There's Always Room For JLo

The Oscars were last night. And apparently, there was an unexpected appearance by Jennifer Lopez's left nipple. The Internet is all abuzz about it. There's even a new Twitter account for "JLosNipple". (And you 1,407 people who are now following this short-lived novelty account really need to find a different hobby.) I swear, if this turns out like the Great Janet Jackson Nip Slip of 2004 and I have to hear about it for the next eight years (at least), I'm going to have to recommend that all women at all award ceremonies wear a burqa. (I realize that sounds a little restrictive, but not really compared to the wrath of the FCC and their inane rules and regulations.) And I'm not totally sure that there's anything there that we even saw. You tell me. Behold!

THAT?! THAT is what people are flipping out over?! THAT is what a Twitter account was created over?! THAT?! Are you kidding me?! Are we even sure that is anything at all? I don't think that we can be. There might be some nipple there, but maybe not. And besides, this IS Jennifer Lopez, right? It's not a nun or anything like that, correct? Have people lost their collective minds?! Am I the only one who remembers what sort of outfits Jennifer Lopez tends to wear? Let's have a quick refresher course. Here's what she wore on New Year's Eve. Behold!

Holy cow. I gotta say that I feel like I'm seeing a lot more with her in that outfit than I was seeing in the picture with the alleged areola sighting. Let's look at what she wore to the 42nd Grammy awards. She's all but naked. (No! Not all butt naked. All but naked. You know what I mean!) Behold!

You have GOT to be kidding me! She's not even wearing shoes! This is like the bare minimum of clothing that one would have to wear in order to not get arrested. Can we get a closer picture of this? CLOSE UP!

Her breasts are nearly falling out of that. Is that a Christmas bow on the front trying to hold it all together? Holy canoli. And people are freaking out that maybe an eight of an inch of her nipple poked its way out of her dress on TV last night? That's a joke, right? It has to be. There's no logical way to explain any sort of uproar. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised every time she shows up anywhere fully clothed. Look at the ad that she came out with this year for her new perfume. Look at it!

See, she's not kinda naked there. No, she is naked there! Full on naked! (And lookin' good might I add. I wonder what the fragrance smells like? Ha-ha, no I don't.) But people are all up in arms about her nipple that may or may not have made an appearance? This is the sort of thing that honestly makes me crazy. It makes me want to fight people. Look at the picture that was taken at the Academy Awards last night and then look at this picture for her fragrance. If you're going to be up in arms about something, shouldn't it be the fragrance ad?! (And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you should be up in arms about the fragrance ad. I'm just saying that if you have to have your arms up, shouldn't it be for something arm-up-worthy?) What is wrong with people?! If I hear that the FCC is looking into this, I will be able to state once again and with all certainty that we as a people are completely doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Chocolate-y Melamine-y Photo Goodness

Success! In the previous post, I did my public service by alerting all eight of you who read this (and the undetermined number of you who the announcement would actually apply to) to the fact that the European based Food Standards Agency announced a "Food Alert: For Information" (what are the other choices? For fun?) which declared that "...certain varieties of novelty products have been tested in the UK and found to be contaminated with melamine." The "novelty products" in question are a "Chocolate Flavoured Willy Spread" (chocolate to spread upon one's willy), "Chocolate Flavoured Nipple Spread" (chocolate to spread upon one's nipples) and a "I Love You - Pen Set" which contains a "chocolate body pen and a strawberry body pen" (both 40 grams and used to write upon one's body). Strangely enough, the Food Alert did not end with the words "What the hell?"

Sadly, in the previous post I had been unable to locate photos of these "novelty product" items. I, for one, was unfamiliar with any sort of food-for-sex accessory that was in the form of a "spread'. Actually, when I first read "chocolate flavoured nipple spread" what popped into my head was, "Oh, my God! It's made out of nipples?!?!" Fortunately, it was and is not. But that just goes to show how unfamiliar with these things I am. (The accessories. I'm unfamiliar with the accessories. The sex? :::sigh::: Sadly, I'm a little unfamiliar with that these days as well.)

