Garga said:

Miley Cyrus is from our own culture, so we already know the answer as to whether or not the people of her culture were into revealing clothing or sexual moves. However, someone from another country might very well ask, wondering if everyday Americans were generally ok with her wrecking ball routine or not. 

Jennifer Lopez is also an “everyday American “. Something that she was trying to point out in the show. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Who would post a thread asking if Miley Cyrus’s ethnic culture was into revealing clothing or sexual moves?  I am guessing no one. 

Again - it was Hispanic moms who brought up the cultural divide in the first place.  I was just checking with a wider audience to see if there was really a pattern.

And to more directly answer your question, people from other countries certainly do question a lot of things about our culture - or they just make assumptions without bothering to confirm them.

[SKL]

I haven't watched a lot of recent super bowl shows, but was there any other one that had a thong butt shot like the one in this one?  Because for me, that was the moment the show went way over the line, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whose butt it was.

But yeah, make everything about race and sex.  Believe that I'd have been applauding the butt shot if I thought it was a white person's or man's butt.  That is ridiculous IMO but whatever.