Janet Jackson says she told Justin Timberlake not to comment on the “wardrobe malfunction”
Lifetime's Janet Jackson documentary series sheds new light on Justin Timberlake's lack of response to the 2004 controversy
Aux News Janet Jackson
The “wardrobe malfunction” from the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show, when Justin Timberlake ripped off a part of Janet Jackson’s outfit at the end of a song and kicked off an enormous controversy, has hung around as a part of pop culture ever since… though you wouldn’t know it if you only followed Justin Timberlake’s career. He’s gone nowhere but up, more or less, all without ever really acknowledging that Jackson faced pretty much all of the blame for an incident that was definitely more his fault than her fault, so it seemed like an opportunity to make things somewhat right when Timberlake was given a chance to solo headline the Super Bowl Halftime Show in 2018—but Jackson didn’t make an appearance, even when Timberlake referenced the very incident that got her in trouble.
But, according to an appearance from Jackson herself during Lifetime’s two-part Janet Jackson documentary series (via The Hollywood Reporter), she actually turned down an offer to join Timberlake at the Super Bowl in 2018. She says his team asked if she’d be interested in performing with him during the show, and while she admits that it would’ve been nice to get on the stage, it would just be “stretching out the past” and “reliving something that happened over 10 years ago.”
As it turns out, Jackson has moved past what happened in 2004, saying it was “blown way out of proportion” and that, while it “was an accident” that “should not have happened,” there’s no need to keep looking for someone to blame. She says she and Timberlake are “very good friends” and they’ve “moved on.”
Jackson also revealed how Timberlake reacted right after the Super Bowl, saying they “talked once” and he said he wasn’t sure if he should make a statement, to which she said that she didn’t want him to have to deal with “any drama,” adding, “If I were you, I wouldn’t say anything.” Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame.
This is also the second documentary project to hit TV in the last few months, with The New York Times’ Malfunction: The Dressing Down Of Janet Jackson (which she did not participate in) airing in November.
138 Comments
this was one of those horseshit things that was effectively turned into bad laws and regulations, like the lies about that poor old woman burned by the McDonald’s coffee
I thought there were mostly good laws and regulations made in the aftermath of the coffee incident. Culturally, most people don’t understand what actually happened and use it as shorthand for frivolous lawsuits, but culturally most Americans are thick as pig shit, so what can you expect?
I never heard anything about good laws and regulations passed after the coffee incident, and Wikipedia doesn’t appear to have either, and it became shorthand for the fake need for tort reform to protect the Trumpers of the world from the consequences of their actions.
Well, I’m not sure if the practical effects that came about were legislated or simply the result of a cost-benefit analysis by companies that they don’t want to pay out for future suits. But lid designs were improved, coffee is no longer served anywhere at such high temperatures, and warning labels abound.
It’s true that it’s the quintessential case for conservative assholes to push their tort reform bullshit, but like God, if that case didn’t exist, they would simply feel free to invent one.
True. Often when people complain about giving the other side ammunition it’s worth it to point out that they would do the same bullshit anyway just lying about something else as the reason. Like: trying to pass voting rights legislation makes conservatives mad and more likely to pass laws cutting it back…they’d cut it back anyway. There are actually a lot of examples of this but none are coming to me at the moment
Sure, that’s whole reason for handing out high punitive damages – to help ensure it doesn’t happen again. It’s especially needed with companies like McDonalds who had figured out it has historically been cheaper to settle lawsuits than change the temp on their coffee machines.
Who needs a temp when you’re paying basically nothing and it’s “part time” with no benefits and the worker has to be on welfare at the same time so the taxpayers are subsidizing McDonald’s?
I meant temp as in temperature? Unless you were making a joke and it flew right over my head. Although you’re not wrong about the worker part.
