Dear Editor, I too like many Americans found the "accidental" showing of Janet Jackson's breast on the Super Bowl halftime show tasteless. However, Jackson's breast exposure is not what was offensive. The forum and manner in which the breast was revealed is what is offensive. Jackson's blouse didn't just pop open. It was "ripped" open by Justin Timberlake. What were Jackson and Timberlake thinking when they planned this display? What are we thinking about when we keep focusing on Jackson's breast and not on the action that led to the breast being exposed? Have we become a society that glorifies this type of violent behavior toward women? We are much more offended that a woman's breast is viewed by millions of Americans. However, no one is offended that a man tore open a woman's blouse. Is it OK for a man to rip open a woman's blouse, just as long as the breast doesn't fall out? The FCC should be more concerned with the action that led to the nudity. Jackson and Timberlake both took part in this show and they should be held "equally" accountable. If Jackson is banned from the Grammys as punishment, it is only fair that Timberlake be banned as well. If it is found that CBS, MTV, and the NFL knew that Timberlake was going to rip open a woman's blouse, they too should be held accountable. The lyrics "gotta have you naked by the end of this song" might have given them a clue. Nudity in and of itself is not tasteless or offensive. The time, place, and manner in which the nudity occurs are the factors that ought to be taken into consideration to determine whether a particular exposure of nudity is restricted. Jackson's breast standing alone was not offensive. The time, place, and manner in which millions of people were able to view her breast was.