But no need for sadness as photos of said novelties have been located! Woo-hoo! First up, the "Chocolate Flavoured Nipple Spread " and the "Chocolate Flavoured Willy Spread". Behold! Chocolate goo infused with chemical-y melamine that you can spread on your willy and nipples but shouldn't!

Oh, good God, what the hell is that?!? They weren't kidding when they called it a "spread"! It even comes with a little looks-like-it's-made-out-of-silver knife! Seemingly one commonly used to spread cheese on crackers during holiday times of joy. Am I the only one who thinks the whole thing is a little weird? Hey, you out there with the willy! How do you feel about having a little knife run all over your precious little willy there? Kind of brings forth the image of those old time barbers with their straight razor that they're sharpening on some long strap, doesn't it? You still think that's a good idea, willy holders? Anyone? Yeah, that's what I thought. The knife should best be left for the cheeses and not for the willies ('cause that's what it gives you just thinking about it. Ew.).

It would seem that really the only difference between the spread for willies and the spread for nipples is the color of the packaging. The directions on the packaging is the same for both. And I'm not so sure that I'd really go with the term "directions" for these. They're more like "warnings" or like a friendly "just so you know". It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that you would put on a package of something that you're hoping for people will want to pay money for.

Here's what I mean: The package has these "announcements" for the willy and nipple spread purchasers.

• With a silver spreading knife! (Yeah, that'll class it up a bit. Sure.)


• INSTRUCTIONS: Warm the knife before spreading: Cold steel can have a shrinking effect. (Good to know. Good to know.)
  
  
• MICROWAVABLE: After warming, check for correct temperature by using "scream" test. (Oh, my God! The "scream" test?! Are you kidding me?! I might not have a willy, but as all of us do, I am in possession of a couple of nipples and I'd prefer not to have any sort of testing done on them that involves screaming. Good Lord. How hot!)
  
  
• NEVER OVER SHARPEN BLADE! Especially if used by those who are prone to: Sneezing attacks, nervous ticks, slashing fantasies, or dead drunk! (First of all, I think only animals can have "nervous ticks"; probably "nervous fleas" too. But who has a "slashing fantasy" that involves a three inch, cold, metal, not over sharpened blade that comes along side a small tub of chocolate flavoured goo intended to be spread upon the male nether regions?! Who are they slashing? Lilliputians? The seven dwarfs? What would you slash with something that small other than your unopened mail? And "sneezing attacks"? Are the folks who use this implement doing so in a room that is particularly dust filled? Are they having their spreadable chocolate goo sex in a pepper factory? Who is this warning for?!)
  

All right, that's just weird. I'm sure they're trying to be funny and cute-sy and all, but when talking about items that could cause harm, damage and lack of mobility to one's penile unit, it's really not all that amusing, I would imagine. And while I don't know what the sales numbers of food-sex items are in Europe, if they're pulling thousands of packages off of the shelves, I'd be inclined to think that most of the male Europeans have had their penis dipped in chocolate at one point or another during their lifetime. And that is most disconcerting. Not to mention extremely question provoking. Why chocolate? Why not jam? (Seedless, of course.)

Then there's the matter of the melamine-y body pens in chocolate and in strawberry. Those packages tell the potential purchaser that they will be able to "write a delicious love message" and then "slowly and sexually eat your words!" Now, maybe I'm just thinking a little bit different here, but to me, the thought of a "delicious love message" conjured up images of my coming home to a note on the refrigerator that says "Went to buy alcohol. Dinner is in the oven. I made pie for dessert. Love, (insert any name here, just as long as they won't leave and have me end up bitter and alone)." Now that is a "delicious love message" if I've ever read one. Alcohol? Delicious. Homemade dinner? Delicious. Pie? DEeeee-licious! Love? Love sucks, but if it didn't, it'd be delicious also! And the whole thing is a message, so I'm not sure why those folks want to use the melamine-y chocolate pens, but it's probably because they're European. Always doing things the hard way. (Pun intended.)

So, what have we learned? Waaaayy too much if you're asking me, but we'll review anyway.