I was distracted and actually managed to misunderstand your comment and imagine a temp standing next to a coffee machine, lol
The main change is that cars gained cup holders. While this may be news – none of the cars I grew up with had them, nor were any cars available that did. It wasn’t until the 1980s that cup holders became a regular feature of cars and it would not be until at least another decade for the non-cup holder cars to become a tiny minority. The first vehicle in the US to have them was the 1983 Plymouth Voyager minivan. The burn victim was in 1992, just 8 years later, not long enough. But within a few more years the built in cup holder was ubiquitous and did more to save people from burns than anything the McRestaurant did. https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/life/cars-trucks/the-history-of-the-car-cup-holder/
As one of the commentariat’s resident lawyers, I feel obligated that the case is now routinely taught in law school as an example of why tort reform is a bad idea, and more importantly how the media narrative and popular conception of a case can be completely wrong and miss the point entirely. The woman was horribly burned because of industry practices that were indisputably unsafe, and her suit led to changes that clearly benefit consumers.(In general, mainstream reporting on legal decisions and cases is almost uniformly awful, but that’s another story.)
I had thought I’d mentioned the documentary Hot Coffee somewhere around here, but in any case: sure, informed people know that about the case but to a lot of misinformed people it means the opposite.
For years I thought it was an absurd amount, until finding out why exactly that settlement was awarded. McDonald’s had known for years that its automatic machines (which did not have independent temperature adjustments; they were supposed to be uniform across the system) sometimes made the coffee too hot, but chose to settle lawsuits instead of incurring the expense of replacing them. This court finally sent a message that the cost of letting people be injured was now going to be more than changing out the machines. Should the woman in question (who was 79 years old) have put a cup of hot coffee between her legs as she drove away? Obviously not. But she DID get third degree burns in a really bad spot, which could have been avoided.
She actually didn’t put the coffee between her legs and drive away. That’s part of the narrative pushed by large corps that would benefit from tort reform. Her son was driving and he pulled into a parking spot. The car didn’t have cup holders, so she held the coffee cup between her legs to remove the lid and add cream and sugar. All very normal and reasonable behavior. She also only asked for her medical bills to be covered, about $10k, and McDonald’s countered by offering her $800. This is a pretty common misunderstanding, so I just wanted to share the information. I know youre not defending McDonald’s here.
She had to get surgeries and skin grafts. It was awful and they sued for medical costs.
The weirdest part to me is that they still claim it was an accident. It clearly correlated to the lyrics in both meaning and timing, and I thought this was obvious to everyone. I assumed that they claimed it wasn’t planned because they didn’t expect the backlash to be as bad as it was. It was a cool moment (as cool as any Super Bowl moment could be, I suppose). They should be proud of it.
I’ve never bothered watching it, but my understanding of the ‘accident’ part is that Justin was meant to rip away part of the outfit, and ended up ripping away more of it than he was supposed to. I don’t even really remember if it resulted in her actual breast falling out, or just her real bra, but I think the black part was supposed to come off revealing the red part, not whatever ended up popping out.
I mean, wasn’t she wearing a pastie? That seems the smoking gun.
Maybe? There’s more than one reason why someone might wear a nipple guard though. I’ve never worn a leather bra before, but I can imagine how it might chafe.
I mean, fair enough. I myself will sometimes bust out the band aids when I start running after a long layoff.
First time I trained for a marathon I was coming in from a long run and people passing in cars were looking at me aghast. Upon arriving home I discovered why. Bandaids from then on.
Dad shot revset. Countian loved to i’m was ready to comprosie. Beautiful spirit here.
It was a decorative metal ring circling her nipple and it was either clamped or glued on. Definitely a bigger problem than chafing.
It wasn’t a pastie she was wearing. It was a sort of star-shaped nipple piercing. Justin was meant to rip off the black leather and the red fabric underneath was supposed to remain.
Nipple piercing.
not a pastie, decorative nipple jewelry about 4 inches in diameter made of gold. it was meant to be seen. there was no malfunction. just miscalculation about public response and an attempt to blame the wardrobe department.
THANK YOU. She was prepared for it to “all” be ripped off or why would she be wearing a pastie? How are people even still claiming this was an accident after all of these years?
There were dress snaps on her outfit along the border of the removed item. No fabric or stitching was torn. The one who made the costume has died and taken the unbiased truth to the grave.
Yes, this. She never meant to expose her nipple. They meant to rip away part of the costume to expose another layer but did not mean to remove everything that got ripped away. She’s gotten so much shit for this while Timberlake has gotten nothing. It’s misogynoir writ large.
