I just do not understand the hoopla and outrage (and now private lawsuits) about Janet Jackson's SuperBowl antics. For a split second, on a tiny portion of the screen, apparently there was a flash of skin. We all know that by now.

Yet, repeatedly throughout the game, 30-second ads about erectile dysfunction aired. They certainly don't say anything that could offend, on their own, but the subject matter is blatant to those who understand what the drugs are for.

And those that don't understand, like *KIDS*, don't they ask their moms and dads? Maybe they don't. But that seems hightly unlikely to me. Hey, anyone reading this who has kids, do they ask about ads for products they don't know about?

What about "feminine hygiene products" that appear frequenly during prime-time? Those ones are certainly something I enjoy watching. I even use TiVo to replay them. Not.

Those ads are okay, but someone showing a little skin isn't?

What about the Victoria's Secret TV ad I saw last evening? There's 30 seconds that show a lot more than Jackson did. Longer, bigger, and more blatantly. But apparently that's permissible.


What's the difference here? Why the outrage?



And it's scary that TiVo can tell us all that Jackson's little stunt was the most rewatched portion of any TV show ever. I didn't know they could do that. Guess I better watch what I use the 8-second rewind button for.