European males are fearless creatures with a bit of a sweet tooth who are not fearful in the least bit about having a sharp (but not over sharp) knife spread an edible chocolate paste over their penile unit as an optional pre-fornication ritual. Europeans in general have a very different idea than I do of what a "delicious love message" consists of, as mine involves pie and theirs does not. Then again, their "delicious love message" was probably wrote by someone who hasn't left them yet, so touche`, Europe! Touche`.

Sphere: Related Content

Return of Nip Gate

Can we PLEASE let this GO?!?! Actually, the answer is finally, FINALLY, yes. Well, maybe. If I have to hear one more time about the "wardrobe malfunction" of the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show with Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson and surprise unannounced guest, Janet's Nipple, I'm going to lose it. Yes, we all saw her breast. Yes, it was lovely. It's time to move on. But actually, I think this time, we might really be nearing the end of NipGate. Four freakin' years later.

It all started years ago, during a time in which halftime shows at the Super Bowl consisted of marching bands from high schools you never heard of from the rural midwest. Yet 2004 brought us Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, two names you hear a lot about, but really, not much more than that. (Seriously. The last time you saw Justin Timberlake in public was....? The halftime show in 2004. Correct.) As and they performed their song having to do with, um, sex? I guess. (Aren't they all about sex? Or wanting it? Or not getting it? Or thinking about it? Or having it? Something like that.) And 90 million people were watching (actually, it was halftime, so at least half of those folks were either in the bathroom, getting something to eat or outside having a smoke, so maybe 45 million. 55 million tops.) as they heard Justin Timberlake belt out, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song!" Oh, how prophetic that phrase turned out to be.

Next thing you know, Justin reaches over to Janet's bustier-like-breast-push-up-made-out-of-leather-or-something-shiny-thing and simulates a grabbing/ripping-off motion. Only it wasn't so simulated. And that's when the "wardrobe malfunction" heard 'round the world did occur. In the words of Seinfeld's own Jerry Seinfeld, "I'm not sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I see a nipple." Words echoing that same sentiment came flying out of the mouths of at least 45 million people that Sunday evening in January. "Was that...?" "Did I see...?" "That was her....." "Did he..." "I just saw Janet Jackson's boob."

Now the way that the press overreacted (shocker, I know), not to mention the FCC, you'd have thought they both stripped down and started filming a porno right there on the 50-yard line. The FCC fined CBS $500,000. CBS then immediately changed their policy to have video delay during live events. (Good plan.) They also challenged the $500,000 fine in court. And yesterday, 4 1/2 years later, CBS won. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the FCC "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" when it issued the fine. It also said, basically, that "the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so "pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience." And clearly, Nip Gate did not amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience, as it only lasted for nine-sixteenths of a second. Wait. What?

Correct. Nine-sixteenths of a second was how long Janet Jackson's right breast was exposed. (Hell, seeing a breast for nine-sixteenths of a second? That constitutes "a date" over here.) And four and a half years later, those nine-sixteenths of a second still come back to haunt. And naturally, there are those who feel the need to issue inflammatory statements about just such a ruling. "Those" meaning people who tend to belong to groups like the Parents Television Council. ("Those" also meaning people who tend to overreact to most things and also tend to blow things out of proportion and skew them in such a way that you'd reach the conclusion that whoever was responsible for whatever atrocity they were denouncing was, in fact, a Nazi.)

For example, take Tim Winter, of the Parents Television Council. His reaction was, "If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people — including millions of children — doesn't fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does?" OK, if you think that a nine-sixteenths of a second glimpse at a nipple qualifies as a "striptease", then you have really been missing out on quite a bit, sir. But if it does fit your definition of "striptease", I still don't think that it fits the "parameters of broadcast indecency." If it were really a "striptease" it would fit the parameters of stupidity if that was the plan all along. But it wasn't and it wasn't, so it's not. So there.

So, finally! A bit of common sense injected into a court ruling. Who knew? Who cares? I'm just glad they were being reasonable over there on the bench. Thus, I'd like to thank that 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals for recognizing that accidents do occur. That's right. Sometimes, nip happens.

Sphere: Related Content