Yes, this. She never meant to expose her nipple. They meant to rip away part of the costume to expose another layer but did not mean to remove everything that got ripped away. She’s gotten so much shit for this while Timberlake has gotten nothing. It’s misogynoir writ large.It was 100% intentional to expose most of her breast with the nipple covered by an ornate piercing/brooch. The panel comes away cleanly, the “red fabric” is obviously just a hem on the top of the horrible 90s-style latex cup. Totally intentional, totally miscalculated, total arrogance on the part of Jackson, Timberlake, and everyone who came up with the stunt. (“The American public is ready for this in the middle of the superbowl” – nope.)Of course this doesn’t affect your final point, that it’s misogynoir. I just think the road there isn’t “poor Janet a victim of accident”. White artists would have copped shit too, and then it would have gone away or become a cool part of their image. Imagine Madonna doing it. “But do people want to see that, Madonna?” “Oh fuck off David.” (Oh wait that’s almost verbatim from her infamous Letterman interview isn’t it?)Imagine Janet Jackson telling David Letterman to fuck off and then flashing him. In 2003, I mean, not back in 1994 when Madonna did it. That would be insane.
Nah, the costume is clearly designed to come away cleanly and neatly to reveal her nipple which is mostly obscured by an ornate nipple-piercing, IIRC it was like a sun or starburst held with a bar (sorry not up to date with nipple jewellery terminology).It was an example of showbiz people thinking America was ready to have its boundaries pushed. It was time to Show A Hint Of Areola. It was a spectacular miscalculation.
ok then
how many bras have you seen that come apart in two clean “halves”?
I’ve never bothered watching it, but my understanding of the ‘accident’
part is that Justin was meant to rip away part of the outfit, and ended
up ripping away more of it than he was supposed to.
There is no fucking way that was accidental. If the plan for the choreography was that he would rip off the black leather cover leaving the bra-covered boob, why would she be wearing a bra underneath that also has a tear away cup that is conveniently the exact same size as the outer part? That explanation requires everyone involved to be ridiculously stupid, and is far more unlikely than “the reaction was stronger than we anticipated, let’s claim it was accidental to try and soften it”. I really don’t care about it, it was just a dumb “shock” moment that was blown way out of proportion, but it was very obviously planned.
“I’ve never bothered watching it, but my understanding of the ‘accident’ part is that Justin was meant to rip away part of the outfit, and ended up ripping away more of it than he was supposed to.”
Sure, but what was the point of ripping off the part of her costume that covers up the part of the costume that covers her tit?
Allegedly, the nipple guard was meant to ensure her nipple wasn’t visible when he pulled the black plastic away revealing a red lace piece underneath, but it looks like the lace pulled up as well. Which frankly, if the black was plastic silicon doesn’t sound unreasonable.
The nipple guard was more aesthetically interesting than a piece of red lace would’ve been. I remember it as being a piece of jewelry, basically, not a utilitarian item that wasn’t meant to be seen.Edited to add thanks for the clarification, to you and Yellowfoot. I just think how it actually ended up happening was better than it would’ve been if it went off without a hitch, apparently. This was barely transgressive, but because of the fact that the Super Bowl is so inexplicably popular, we remembered it as if it’s Piss Christ.
Caution – nipple exposure in the Rolling Stone story from 2014: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nipple-ripples-10-years-of-fallout-from-janet-jacksons-halftime-show-122792/I think that photo answers all the questions about the design of the outfit, including three of the snaps that held the pull away portion.
So they had never once tried this in rehearsal and discovered that lace would stick to the top layer? I just don’t buy it.
Maybe they did and it never did? I don’t know. I also don’t especially think it should have been such a big drama.
With that I agree fully. The backlash was completely disproportionate.
SHE HAD PASTIES ON
It was NOT a pastie. It was an elaborate nipple piercing. It’s a sunburst with a hole in the center for the nipple with a bar through the nipple to hold the sunburst in place. Trust me, I’ve done /lots/ of research on this subject.
Holy shit. I never knew that (though I never analyzed the footage with CSI equipment). So you’re saying she would have had it on if Timberlake had pulled her top down the previous Tuesday at IKEA? I’m not being smarmy; I don’t know anything about nipple piercing culture.
I’ll be in the bathroom.
