> Assuming you're being sarcastic, you really didn't need to go that far. There's people that want to save *everything* about sex for marriage...

The assumption here is that nudity is necessarily sexual. In this case, certainly it was intended to be, but it doesn't have to be sexual for the viewer. I'm curious: if Janet Jackson has spoiled you for your future wife, mightn't taking a biology class or a tour through a classical art museum have done that anyway?

My reply is not meant to be unsympathetic. I appreciate your moral principles. I'm just making the point that sex and anatomy are pretty different things, and to confuse the two can sometimes result in some pretty screwy standards, which leads into the rant I posted to this thread earlier today.

Regardless, given Ms. Jackson's unconventional use of jewelry, I'm sure you've already seen as much on the covers of supermarket aisle magazines.