Sexy Super Bowl halftime show wasn't liked by Christian fundamentalist

Over on my HinesSight blog I addressed the all-important question of whether last Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show was too sexualized.

Check out my post, "Sexy Super Bowl halftime show by J. Lo and Shakira offends some, but not me." Here's how it starts out:

Call me courageous -- Brian, you're so brave! -- but I've got to take an outspoken stand on yesterday's Super Bowl halftime show featuring Jennifer Lopez, a.k.a. J. Lo, and Shakira.

I am unabashedly in favor of beautiful women wearing as little as possible during a musical performance, and dancing in a sexually provocative manner.

There. I said it.

Let the .000001% of men who disagree with me take me to task, along with the almost equally small percentage of women who believe that female performers should cover themselves demurely on stage, and dance as if a Puritan God was watching.

If you didn't see the halftime show, you're in luck. Here's a video of the whole performance, which my wife and I thought was fantastic. 

However, this morning someone on my Twitter feed shared a tweet by conservative religious nut-job Franklin Graham, with this right-on comment: 

Imagine if your church were less worried about women displaying their sexuality and more worried about your president trying to rape them.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

I don't know but it just didn't seem sexy enough. In fact it seems that both the football game and the half time show were filled with testosterone. Where were the women? Were there women here? At all?

Some of those "moves", rather than conjuring up images of wild sex, were conjuring up images of bodily injury. Ouch!

I get it, you can chop vegetables with your, uhm, equipment. But setting the dial to turbo just makes me a little nervous. It strikes more of an element of, I don't know, fear, I'd say.

And it was so repetitive. I mean, if this is going on and on can they try some variety?

Finally, the most off putting element was that this was just all for show, an act. Just for performance. That is a wet blanket on sexy.

Sexy, to really be sexy, has to have some vulnerability. This was like Pelvises on Parade.

But OK, to each there own. If guys can do it, so can women.

But if everyone is acting all tough and macho, then, well, that's not sexy to me. Where were the women? The really sexy women?

They weren't the ones stomping.

[Sonia]

I don’t get it. That’s exactly the kind of performance most people expect from a Super Bowl half-time show. They just bumped it up several notches this year. It was a stunning show.

I’m not a prude, I’m just kind of bored with sex so I didn’t see it as anything more than an amazing performance.

[s*]

It's sexy dancing..I understand some fun and also letting go of restictions.
But not real beauty no romance,no story no wisdom no beauty..
I am a dancer I would'nt like to dance like this..
It's telling a story about how the world is in this period of time.
Lot about outer apearance and sex.Also a letting go of old restrictions.
But other restictions and ''not done's''are there..
Models are very ''In'' very childish how people's artificial appearences are right now.

The film ''Dirty Dancing''was beautifully Romantic..

[Cousin Zigzag]

Yeah, next year how about waltzing billionaires? For the grand finale they can stone an adulteress to death.

[Dungeness]

@ The film ''Dirty Dancing''was beautifully Romantic..

Wonderful, I agree.

(Heck, I'd rather watch a Bollywood/Mollywood film
than that. At least there's some real dancing.)

[Hillary]

"Imagine if your church were less worried about women displaying their sexuality and more worried about your president trying to rape them."

Eh, Bill is no longer president.

[Georgy Porgy]

Now what is wrong with some curvy ladies wiggling their bits on stage?

Of course pastor Spence dislikes it.

Jesus the world has gone mad.