Having such a Puritan attitude towards the human body is laughable. Why would children be morally ruined by seeing t-shirts like the ones this mother is so angry about?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/in- … 09232.html
Do you think that stores should act when someone with a low threshold for the natural human body is offended by their merchandise which includes these images? Sex sells, as always.
Bah, I don't care about the freak's hurt feelings and over-tight buttocks... however what she's planning to do by returning the shirts and buying them/returning them every 60 days is unethical and will cost the business money because of her neurosis.
Right, the store should not take back the shirts. It's disturbing she would spend $600 on something so stupid. If she was really really serious about her stance, she would destroy the shirts and not return them. The store will just sell them again anyway.
Also, if this mom is so upset by some t-shirts with scantily clad women, she'd faint if she saw what her 19 year old son is probably looking at on the internet
So... she's a freak with a neurosis....says you?
ps. how can you tell the butts are "over-tight", and not just pleasantly firm?
I think the way she is willing to behave shows an attitude that could be validly described by that metaphor.
Um... yes, says me. Are YOU typing someone else's thoughts when YOU post?
I can generally tell when someones buttocks are clenched too tight by sight. For example...
Right, by sight. Like the picture us old folks get when we hear the expression, "...tighter than a bull's ass in fly-time..."
I've heard the expression... I think it's more about being cheap
The expression I was thinking was more along the lines of having a giant pine tree shoved upright through that general area. Something about coal and diamonds too... and the suggestion that she invest in a specific small battery-powered device. In her case, I would suggest something from the Sears Die-Hard line for power.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It definitely has to do with the degree, (and appearance), of closure. You see in normal times a bull's..... but in the heat of summer when the flies are buzzing it is.....
... as for the rest, you lost me at the pine tree. But then again, I am still a bit distracted.
I didn't look at the link, but I will assume it wasn't actually pornographic, and didn't involve any sexual acts?
I don't think there's anything wrong with a child being exposed to the naked human form.
I do think it would be inappropriate for a child to see sexual activity though. Not because there's anything wrong with that, but that they aren't ready for it.
No, it did not involve sexual acts at all, just scantily clad women. That is what upset the mom so much.
I didn't see anything on the shirts that can't be seen on any beach in the country. This woman needs to get a life of her own instead of trying to run everyone else's.
The aren't even naked, more like a skimpy bikini--it's not something I would wear to work but not offensive IMHO
No, I don't support a store that caves in to moralizing individuals. But puritanical prudes aren't the only ones that overreact to graphics of scantily dressed women; feminists often behave the same way. In both cases, they are small minded people that can't find joy unless it involves dictating the choices of others.
Really? Is that a modern values "+," or just an old lech's "hoping for more" endorsement?
... and is the "small mind" endorsement relative to degrees of modern acceptability, or a righteous superiority?
I've found that it's usually women who are pretty hard on the eyes that are usually "morally" outraged by pics of hot women. In fact, it's not moral outrage at all, just jealousy.
Now that IS sexist.
+1 = "they are small minded people that can't find joy unless it involves dictating the choices of others."
hmm... seems like that is a sword that cuts both ways.
How so? Can there be said to be a right to impinge on the rights of others? (To deliberately obstruct selling products to genuine customers to make an actual profit). That seems to stretch the point. At best you could call it a kind of civil disobedience.
You are asking too much of me. You are responding to a response to wilderness concerning his "+" response, but it looks like you intended to respond to another response, and until I can work out which response you are responding to it is difficult for me to correctly respond to your response.
Yes, that's an excellent point. Many feminists see any portrayal of women as actually looking good and sexy as being "sexist". These people only believe in freedom of expression as they see it, meaning they want to curtail the freedom of others to dress as they want.
hmm... I hear the 70s calling, they want their feminist description back. I think you will find a new perspective if you at least move up to the 90s.
Or perhaps you need to meet a few different kinds of feminists. Or be a women who actually likes the "classical" gender roles. See how much crap YOU get.
I like my boobs... a lot. I worked hard for them. I've had women tell me that I was "choosing to be objectified by a male dominated society" (yes, that's an exact quote... from THREE women... it must be on a website somewhere) when I choose to show them off.
There are different types of feminists... denying that the militant anti-choice women must be asexual feminists don't exist is hilarious.
LOL, there are nut cases on the fringes of every generalization. Generally generalizations generate generic impressions - not... OMG! I can't finish. I am stuck in preview mode. Do you realize the gamut of visuals you have provoked by mentioning boobs you have worked so hard for? Help, somebody pinch me!
I'm getting them silk-screened on t-shirts right now. I know where I can sell the lot
This view is still alive and well today, so looking to feminist views from the 90s (whatever that means exactly) is a mute point.
There is nothing quiet about it. Why would you think that?
Oh, I get it, you meant moot. My bad.
So, now anyone objecting to a public display of borderline nudity is now puritanical prude? Gee, I thought it did not rise to the level pf "puritanical" until it as drastic as showing a little bare ankle. My, my, I guess I should get with the times.
"...they are small minded people that can't find joy unless it involves dictating the choices of others..." - hmm... do I hear the kettle whistling?
On what basis should depictions of simple passive nudity be considered obscene? I can't think of any.
Nope, it won't work. You are not going to trick me into a serious response on this thread. Besides, I'm to still busy cataloging the images Melissa spawned.