I mean she literally had to stand trial for her nipple, so I’m sure she knows we know it wasn’t an accident, but just gotta stand by the story.
I end up commenting this on every article about that Super Bowl performance but the problem with this theory is that the costume wasn’t something she bought at Party City, it was a custom Alexander McQueen. Just do a image search for some of the creations Lee McQueen and his team created through the years. They’re able to keep their shape while holding up everything from taxidermy to an entire human skeleton. If something came off of an Alexander McQueen piece, then odds are it was meant to come off.
This. All this. This was a planned event that went “wrong”. There was no malfunction, just an error on judgment on everyone’s part.
That’s the only actually shocking part about this. The shit was very obviously intentional, the FCC blew it way the fuck out of proportion, so the alibi became that it was an accident. And it was clearly Janet Jackson’s idea because why the fuck would Timberface just up and rip her clothes off on TV? And since it’s her idea why the fuck would Timberface pay x-million dollars to the FCC for the stunt she made him do? How can there possibly be a bunch of fucking dipshits walking around thinking Timberface hung her out to dry or whatever other idiotic bullshit they’ve been saying for 20 years?
It always seemed entirely staged to me, and the “wardrobe malfunction” bit seemed like self-defence after the fact. But that’s the story they’ve stuck to, and I certainly am not privy to the truth, so whatever.
This has bugged me forever, and I saw it live. There’s no way this wasn’t deliberate. The piece folded away perfectly cleanly and was just a small panel directly over her nipple. Why else would something like that exist? It was choregraphed with the end of the song. She was wearing some metal ring-type thing that completely encircled her nipple and didn’t look like something you’d wear just for personal kicks under your shirt. She didn’t turn and slap him into next week, or even look surprised. It was a publicity stunt, pure and simple.
The impression I always had was that the costume was supposed to be designed to tear away and leave her bra exposed. Her costume person either fucked up, or, possibly Janet and her costume designer did it on purpose without telling Timberlake, who seemed completely in shock afterwords. I wouldn’t be surprised, all of the Jacksons are notable for not living in the real world. That fancy sunburst thing on her nipple throws a whole lot of suspicion on the idea that she did it on purpose. If that’s the case, she did the right thing by telling him to not talk, since under that theory she had dragged him into it without consulting him.
“ Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame. “ Yes, it’s almost as if she was talking directly to the AV Club, who want to quote Janet Jackson and then tell everyone she doesn’t mean what she said.
This is Barsanti aiming for the eye of the needle and getting impaled on the needle itself.
If I’ve learned one thing from women…if they say it’s not a problem…it’s a problem.
Which, apparently then, is our go-ahead to guess at what they want. And if we screw up, HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE GUESSED EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED??
People who cared then were assholes, disingenuous, clueless, or all three. A boob comes out. Who cares? You’re telling me that THOUSANDS of scantily clad cheerleaders and musical performers at prior Super Bowls didn’t show pretty much anything you wanted to see? A vagina covered in 1-mil thick spandex is flashed every time the camera pans over performing cheerleaders. You can see cameltoe in 1 of every 20 pairs of “athleisure” leggings. How is a nipple pasty worse than genitals?
[Jackson] adding, “If I were you, I wouldn’t say anything.” Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame.One could argue that he still should’ve said something in a way that isn’t this petty, which requires denying the actual conversation quotes we have, whatever relationship exists between two actual people, and the relationship that celebrities experienced with controversy since childhood might have about the cost/benefit of saying stuff, but sure, feel your way out to thinking of reason to not take her opinion in and point out that while you weren’t personally able to defy her then because you’re not Justin Timberlake, but you can backhandedly defy her request for everyone to stop now.
What
You’re but one man.
for an incident that was definitely more his fault than her fault
I fail to see how, considering that the move was definitely planned and rehearsed. Or are we still pretending it was an accident?https://torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrity/janet-jacksons-former-stylist-insists-super-bowl-malfunction-was-planned
the issue is the fallout that happened after though, not the actual reveal. Janet’s career literally tanked when she was one of the top selling artists at the time, and Les Moonves blacklisted her from MTV because he’s a creep. It’s less about blaming Timberlake for what happened, and just pointing out that this was a huge double standard and that it was Janet Jackson who literally had to go to court hearings about it for almost a decade lol.
