Latest on MJJC

JANET.....DAMN!!!! 0-o

mjbunny said:
Yeah, but if MJ had done anything remotely similar, the girls would've just simply died. Period. Scream... faint... dead. That's it.
Click to expand...

lmao that part made me laugh - but you're right Michael could make people hyperventilate just by being present, I imagine anything further would've caused some serious damage."Scream...faint...dead" lmao
but we all know Michael was a gentleman that's why we girls loved him so much right...well at least most of us
 
snowhite said:
but we all know Michael was a gentleman that's why we girls loved him so much right...well at least most of us
Click to expand...


I wouldn't change MJ any way! If he was more a pervert who touched his girl fans on stage, I wouldn't like him so much. I respect that he is / was timid & modest & humble & respctable to women.
 
If this was a guy doing that to a girl..........he would be jailed for it!!!!

Well I guess you have to resort to this when the "well of good ideas" dries up!!!!!!
 
Krshna28 said:
If this was a guy doing that to a girl..........he would be jailed for it!!!!

Well I guess you have to resort to this when the "well of good ideas" dries up!!!!!!
Click to expand...

:agree:That's what they are all doing nowadays, can't blame them, they know nothing else. But I really thought Janet was a different kind of artist. I'm really shocked and distraught by this. I don't even think Madonna of all X-factors has ever done this but then I wouldn't know, I'm not into that type of entertainment.:mello:
 
Wow...It is very sexy, but in some other videos I saw kids in the audience (which I was surprised to see)....So not very appropriate, but it was hot
 
I dont like that show .. especially the end... that is not what a girl should do in front of millions of people in every race and relligion..thats not me..

Even if Michael did the same to a girl on stage...that is some private things to do.
 
Isn't that theatrical porn? :mellow:

Seriously she did EVERYTHING there is to do without taking each other's clothes off :s
 
:bugeyed :bugeyed Holy shit! :lol:

Was I the only one looking down at that guy's area to see if.. well you know..? :ph34r: :lol:
 
Tatianasr said:
hmm I don't know, it didn't look sexy for me at all, too staged and I was worried about the guy :lol:
Click to expand...
For some reason I was embarrased for Janet :mello: and I was worried about the guy too :lol: He looked like he was going to faint.

This didn't surprise me though, sex is Janet's thing.
 
vncwilliam said:
ok. i wasn't able to watch the whole thing. and i consider myself a guy's guy. some things just shouldn't be done. i'm sure Madonna is blushing. and ot..you posting this vid, in contrast to your siggy..is...interesting.
Click to expand...

Now I understand why Madonna and Janet OK with each other. I never liked Janet anyways. I had a feeling that something is not right with this lady.
MJ said about Madonna:Wild, out of control. The same I can say about Janet now.
I wonder if Michael had an argument with Janet about this... .
I couldn't watch this video. This is not an art. This is garbage.
Her reaction on MJ passing wasn't emotional like it was from Latoya or Mj brothers.
She was busy "working". This is what I heard.
 
Asedora said:
Now I understand why Madonna and Janet OK with each other. I never liked Janet anyways. I had a feeling that something is not right with this lady.
MJ said about Madonna:Wild, out of control. The same I can say about Janet now.
I wonder if Michael had an argument with Janet about this... .
I couldn't watch this video. This is not an art. This is garbage.
Her reaction on MJ passing wasn't emotional like it was from Latoya or Mj brothers.
She was busy "working". This is what I heard.
Click to expand...


lol It's really not that serious , and compare to some of the stuff madonna has did in the past it's mild, so I wouldn't excatly call Janet wild and out of control, and she never said it was suppose to be "art" it's exactly what is. entertainment.
 
strawberry45220 said:
lol It's really not that serious , and compare to some of the stuff madonna has did in the past it's mild, so I wouldn't excatly call Janet wild and out of control, and she never said it was suppose to be "art" it's exactly what is. entertainment.
Click to expand...

I agree. I will say in Janets defense this is very old... lol its not recent and to most people commenting on this, yall are very late if u are shocked that Janet would do something like this because most of her old concerts had similar segments like this. I wouldnt say this is art because its not, its entertainment. Janet has always been like this for most of her career. She done this and song about it for the majority of the latter part of her career. HOWEVER things like this makes me wonder why so many peolpe would think she deserves to be inducted in the Rock Hall of Fame??? I love Janet but she is just a pop act. She was talented but over the last decade her music has been consistent and sucky. She was never that much of an innovative artist but she still manage to be successful but all that doesnt get you in the rock hall of fame.. just saying..
 
strawberry45220 said:
lol It's really not that serious , and compare to some of the stuff madonna has did in the past it's mild, so I wouldn't excatly call Janet wild and out of control, and she never said it was suppose to be "art" it's exactly what is. entertainment.
Click to expand...

She already did enough to call it wild and out of control for me. This video is really crazy.
If it is not an art, why bother to perform?
Two kids from the same parents could be totally different. The truth is that blood means nothing, the soul is more important.
Now I understand the point why Madonna had to introduce Janet on MTV when they did tribute for Michael. It makes sense to me now.
 
Asedora said:
If it is not an art, why bother to perform?
Click to expand...
People perform to make money, get girls, be famous, or whatever. It's a job like any other. If performers were trying to make "art" they'd do it for free because they enjoy creating. They wouldn't bother trying to sell a lot of records because "art" doesn't require mass acceptance or having to work with mainstream people or whoever is popular at the moment. Just because you don't like what Janet is doing, a lot of other people do, as there was a lot of people at that show on the clip.
 
DuranDuran said:
People perform to make money, get girls, be famous, or whatever. It's a job like any other. If performers were trying to make "art" they'd do it for free because they enjoy creating. They wouldn't bother trying to sell a lot of records because "art" doesn't require mass acceptance or having to work with mainstream people or whoever is popular at the moment. Just because you don't like what Janet is doing, a lot of other people do, as there was a lot of people at that show on the clip.
Click to expand...

making money doesn't take away from art. everybody has to make a living. and that was just one show with a full house. not as many people, around the world, as you make it sound. the very fact that a lot of people on this thread don't like it, squashes that argument, because it's representative. and it isn't certain that everybody in that house knew what was coming.
 
vncwilliam said:
making money doesn't take away from art. everybody has to make a living. and that was just one show with a full house. not as many people, around the world, as you make it sound. the very fact that a lot of people on this thread don't like it, squashes that argument, because it's representative. and it isn't certain that everybody in that house knew what was coming.
Click to expand...

Yes! Artists back in the day after all were commissioned by the wealthy to paint. All of these classics hanging in museums praised by critics as timeless beauties originated from the support of wealthy patrons. These portraits that Van Gogh did hanging in museums? Nobody famous, just rich people from back in the day who could afford him to paint their portrait. Point being Van Gogh didn't chose the subject because of some artistic insight, but because someone paid him to do it. Does it make him a 'sellout' or any less of an artist in my estimation? Of course not! It's how the world works. . . . And art's subjective anyway. One person could see a picture of dots and call it boring, the other person could call it genius, and neither is right.
 
Asedora said:
She already did enough to call it wild and out of control for me. This video is really crazy.
If it is not an art, why bother to perform?
Two kids from the same parents could be totally different. The truth is that blood means nothing, the soul is more important.
Now I understand the point why Madonna had to introduce Janet on MTV when they did tribute for Michael. It makes sense to me now.
Click to expand...

You lose.

1. This has nothing to do with Madonna

2. Madonna didn't introduce Janet at the MTV VMAS

3. Again, you lose

4. It's entertainment. We (her fans) love it.

5. She has been doing this since 1993

6. It's not trashy. It's entertainment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top