How can people objecting to borderline nudity NOT be classified as puritanically prude? These pics are no "worse" than ancient Greek and Roman statues of naked men and women or classic nude paintings. And believe me, there are people who are offended by those pieces of art as well. It seems we should all be wearing baggy 90s clothes so the minds of our youth don't get overloaded with lust.
Damn! And all this time I thought I was a fairly liberal thinker.
Now I find out I am a puritanical prude because I don't want my young daughter to see a borderline naked guy, (he has his socks on), sporting a monster erection in Macy's window.
Now where did I put those magnifiers?
I hate to point it out, but that's really kind of your responsibility. It's not the world's responsibility to conform itself so that your daughter isn't exposed to things you don't want her to see.
I know your pain though... I feel the same way about all the religious crap that I have to keep my kids away from.
So there should be no social standards whatsoever to protect the innocent?
From seeing a photograph of a person in a bikini? No.
GA had mentioned a man with an erection wearing only socks. He said he preferred if his daughter was not exposed to that, Melissa said, " It's not the world's responsibility to conform itself so that your daughter isn't exposed to things you don't want her to see."
GA was mentioning a hypothetical exaggerated situation. What Macy's have you ever seen a poster like that in??
Sure, you set them for whatever you find offensive. Then I'll outlaw every cross, Jesus saves sign and anti-abortion billboard. We'll both be happy. The innocent will be protected... and parents don't have to do their job because society will decide what is appropriate rather than the parents.
I guess what you are saying is you find that the different religions of the world being practiced, bothers you as much as (in the case that GA has set up) a young girl being exposed to a man's sexuality/nudity.
I guess I view that differently. I can tell my children about the different religions of the world. I can also prepare them for sex at specific ages. There are many different religious symbols... steeples (the angel Moroni on the top of most Mormon churches), statues (Buddha for ex.), pentagrams and goats heads (for those who worships Satan)... but that doesn't mean they see a human sacrifice.
They see men and women all the time, but to see nudity or sexuality such as erections or ppl fondling themselves, that is letting them *into that world as opposed to simply having knowledge that it exists.
I find it much more damaging for my children to see dead babies and people nailed to a cross, bleeding and dying than seeing a naked male, even with an erection. Yes. I don't understand how you don't.
Isn't it good that no one is making choices for your children except you and no one is making decisions for my children but me? I CERTAINLY would not chose the things you do, and I'm sure you wouldn't chose the things I do.
Indeed, we choose differently.
Edit, and just so you know... I'm not showing my kids any pics of dead babies. If they saw them, I would do my best to shield their eyes, and explain what they'd seen.
Edit X 2:
Ad at the bottom of this screen... girl in bikini... good job google, never a missed opportunity.
I never assumed you were... but taken from an outside view AND having had the wonderful experience of driving past a reinaction of the crucifixion of Christ with a very worried ("Mommy, we have to go back and help them) little girl... I've got to conclude that a male erection is certainly less frightening... Especially since 4 of the 5 of my children experienced them almost from birth with no trauma... and the fifth child is only a few years away from having one explained to her anyway.
We just view it differently. I don't really feel the need to compare one to the other... they both stand alone as separate issues in my mind.
I'm not a prude, as you know, I'm simply cautious when it comes to my kids being exposed to sexuality before what I deem the appropriate time. I do raise them quite innocently and we have open communication so we discuss things without shame.
Like the other day... lol. My 11 year old was singing this song she made up. It went like this: "Don't you hump me, I said, don't you hump me." I just looked at her... I said, "Lily, where did you hear that song?" Surely it was Beyonce's latest. lol. She said, "I made it up." I said, "What does 'hump' mean?" She said like when you go... "humph" cause she'll give me attitude a lot and make that sound. "I laughed and told her that word, "hump" actually has to do with sex and she should probably not use it in her songs. lol... We laughed, she was a little embarrassed, but it was nothing. She's innocent of all that and that's ok... we've had the sex talk, but she doesn't have to see a man posing with (as GA put it) a monster erection. If we don't want kids of 11 years old having sex, why would we expose them to it? It just doesn't make sense to me.
So don't expose your kids to it, was my point. The world does not revolve around your kids though, neither does it revolve around mine. The rest of the world does not have to behave in a certain way so that your children aren't exposed to things you don't like. That's YOUR job to keep them away from it, not the WORLD's job to make sure it doesn't happen.
If I, for example, want to wear a tee-shirt that has a woman in a bikini, I should have to worry about YOUR kids to decide MY wardrobe. In addition, if someone wants to create artwork with a "monster" erection on it and display it, it is not THEIR job to be concerned over YOUR kids. If you don't want your kids to see something, don't take them around it. They are YOUR responsibility, not anyone else's.
So you wont be taking your kids to an abortion rally, I get that. But you can take them to the mall.
Let me ask you this... if an artist drew a picture of a man masturbating and your little girl walked by, you say you would feel no offense. However, if a man were sitting on a bench in the same mall, masturbating... lets even go so far as to say, while looking at your little girl... this is on you cause you took your kid to the mall?
No, that's because the man is mentally ill and has randomly appeared in public. There was no way to know he was going to be there. Not comparable. Sorry.
I don't take my kids to the mall. However, if I did, whatever they saw there would be my responsibility, not everyone else's. It is logical to assume that there will be people there dressed in different ways. There will be advertising there displaying lots of skin. If I walk, for example, into Spencers... there's going to be sex-toys. If I walk into Victoria's secret, there's going to be T and A.
It's called being pro-active and taking responsibility. The mall need not change it's displays because I don't think that my kids should see them. Those same displays were likely there yesterday and likely will be there tomorrow. A masturbating guy on a bench? Not so much.