I do not deny that there was a double standard with the fallout – nor that this is the part that upset most people – but this passage was about the reveal, not the fallout.
girl had to go to moral court proceedings for a decade, she gonna stick to the “accident” story.
Her post Superbowl albums still all debuted at #1 or #2 and went platinum. Janet was not in her prime when this happened, she was pushing 40 and considered a legacy artist / legend. Being a pop star is a young person’s game. She was not going to sell records like she was in her 20s at that point. Yes the MTV blacklist didn’t help, but her natural decline was already coming than.
This is a weird interview.
“He fumed: “You were never supposed to see a movement where a breast was out, a body part was out. It was never supposed to be lingering on something that they say was this terrible thing for such a long time. They were supposed to cut to black. You were supposed to get the idea of ‘I’m gonna have you naked by the end of this song.’ Nobody was supposed to be naked.“Somebody didn’t push the button. Somebody didn’t protect my friend.”So JT was going to rip off a piece of her costume and it would cut to black at the same time? This makes zero sense.
They did blur her breast immediately. Even with a delay, it would suggest that someone knew something would happen.
They did not blur anything, but it was a pretty far out shot. The extreme close ups we would see later was the news stations’ doing.
no, they did not blur her breast in realtime. clear photos of it were on the internet seconds later. but yes it’s absolutely obvious what happened was 100% intended and rehearsed by both parties. they simply misjudged the response, got absolutely terrified by the potential fallout, and probably for legal reasons at this point (17 million counts of exposing oneself to a minor?) they’re sticking to their transparently fake “malfunction” story.
Yes it was planned but that stylist is blatantly scapegoating Justin because he got in trouble (calling it a “wardrobe malfunction” cost him jobs). USAToday has a thorough investigation of the matter. They were the first to expose that stylist in 2018 as the one who bought Janet’s nipple jewelry that weekend. Timberlake did not arrive to Houston until 20 minutes before showtime as he was in Europe on tour. It was there that he was called into Janet’s dressing room with Janet and the stylist and was presented the new choreography. Janet Jackson Super Bowl nipple: What really happened in ‘Nipplegate’? (usatoday.com)
there was no malfunction. there was magnificent showpiece jewelry on her nipple. it was meant to be seen. it was not a pastie or an anti-chafing bandage, it was 4″ diameter gold nipple jewelry covered by a designed to be removed hunk of bustier.
fuck our prudish puritan mysogynist country. beautiful woman wanted to show her tit on TV. good for her. no one gives a fuck when a male rockstar takes his shirt off at the superbowl.
Word.
Agree 100% it was deliberate. But like it or not, women’s breasts are not permitted to be broadcast on network television (or at least weren’t in 2004). Add in that millions of families watch this and I’m not surprised at the backlash. Saying it’s the same as a guy taking his shirt off is just disingenuous.They were trying to be edgy and miscalculated in a massive way (begging the question why it all falls on her, or even both of them – clearly other people knew this was going to happen).
Even at the time, I’m not so sure. I thought it was the dreaded female nipple that was the issue, not an exposed breast otherwise (and, of course, the nipple was not exposed).
The whole thing was just silly. The original idea, the claim it was a “malfunction,” the resulting backlash and the fact that we’re still talking about it. Silly.Having said that, as an admirer of Miss Jackson’s I appreciated the gesture…
Do people still think it was accidental? I mean she had some special outfit for just her nipple.
Alright, now I’m pissed. I was not expecting to have to sympathize with fucking Justin Timberlake of all people today. But that passage there—
Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame.
—that did it. Some death-defying logical gymnastics going on there.
Truly a damned if he did, damned if he didn’t situation.
In other words: we’ve already decided on the narrative (Justin Timberlake bad, Janet Jackson good), and we’re not deviating from it now.
Oh, we in for some deviations. Check yo internet. Pretty sure ya’ll supposed to be connected to each other for a reason, just can’t seem to remember what it is….
I think JJ Abrahms has the answer tthhehtrehhthrh
#JCAO2222022
As opposed to the first narrative everyone already decided on after it happened (Janet Jackson bad, Justin Timberlake good)?