Now, would I feel offense at a drawing of a man masturbating? (Which, btw is neither a woman in a bikini nor a man with an erection- your examples are getting further and further off point) I might. So what? Lots of things offend me. That's MY problem, not the world's. That artist is free to display whatever the hell he wants. I am free to not walk past it with my daughter. (Or my sons)
I presume you are not a farm family - kids there grow up witnessing sexuality and intercourse. It is, after all, a natural part of life and knowledge/seeing it doesn't seem to damage any of them.
Only those taught it is evil and hidden away are damaged by such pictures or even actions and somehow I don't think it is the pictures doing the damage but the teaching that preceded the terrible "pornography".
I also don't understand how any child with male siblings (especially YOUNGER ones) is not aware of what a penis is in short order. Until the age of... well whatever that age is... they tend to whip those things out indiscriminately. A simple "And that's the difference between boys and girls, Lily" wrapped up that part of the "talk" fairly quickly.
The original topic has to do with women in skimpy clothes on a t - shirt. They are not engaging in sex with any one else or themselves. What you are talking about is porn.
So then what you are talking about is just a matter of degrees, right? The difference between the natural beauty of the human body - and - porn?
You are right. Reminds me of the time my raunchy grandma gave her a homemade Oscar the Grouch puppet toy. I thought it was fine until she put her hand in and a big ol' wanger sprang out of a secret flap. Just another parenting fail I guess.
You ought to sell that on eBay. You'd make enough to buy your daughter the entire Sesame Street gang.
I currently have an anatomically correct cabbage patch doll given to my son by his raunchy grandmother. Parenting fails exist. However, I do feel if my daughter is encouraged to play with small plastic, blond, big-breasted, small waisted barbies that an anatomically correct male cabbage patch doll (or Oscar the Grouch) is the least of our concerns both as parents and as a society
ummm.... Ol' Oscar was far from being anatomically correct, proportionally speaking that is.
Ha! Fooled you. No way I have a serious comment for this thread.
As for Barbie, funny you should mention her.... I just started seeing a new Barbie ad that just makes me shake my head in wonder at what some people think is a good idea.
It is a Barbie set that includes Barbie, her pet doggie, dog treats, a pail, and a pooper scooper. Yup, feed it a few dog treats and her good ol' doggie really poops little plastic turds that Barbie can pick up with her nifty pooper scooper and dump in her handy poop pail.
After the the little kiddie learns treats make poopie - the first time around - aren't they then learning to feed the doggie poop????????
Really? Maybe the packaging has a scratch-n-sniff on it too.
So very wrong. So VERY wrong. The pregnant Barbie (or knock off barbie) was worse though. That really IS teaching very bad lessons on human sexuality and reproduction. The baby just pops out of Barbies stomach (stomach mind you) in one easy painless step.
B**** gets a husband who OBVIOUSLY doesn't need sex (no penis) a dream house, a corvette, a horse ranch AND a baby (apparently fathered by either Oscar or my cabbage patch doll) that just pops out of the STOMACH in two seconds. I want THAT life.
Kids don't need to feed dogs poop, they readily eat it themselves.
What Macys have you seen anything close to something like this in? Now you're just exaggerating trying to make a weak point. Are you sure it was a Macys store you were in and not somewhere else whose name you'd rather not mention, and instead conveniently swap in Macys instead?
PacSun or Macys, boderline naked woman or boderline naked man - do the specifics it make a difference to you?
Yup, You got the "point" part right. I will let y'all decide whether it is weak or not.
The point is you brought up pictures of a physically, sexually aroused person, when the issue at hand was just a semi-clad woman. Not the same thing.
Oops, my fault then. Just a semi-clad women must be OK. I guess I slipped on that slope. But what "semi-clad" qualifies as OK? G-string and pasties? Or does it have to be an officially recognized article of clothing? Like a bra or panties?
Wait, Does your "semi-clad" mean you are defining the standards that are OK?
Yup, still working on making that point.
Semi-clad means not being totally nude, it could be a piece of string, or any of the items you mentioned. Even if the girl on the t-shirt were nude... Who cares? She is just standing there. It could just as we'll be a picture of the Venus Di Milo. Why people who are not puritans would be offended by a simple picture (no, no erections or sexual acts going on, before you bring that up again) of the human body is beyond me, and beyond many people.
"...low threshold for the natural human body ..." by your standards?
Would pictures of masturbation just be a higher threshold, by your standards?
By anybody's rational standards I would think. Nobody mentioned sexual acts on public display here, just semi-nudity. Or does the sight of the naked human body automatically cause uncontrollable lust, by your standards?
you say "anybody's rational standards," yet here you are condemning one of those anybody's.
as for my uncontrollable lust standards... I thought my quandary over Melissa's visuals might have given you a clue.
LMAO, Melissa didn't provide visuals. You did that all on your own
You seem really fixated on those visuals. No,your standards are not rational.
Well, it was her qualifier that did me in. Remember? She said she worked really hard for them, and I can't figure out if she was talking fitness or financial - hence the kaleidoscope of possibilities.
As for my standards, how do you know what they are? My comments have been comments on the thread's comments - not the t-shirt images. Except for the "monster erection" reference I thought my comments were fairly neutral in that regard. Have you been peeking?
Oh such a disappointment for you. My "hard work" was the birth and nourishment of 5 children. I earned my boobs the old-fashioned Italian way... by brooding. Sorry to disappoint.
As an aside, in the process of earning them, I exposed them in public quite often. Had anyone demanded that I remove myself from their presence because of that obscenity, I likely would have sprayed them in the face.
No disappointment. Your quip provided fodder for a string of light-hearted bits. And considering the thread topic, it was content well matched.
As for your public display, so did my wife. albeit with a discreetly placed baby blanket or shawl. And for one last bit before the show closes - she too had a deadly aim.
I am reminded of a nice old minister I used to know, who told the congregation he felt the people with the dirtiest of minds are those that would clean up Michelangelo's "David" with a pair of pants and put a diaper on Da Vinci's nude baby Jesus. I am starting to think maybe the ole pastor was dead on.
I didn't get to see what this was all about. I clicked on it yesterday, but the browser at the library wouldn't open the link so I didn't have much interest in the subject... my response was just to the exchange between GA and Melissa (in case you were referencing me with your comment.)
There are SOME people who find the human body, especially the female human body, to be QUITE OFFENSIVE. These are the people who advocate "modesty" and are starting and instituting the modesty movement in America. They believe that human body to be obscence-such twisted logic, really!
(Shrugs) That's Utah for ya.
Though I do find it odd that this lady got honked off about these t-shirts but apparently has no problem with the Victoria's Secret store in the same mall.
Right, or TV commercials, music videos, magazine covers etc. that children also see on a regular basis.
Or the hideous mutilation, torture and murder so graphically displayed all over the country in churches?
But then I guess sex has always been more evil than violence and killing is to some people.
Very good point.
I looked at the images on the stores website and find that they are art and show less skin than some of the art displaying in galleries.
And yet I suspect on Sunday morning she sits her family in front of an image of a scantly dressed man being tortured.
"...and find that they are art ... Well of course that settles it then. Who could dare be offended by art?
Say, how about that crucifix in a jar of pee, what a masterful example of art. Right?
As a piece of deliberate shock art, it is notable for how well it worked.
If people don't like it, they don't have to look at it, right? Just because some people are offended by something doesn't mean they have a right to march into a store and "demand" that they remove the items they find so offensive. I'm sure her husband and son are having a good time looking at all those t-shirts at home with the "offensive" woman on them.
Do you have the right to call me an idiot? (not implying you did - yet) Does the fact that I think you have a right to do that make you right?
As for her husband and son... Are you Projecting?
The woman didn't just voice her dislike of the shirts, but actually demanded that the store physically remove them from the displays. Sure, she can say what she wants, but she is going too far in trying to get something removed that offends her. She never asked anybody else whether they were offended by the shirts as well.
I don't know... I enjoy sex and violence in equal amounts. Neither is more evil than the other.
I certainly hope your partner isn't crucifying you in the name of fun. Of poking holes in your side, or running you through town with a giant cross and a crown of thorns. A little S&M is one thing, a crucifixion on the front lawn might draw unwanted attention.
Or did you mean just in the movies?
What on Earth makes you think I am the recipient?
I'll keep the sex and violence separate for the moment. Although to be honest, I wasn't completely joking. There's a long history of associating/combining the two and not necessarily to a bad ends. Artwork depicting such a combination is simply a representation of that... If she was offended by a scantily clad woman, she should check out some of Royo's work. She would never leave her house again.
So...we should all put a Royo on a stake in her yard? Keep her out of polite society forever?
Hey, I'm all for that!
There are plenty of T-shirts with his paintings on them (I own a couple)... I suggest we all wear one while we're putting the paintings up. I'm curious of whether she would try to buy them off our backs.
Ha! There you go Frantisex78, there's the new feminist of the 90s.
ps. is that Wilderness at your door Melissa?
OMG! Is that you again Mark? Come on buddy, I would recognize Mark Knowles with one eye closed. You can't fool me.
I keep picturing the scene in Spinal Tap where they're arguing over whether or not their album cover is offensive. I forget how the dialogue goes exactly but it's something like this:
Record Label Lady: "There's a woman on all fours on your album cover and a black glove being shoved in her face? Kmart won't stock your album. They say the cover is sexist and repulsive."
Nigel Tufnel: "What's wrong with bein' sexy?"
Record Label Lady: "Sex-IST! Sex-IST!"
Manager: "You should've seen the cover they WANTED to do. It wasn't a glove, believe me."
You just know sales of these shirts have sky rocketed.
There is a point where I just offended. Like the Gun and Roses T-shirt that showed a badly beaten woman with her underwear pulled down lying in an alley with the graffiti "Guns and Roses was here".
Ew. I would think less of anyone who chose to wear that.
Ah, ye old feminist minefield. I am a feminist that writes erotica. Apparently this makes me a gender traitor, or something. Oy.
I gave up the title of feminist a long time ago. I realized that to be in the group, I needed to think I didn't have the same rights as men and, therefore, had something that I had to fight for. I never felt any need to prove that I had the same rights and capabilities. I laugh at those who think I don't and continue about my business. No protests needed.
I have decided to be a stay at home mom and an obedient wife (don't laugh, I'm serious). I believe there is no higher calling (for me) than to have and raise children. Apparently, that makes me an enemy to many of those poor dejected trod-upon women.
welcome to www.yony.co.uk
I might point out that the goal was to sell these shirts, and the goal has been reached-probably way faster than PacSun expected. At least in that store...lol
Except that she says she will take them all back within the 60 day return period.
Indeed. All she is really doing is creating tedious work for retail workers, and there will be a line of people waiting to buy the "famous" shirts.