I don’t remember the second part of that (was Timberlake praised for it, or just not focused on?), but the alternative to one flawed narrative doesn’t have to be another.
The rest of their lives speaks plenty well to the narrative, thanks.
Barsanti article = opinion piece.
Then again, AV Club lately is more and more Hot Take Club.
Hot take.
#JCAO2222022
Barsanti article = opinion piece.If anything, that’s a generous interpretation, unnecessarily generous.
Sorry, I guess. I meant it’s less news and more opinion.
But no points for calling it Hot Take Club?
Honestly, Barsanti’s the worst fucking entertainment journalist I think I’ve ever seen. Everything’s injected with very personal opinion and massively biased takes. Fucking garbage.
He almost looks angry at Jackson that she won’t give him an occasion to play the white knight.
white knight columnist get mad that pop musican would rather people not white knight about an event that got blown out of proportion
Assholes have been burying Timberlake for decades for not speaking up. While the incident didn’t hurt his career, I wouldn’t go so far as to say silence benefitted him. It made him look like a huge jerk hanging Jackson out to dry. Turns out that what happened is that Jackson, an established superstar, told a much younger performer (it’s easy to forget that Timeberlake was probably in kindergarten when Jackson scored her first platinum record) not to get in the middle of this, a mensch move on her part. I wish she’d shared this information with us earlier, that she wasn’t a damsel in distress who’d been left high and dry by a boob-exposing cad. It takes a big man to admit he’s wrong when a narrative he’s pushed for years is shot out from under him. Or he could just throw some godawful word salad out there like that and keep doubling down.
Your clue was reading who wrote the article.
I clicked through without checking….
Or did I????
#JCAO2222022
I love it. The narrative cannot, must not, be altered, no matter what.
The very fact that Barsanti hasn’t improved at all and hasn’t written anything worthwhile during his time here (and in fact has written the What If? recaps, something that wouldn’t earn a passing grade for how blatantly he wasn’t paying attention to anything he wrote about) tells you everything about the direction of the AV Club. He’s not an anomaly, he’s the yardstick.
It blows my mind that he’s coming up on 8 years here.
If you accept that Jackson bore the brunt of the pointless shitstorm caused by 2 seconds of exposed boob, then it seems like the decent thing to do is respect how she wants the situation handled, something Timberlake did better than Barsanti with this “here’s the very tenuous way it could still be his fault, but I’m not saying that out of respect for her wishes” bullshit.
That’s close to the ‘Elle Kemper is evil because should have known that a beauty pageant she was in was once racist, even though it is no longer’ line AVC tried to use a few months ago.
It’s just a fancy way of saying “This new information contradicts my existing opinions, so I’m just going to ignore it.”
Just look at which jackass wrote the article and that’s all you need to know.
Yes. Thanks, you beat me to it. This is pretty typical of contemporary AV Club takes. Every article has some irrelevant, woke aside, or contrarian hot take.
Absolutely no one but the ‘Outrage Is Life’ mob cared then, and even they’ve moved on at this point.
I remember it happening live. My reaction? “Ooh, look at boy band trying to be edgy. Can you pass me a beer?”The fact that people freaked out over this, when you could barely tell what you’d seen for a split second with that big piece of nipple jewelry, was simply confusing to me.
I saw it at a Super Bowl party, and the host got Tivo for the first time the week before. Let’s just say we watched it more than once. If it had happened in 2002, way fewer people would have cared or noticed.
How hard would it have been for JT to have said “Ms. Jackson (I’m nasty, you see) said I should keep my mouth shut on this, but all of you assholes are making her life miserable over absolutely nothing, so fuck you. None of you conservative pricks are going to buy my music anyway, so eat shit while you’re at it. Fuck Bush.”?Not hard at all, in my opinion.
I mean, I’ve been pissed at Timberlake for years about this and even I looked at that quote and kinda went “that’s typical ‘I don’t want to ask you for it so I’m giving you an out’ kinda speak” but it’s not fair to get mad at someone for not picking up on subtext (which may or may not be there – we don’t actually know these two people!) AND, I mean, it could have been very easy for Janet to say something now like “I asked him not to. I now wish I’d asked him to” or whatever. She’s not saying that.