You're probably right - some will buy because she said not to, more will buy the "forbidden fruit". So to speak.
Doesn't matter. They have the original quick sale on record, which will look good for them. Overall, no one is gonna really suffer or benefit. Sigh. Silly.
Yep. Just another case of trying to force personal morality onto others. Without regard to the morality of that very action. All too common, unfortunately.
So her efforts were counterproductive because there is press and most likely a lot of young people wanting to have and wear stuff that will bug people like her.
A shame, isn't it? And if she does return them, the store can promptly advertise them and sell out in a few hours, most likely.
The joke's on her. Stores only accept returns if the purchase is made in good faith, or basically if there's no evidence that the purchase was made in bad faith. But here she is all over the news with her real reason for buying the shirts, and her plans to return and re-buy and rinse and repeat. Pretty sure that falls in the category of bad faith.
In fact, deliberately causing the store's employees to do needless work is probably grounds enough to ban her from the premises, on top of not accepting a return.
PacSun should even sue her for libel in her accusation that the pictures are "pornographic."
Ok, thanks Beth.
Melissa, my point was simply that if a pic. of an act is ok, why would the act not be?
If an undressed woman is acceptable for small children to see, why not a undressed man, if an undressed man, why not a man with an erection, if a man with an erection, why not a man masturbating, if a man masturbating, why not a couple having sex? Would I look twice at a monster erection? Very tempting, but I'm grown. I've seen it, I understand what I'm seeing and I have the choice to look away. A child is innocent... a mall is a grouping of stores, it's not downtown Amsterdam. Maybe it's not safe, maybe it should be. Worth a discussion I suppose.
Well, that's kind of like saying the act of kissing in public is the same as the act of having sex in public Beth. Or that swatting a fly is equivalent to stabbing a person to death. It's hyperbole and irrelevant.
But regardless, if you see two people having sex in public, it is YOUR responsibility to keep your children away from it. Especially if those two people are somehow there every day doing it, or it can be reasonably assumed that they might be.
As far as malls being safe places, it's not their place to protect your children from things you might not want them to see. They are responsible for providing for your physical safety (as a man masturbating in on a bench would be a threat to that) but not your emotional/moral safety or that of your children. YOU-in all cases-are responsible for that.
I understand what you're saying. Maybe we differ on the public arena issue, but it would seem to me that unless I am to keep my child locked in doors, I cannot shield them from all things. *I don't pretend that I can.* I am not a person who stands in the middle of the mall screaming my opinions, nor do I take out a page in my local newspaper voicing my feelings concerning children viewing public nudity. This is just a forum conversation, and again, I am just responding to the conversation between GA and Melissa as I was unable to view the first link, and didn't find the story interesting enough to pursue.
Under the guidelines you are using... that I would be responsible for keeping overly sexual ads out of my kid's viewing until they were older... I would simply say that if a mall is fair game for a monster erection, then so is a billboard, and really any public place. Yes, we can lock our children in the basement in order to shelter them from the evils in the world (irony intended) or society could be a little more kid friendly, possibly. If a store showed a pic of a man snorting a line of coke, is that ok too? Does anyone need to draw a line or is propriety a thing of the past?
And wilderness, cows are always naked... you know?
Beth, you are right to think it's not ok for things like that to be in a public place like a mall or a billboard. A line needs to be drawn somewhere of what is appropriate for public viewing.
I think we can all agree that a line must be drawn. The problem is we don't agree on where the line is drawn. That is why I agree with Melissa, that if a parent has a problem with photos of scantily clad women, for example, then it is that parent's responsibility to shield their children from such photos. I agree with Beth that we cannot prevent our children from seeing or experiencing things that would not meet with our approval, but that does not mean that we should expect cultural norms to align with our own personal comfort level. So, where does that leave us? We do our best to instill the ethics, strength of character, and ability to reason that will allow our children to navigate situations that deviate from what we would consider okay. That is all we can do.
I'm not trying to be rude Beth, I'm really not but if you chose to protect your kids from it, you could. Your priorities just lie elsewhere. That's your call, your decisions are your decisions, but let's be clear they are YOUR decisions.
No basement required, just a commitment to take responsibility for yourself and your parenting.
I'm not looking down my nose either nor judging. You do what you have to do. But saying that it's not possible (especially when it obviously is) and then expecting society to cater to what you think it should be is shirking responsibility. Society didn't push your kids out, you did. Society isn't responsible for raising them.
Ok... good enough. I've shared my opinion on your convo with GA and you are content to imagine that you know anything about me as a parent or what I would or would not demand of society. I s'pose we're good then.
They're missing the point that it IS the responsibility of society to protect our children (which includes keeping our public spaces free from sexual influence) if we want a decent society.
Otherwise...what's the point?
If you mean protecting our children from harm, I'm with you.
If you mean "protecting" our children from anything you personally deem to be indecent, I'll fight to the death to prevent it.
Can you show harm to children from viewing such T-shirts?
Society didn't get me pregnant, nor did it birth my children. You may think it's society's job to raise your child, however, I feel that the people who actually produced the child have that responsibility. Otherwise, what's the point of having kids? Just so everyone else can take responsibility for parenting them?
Doesn't seem very responsible to me.
Edit: My children aren't "our" children unless you happen to have impregnated me. Since I'm fairly certain you didn't... make sure you know that "our" children are a figment of your imagination.
That illustrates the root of the problem with society, I believe.