It seems like Janet really wants this put behind her and I’m definitely softening my opinions as a result. I’m never going to like the guy but I’m not going to keep yelling about this story, even though it bothered me for years.
If this incident happened when he was a more established artist, he would have absolutely told people to fuck off. But this was the beginning of his uncertain career in his early 20s. There wasn’t a lot of “fuck you” leg room than.
Tons of conservative pricks bought his albums…all the white Christian college girls who were living it up on Sorority Row (and would later go on to vote Trump x2) definitely bumped it to “Rock Your Body.” Not saying JT shouldn’t have still done something to help her, just saying that going full Green-Day-American-Idiot was not in line with his brand.
“Not hard at all, in my opinion.”
Instead, he respected her wishes.
How hard is that? How hard is it to respect a woman’s wishes?
You ought to consider trying it sometime.
because then that would be honoring her request
He was still very much in the early stages of his career; this performance was meant to make him look edgy and help continue separating him from his boy band history. He was 23 when this happened. Not saying he shouldn’t have copped to it (haha) but given the unexpected backlash it would have been a serious risk, so I’m not surprised he didn’t.
It’s time to address the real controversy of this event: that I’ve never seen an owl, superb or otherwise, appear at any of these games.
This joke was funny in like, no wait, never.
These are all interesting hot takes. I’m not sure if I mean this sarcastically.What galls me is that people point out Janet’s nipple shield as “proof” of her intentions. Like it’s never occurred to people that perhaps she was wearing it for her own aesthetic pleasure? People can wear piercings (no matter how elaborate) solely for themselves.I’ve known plenty of people who’ve worn piercings (some fairly extensive like said shield) with no intention of anyone except themselves (or perhaps the persons they are intimate with) to see.And as for the people who claim that Timberlake is criticized no matter his response…well people are conveniently forgetting he behaved like a smug AH up until he realized what A Big Deal things were. Then, of course he started his apology tour.But the key issue regarding his behavior in this was when starting said tour, he could’ve been a complete gentleman by immediately absolving Jackson of any nefarious behavior. Especially considering she was a guest for HIS appearance. But he *didn’t* do that: he covered his own butt and let her twist in the wind. And then, he only (finally) apologized because of a documentary was released because of his craptastic behavior towards *another* female pop star whom he also dated.A 15 years late apology doesn’t excuse his behavior – nor those (grossly) running to currently defend him.
USAToday did an investigation on the incident and discovered Janet’s team had purchased the nipple jewelry the weekend before half time and told Byriah Dailey the piercer to watch the show for a surprise. They only bought one piece, and it just so happened to be the breast we saw revealed.
Janet Jackson Super Bowl nipple: What really happened in ‘Nipplegate’? (usatoday.com) You have the story wrong. Janet was the headliner, Justin was her guest. Justin has actually spoken on how unfair the situation was several times over the years. He even admitted his biggest regret of the decade was not defending Janet more in his Entertainment Weekly interview in 2009. Janet herself said on Oprah that he reached out to her personally. So no, last year was not the first time he apologized, which happened because it was February (the anniversary of the Superbowl) and social media is obsessed with this event, so much so they were hurling death threats at him and his family (hence his opening statement, “I’ve seen the tags, comments and messages”).
Counterpoint: You didn’t listen to a word Janet said and JT doesn’t owe anyone shit.
“I’ve known plenty of people who’ve worn piercings (some fairly extensive like said shield) with no intention of anyone except themselves (or perhaps the persons they are intimate with) to see.”
Have you known people to wear a giant piercing, then during a Super Bowl halftime part of the choreography is that this person has the part of the costume covering their nipple is torn off?
Have you known that to happen?No?Then shut. The fuck. Up.
Remember how important this thing (“accidentally pulling off a pastie”) used to be?
Side note – trying to find this video online is what started YouTube, which also has a horrible side to it.
“enormous controversy”That’s a huge over statement.
It changed live television with the 5 second delay, created YouTube, was the most TiVo’d television moment, etc. and had Les Moonves from CBS blacklist Janet’s career from MTV. It was absolutely an enormous controversy.
All of those things are reactions. I don’t disagree it had an impact, largely because all the church ladies in the country apparently swooned en masse.