Butting in here to say I don't think she ever stated or implied it is society's job to raise her children. However, "society" usually does take a stand on important issues related to the safety and nurturing of children. She is a member of society and as such can stated what she considers important for safety. That does not mean she thinks society should raise her children. That's an extreme characterization, don't you think?
Partially. I gathered that the "porno" should be removed - pictures that have nothing to do with safety of children. Only with a morality call by Beth that she would like society to support and enforce.
Let's not speak for me Wilderness. It would be nice if society cared about innocent eyes, yes, I do feel that way. You fight to the death so that my daughter wont have to miss out on any monster erections and I will just stay home a little more. Problem solved for every one. No need to blow things out of proportion any more than they are.
Agreed - there is no need to blow things up far beyond what a picture of something seen on every beach is.
But without the gross exaggeration, it becomes what it was in the first place; the morality police trying to get society to enforce their concept of right and wrong. Which is all I said, except that you are on the side of the original woman instead of "Do unto others as you would they do unto you".
Like I said, she has her idea of what constitutes harm to children, and has a right to state it. While I don't agree with it or feel that we (society) should cater to it, that doesn't mean she expects society to raise her children.
A difference in terminology, I suspect. I would definitely say that if she can get society to forbid harmless pictures (and if they are not harmless, let her show that) to "protect" her children then she is asking society to at least help raise her children as she thinks ought to be done. And that applies not only to the woman in the article but to posters here that agree with her. She may not expect a positive result, but is surely trying for one.
I get what she's saying, I just think it's destructive. I could write pages on why, giving examples, but it all boils down to when something is considered the responsibility of a group, then there is an erosion of personal responsibility. I think that's why we are seeing things like school shootings. Parents really are trusting society to teach and raise their children. (And, as a side note, getting pissed off- like in this case- when society doesn't do it to their liking)
I get what you're saying, too. I just think your characterization of her was unjustified.
I didn't make characterizations of her. I made characterizations of what she said her expectations and actions were.
They were fair, in at least as far as I consider most parents in American Society the same way. The difference being, if they want to send their children to be herded into socialized classrooms led by people they don't know, give them access to the internet without watching them, and send them out without personal supervision, then it's THEIR fault when bad things happen to their kids. They made the choice to hand their kids over to whoever was convenient.
That being said, it's completely up to them to do such. It's their choice. I don't expect society to force them to be actual parents. I don't expect society to police morality. I just think it's funny that others do citing "our children" because they are too lazy to do the work to protect their own children from it themselves.
Nothing personal against Beth. She just happened to be the one arguing in favor of the process. I gave my general opinion, and she took it personal.
I wont point out the personal remarks if you don't remember them.
Say, how many times do you have to click "unfollow" before you stop getting notifications? It's a bit confounding.
Once again Beth, you took general statements personally. There is such a thing as a universal you. I don't care about you enough to attack you personally and if I did, trust me there would be no doubt that it was a personal attack.
Ah well, I disagree with pretty much everything you said here. I take responsibility for my children, but I also have certain minimal expectations of the culture, neighborhood, society, whatever you want to call it, with regard to my children's existence within it. That doesn't mean that I am not continually monitoring those expectations, as a good parent should, and it doesn't mean I am abdicating responsibility to society in general or anyone else in particular.
Does "minimal expectations" include what a businessman can put in their show window? Does it include pictures of people clothed in an acceptable manner not being allowed?
If so, does it include an acceptance that you and your children need to dress "properly", as the Amish or Shakers do?
She probably wasn't referring to full on Amish garb as much as not going in public in her underwear... though the monster erection part was probably not an issue.
You missed the point; if she finds it OK to force her morality on others then it must mean it is OK for others to force their morality on her. As in being forced to dress in Amish style.
No, I have none of those expectations. Other people undoubtedly do. An example of an expectation of mine would be background checks for teachers that disallow pedophiles working with children in schools, probably something most people would agree with. The only reason I entered the discussion was to say that just because someone has an expectation, even if it is unreasonable in your view, it does not mean they expect society to raise their children. I understand Melissa's perspective, but I don't agree with it.
And like you I fall somewhere in the middle; those checks sound quite reasonable to me. Of course, they are designed to prevent actual harm, too, not to promote a specific morality code.
Yeh! I get to do a +1 just like Wilderness. (I always wanted to do a +1)
And it's fine that you disagree. That's why you make decisions for your kids and I make decisions for mine. Now, as long as no one attempts to take that choice away from me (by forcing their standards of what a child should be exposed to or not) then I will refrain from trying to force my view on anyone else.
The foundation that we "must protect OUR kids from *insert whatever you don't agree with here* has been used for everything from segregation to denial of gay rights. I don't like it in any form. My answer will ALWAYS be the same. That's the parents job.
And in my opinion if the parents don't like the way society protects their children then they are welcome to move to one they do agree with.
Absolutely! Like I said, all the responsibility on the parent. Even the choice of where to live. All problems that come from that choice should be laid directly at the parent's feet. But blaming others is so much easier.
Well, yes. It's not only easier, and more self satisfying, to blame someone else for your failures, it also means that Mom and Dad don't have to do the work to raise the kids. They can work long hours on two jobs, giving more money for baby sitting services when they want to play.
And generally tell you they "have to" to "make ends meet". Still, it is a choice. Most of the time it works out ok, sometimes it doesn't. Yet when it doesn't they blame everyone but themselves. No one ever learns everything because no one ever takes responsibility.