“Controversy” means argument, or, at least, disagreement. No one, including, supposedly, Ms. Jackson, wanted her nipple exposed on live TV. 15 years later, a very small (relatively) number of people are upset over the fallout for Ms. Jackson compared to there being essentially no consequences for Mr. Timberlake. Frankly, I’m not sure many people even disagree on that issue.Calling this an “enormous controversy” is simply not true.
“All of those things are reactions.”
To. A. Controversy.
“Calling this an “enormous controversy” is simply not true.”
Were you kidnapped in the early 2000s and not released until 2008? Because if not, you’re being so absolutely disingenuous that one wonders why you needed to inject your particular ignorance into the conversation.
It also changed radio. It led to a huge crackdown on “vulgarity” in radio, with shock jocks like Howard Stern leaving for Satellite radio, Clear Channel (now IHeart Radio) banning or bleeping hundreds of songs(if you are of a certain age, you remember hearing Roger Daltrey screaming “who the fuck are you?” near the end of “Who Are You” on the radio for 25 years)
People are still pretending this wasn’t staged and backfired spectacularly?
*MAKE* things RIGHT JUSTIN
MAKE RIGHT
MAKE WHITE
MAKE LIGHT
MAKE FRIGHTCAKE LIGHTBAKED TIGHT
cOmPliaNCE with sheeple demands or face they bahhhhhhhs JUSTIN
#JCAO2222022
*cum
DEAR PUBLICATION,
SAM BARSANTI IS TRYING TO DO A GENOCIDE FOR INTERNET VALOR
stolen from me
while I saved Justin from the hoards of rampaging zombie hoards humanity is content to dismiss as “GIRLS BEING GIRLS”
Estimation: Trampled for scattered genetic material
(**ONLY EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE DIVINED**)
______
Seriously though,
Sam Barsanti could have turned me Blade Runner from shadows.
Reddit is extinct.
He only chirps, so why he trying to use a tool like a “paragraph” as though he understands the underlying metaphysical mechanisms driving his Basic Binary Bitch “interpretation.”
Love it.
Professional Woman Wearing Tear-Away Bra Costume: Stop trying to find someone to blame.
Sam Barsanti: YES she right, YES, he to blame, YES, she right, YES he to blame.
FLAWLESS SELF-FATALITY AT THE FINISH LINE SAM
YOU GET A LOT OF LOVE LETTERS FROM YOUR SHEPHARD
HE KICKS YOU IN THE PUSSY TO KEEP YOU MOVING, NOW YOU SIT IN CORNER OF PARTY MAKING SURE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO SEE OR SPEAK TO YOU UNTIL YOU BETTER
Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame. The important thing is we get to feel self-righteous no matter what.
“Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame”
The AVClub: where we listen to women.
> Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,”Yeah, 23-year-old men are really good at interpreting subtext. Hell, I’m 42 and I suck at it.
Janet Jackson told him not to say anything AND tells people now to stop looking for people to blame. Article writers: she MEANT that he should make a statement and I definitely should blame him!Absolutely no brain activity detected.
‘…Of course, Timberlake should’ve recognized that that doesn’t literally mean “don’t say anything,” so one could argue that it’s still fair to point out that his lack of a response did nothing but benefit him and lay all of the blame on her, but that would be defying her request for everyone to stop searching for someone to blame.’
then maybe follow her request? or is it just too difficult to listen to her?
I’ll always remember this as the time we skipped watching the halftime show and instead I got to see my friend cartwheel-kick his other friend in the head.
Yeah, don’t really care about that incident. On this “documentary” (more like a memoir), I watched a part where she was asked (on purpose) about the “secret baby.” Instead of a straight “no; let’s move on,” a lingering, “Oh, how should I answer this?” look on her face, then she and everybody talking instead about how the rumor might have started and shit like that. What a crock of manipulative TV. Pass on the rest.
Of all the things to still think are relevant. The bullsh1t puritanism of this country is so silly. Is one boob at half-time that much different compared to the 20 boobs in spandex that were all playing grabass on the field in the two hours prior?
Hey. Remember that time 18 years ago when we saw Janet Jackson’s boob? That was awesome.
Wow. So she asks him not to comment, he doesn’t comment and that makes him bad? What was he supposed to do?