The comment earlier about pedophile checks. That's awesome, and I agree. However if you send your child to that school you are still aware you are taking a risk that your child will be molested... you admit that in the first place by demanding screenings. You feel comfortable REDUCING the risk, but you don't eliminate it. It is just lowered to an acceptable level... You have determined that the risk of your child being molested is worth the free baby-sitting and the free education. Now, it sucks hearing that, but there it is. To deny it would be to ignore every news story where someone else's kid was molested because their parents made the same risk assessment and the kid came up on the wrong side of the odds.
Again universal you not specific.
Last is first - My kids a grown and gone, so can't be about me.
Have you considered that we are protecting our children too much? Not from pedophiles, obviously (that would be impossible) but from the more minor hurts and pains of life? Kids NEED to be hurt, as badly as it hurts us, or they don't learn. IMO we have crossed an invisible line here, and are hurting our kids by being over-protective. A piece of porno, glanced at and left behind, cannot possibly hurt anyone, yet here sits this thread and it isn't even porno! Our kids need to see life, not the sanitized version we offer them any more.
Making ends meet - would it surprise you to find that working couples have a much higher incidence of bankruptcy than couples with but one wage earner? It's true - nearly everyone lives to their maximum ability and two workers means double the risk of one being laid off or made unable to work. If only one works, the other can pick up the load, but not of the couple depends on both incomes.
Because it is very seldom about "making ends meet", it is about buying more toys. It's about getting the kid into dance class, or soccer. It's about a big vacation. It's about a lot of things but not actually raising a family, so when it fails somebody has to take the blame for the parents failure.
I absolutely agree with everything you are saying. (I added the universal you part to be snotty, as I know you knew it wasn't about you personally, yet others don't seem to have that same knowledge)
I kind of agree with EncephaloiDead in that you should be able to have the conversation-even the ones that make you feel icky- and be honest with children. You should be able to prepare your child before they are exposed to things and -slight disagreement- you should protect them until they are developmentally able to cope with the information and make good choices.
As far as protecting and keeping from getting hurt, I'm HUGE on natural consequences. I explain to understanding that if my kids do "A" then "B" is going to happen. Unless "B" is likely to kill them or maim them permanently, I let them go ahead and do it if they feel the need to find out on their own.
I agree about the bankruptcy and I agree about working two jobs to have toys not to provide basics. In addition, even if both parents must work (I've never seen it, but it might happen) there are still alternatives to letting other people raise their kids. They just find that free babysitting so attractive... and easy.
Exactly, we can only agree with everything Beth says or else it's a personal attack against her.
Please define "decent" society? Our society is prude and becomes outraged concerning sex, yet seems to be totally fine with gratuitous violence. Which is a more dangerous influence??
Why do we always have to choose one or the other?
As far as that argument goes, I would say it would be less likely that my kids would be pursued by spies than by the opposite sex... but other families might have different challenges. Who knows.
Because being upset by seeing a woman in a bikini cannot be anything but prudish, wouldn't you say? And please don't bring up the "monster erection" card again that you and GA seem to be so fixated on, which was not the point of this post in the first place. Sure, anything can be taken to extremes, but the point here was with the actual t-shirt images that this woman was upset about.
I don't know anything about your parenting except what you say here. Nor do I know anything about what you want of society... except what you say here.
Why is it every time someone debates a matter with you, you go personal? I have never brought up your personal life... never. I don't feel the need. The debate itself is the only pertinent matter. As far as keeping my kids innocence protected, I agree with you 100%. It is my job, it is not society's job. That's why I do keep them safe. My kids are so well loved and protected, not that any mom could shield her kids from every evil the world throws at them, but I've done a very good job. If you knew my kids personally, you would know that. But you don't. You don't know them, you don't know me. My point was that society should be kid friendly, in public places. That was my entire point! lol If that garnered personal insult from you... so be it, but I will do my best not to return the serve.
*Sighs* I could just as easily ask why you take every conversation personally. If you took offense, cope. That's your problem not mine. If you think there was a personal insult, report it. Your feelings are not my responsibility. It was your choice to throw your personal experiences in there... or else I wouldn't have anything to comment on.
Maybe you shouldn't share so much, eh?
Yep - cows are always naked. Perhaps we should ban farms, or at least children within a mile of such evil nakedness?
But if you thought a cow's nakedness was the point of mentioning farm children's learning curve on sexuality and reproduction, and the harm it doesn't do, you are mistaken.
Why anyone would want to shield their children from the world or lock them in the basement "from the evils of the world" () is staggeringly ridiculous, they learn nothing about the world around them. The idea is to educate them, to explain things to them, even if they're too young to understand the explanations, which means they're probably too young to understand what's on those t-shirts in the first place.
So, you're walking down the street and you both see a man snorting a line of coke. Explain that to your kids. Don't go on about Satan or any biblical garbage, explain to them the reality of what is happening.
Not being able to communicate these things to your children shows a lot more about yourself than anything else.
Here's the thing... Im not even going there with you. I could say Mother Theresa was a good person and you would tell me why she was horrible. (I know that b/c it happened.) I could say fire is hot and you would tell me why I needed to read up on the matter before posting. I could say "I like mangoes." and you would say I was lying. So to be honest, I'm not even going to read what you wrote. I will just assume, you insulted me, called me a liar and disagree with any and every thing I said... we'll call it a day.
No, that is not honest, quite the contrary. I did no such thing.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to have such a closed mind.
So then you:
2) call me dishonest
3) and say I have a closed mind...
I guess I had you all wrong. My bad.
Yes, you were wrong, you said this:
"I will just assume, you insulted me, called me a liar"
Disagreeing with you has nothing to do with you personally, but for some reason, you still don't understand that.
Insulted me: saying I have a closed mind.
Called me a liar: saying that I post dishonest things.
Disagreed with me: "You were wrong."
Is this a game? I never really know for sure. You do see the similarities between what I said and what you posted, right?
You said you had no intention of reading my post, that would be a closed mind.
You said I called you a liar in that post, the one you claimed you never read, that would be dishonest because I never called you a liar, but you never read the post.
I never said you were wrong in the post that you claimed to not have read. Disagreeing with your ideas and beliefs has nothing to do with you personally. That is what a discussion and debate are all about.
I really need to learn how to do that whole reply box thing.
You have totally mastered it.
It's simple html, click the "formatting" button below and it will show you how to do it.
I think I may actually have a little tear in my eye. That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me and it had a smiley face that wasn't even facetious. I am quite touched. Thanks, I will look at it.
You should really understand, Beth, that no one here is here to attack you personally. However, if you make remarks that are not true in any way, you will probably get called out on it. Don't be offended by that, just own up to it and correct the remark. That is all it takes to being honest here. No big woop.
*might as well toss in a shameless plug as compensation
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger threat of being shot by some maniac in a mall than of someone becoming a rabid sex fiend from seeing risqué ads.
Now who is exaggerating? Where was it ever stated that that was a concern?
Yes, I figured GA was exaggerating, as I have been in a mall once or twice in my lifetime. What I didn't agree with was the exchange (when given that particular example) that *we the consumers were somehow at fault if our kids were exposed to overly sexual ads and we should basically just stay home... 'cause yeah, I can do that... and if I had any money, I'd keep that at home with me too.
However, I never go to the mall... I hate the mall, though my 11 year old and all her friends begged me to take them to the mall for her bday. The girls *loved it! (I endured it.) There were comments like, "This is the first time I've ever been to the mall without my mom." (Never mind, I was a mom and I was standing 3 feet behind her.) They want to go again next year. They like the soap and the jewelry and the sparkly stuff.
For the next decade, there are going to be a lot of boys who want to take their pants off with those little girls... I wouldn't mind it if they could all hold on to their innocence as long as possible. That's not a "conservative Christian" view, it's not a "republican" view, it's not even an "over-protective mom" view... who of us doesn't know how soon and how hard it will hit? Is it gonna kill anyone to keep their pants on in a public place? Oh well... whatever... it's just an opinion.
Again, my apologies for missing the beginning and focusing on the erection. lol... GA is right, it's difficult to be completely serious on this thread.
OK, I admit the mall is not the best place in the world, but seeing as American cities and towns are basically devoid of pleasant walkable town centers where people would be able to come together to socialize, they are forced to go to malls. Given this, there is really nothing wrong with kids going to malls, even though they might be exposed to bikini clad women and pics of guys with rippling abs at Abercrombie & Fitch. I don't think that will ruin the mental health or children.
Interesting, the typical evangelical Christian, wanting everyone else to believe as they do, to behave as they do and to change the world to revolve around their narrow minded views.
Here in America, it's actually seems to be about right in the middle where most everyone has a clear idea of a norm that is acceptable to most people, yet starting to veer to BOTH the sides of too prudish (suspending a six year old for kissing another kid) and too sexualized (too much out there on the Internet and TV where it's getting hard for parents to control how much their children are exposed to).
It is extremely simply to limit what kids see on the net and on TV. Cancel the cable, cancel the ISP. If you don't want to do one or the other, learn how to limit it via programming.
Or... and this might be a funny concept, but bear with me... WATCH YOUR* CHILD. Be present while they are watching tv or walking down streets or surfing the net. If you can't directly supervise them, know who IS supervising them and make it clear that you expect them to actually supervise them... not send them off to play on the computer or watch tv to get them out of their hair.
I see too much "Well we can't watch them every second" my answer is "Then why the hell did you have them?" Sorry to say, but once you pop one out, that child is your job. Everything else should be secondary. Expecting everyone else to keep them safe and raise them is neglect and laziness and a HUGE indication of screwed up priorities.
/end soapbox rant
*you/your being universal, certainly not specific to you Wilderness.
Europeans have a much more open attitude to sexuality and sex than the US. Ads, tv, magazines etc. all show a lot more nudity and sex, so it is not a taboo subject. Despite this, European children don't grow up to be lustful uncontrolled sex maniacs. Europeans have a much more open and natural attitude to sexuality, thus a more healthy one.
How do you define too much sex out there on the internet and TV? Sure it's there, that's life. But what's too much? Even if you block these sites and channels at home, kids are bound to show each other these things out of curiosity.
I think that the issue of sexuality is one of the few things that the American society has gotten right. Consenting adults can do what they please. At the same time, there are laws in place to keep children from too much exposure before they are ready to understand it, laws are in place to keep pedophiles at bay, while at the same time are taught basic sex education in school so they can learn how to protect themselves from disease etc. as well as have a basic understanding of procreation.
I think the system is a pretty good one.
by Augustine A Zavala 11 years ago
Has anyone seen weird ads posted on their hubs?I keep seeing ads for interracial dating. They feature a black man and white woman. I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to be dating.
by igotinked 6 years ago
Is it possible that bisexual man become a straight guy in the end?
by David Livermore 2 years ago
Except for maintaining some articles, I have taken a break from HubPages the last couple of years. A month ago I came back with a vengeance by writing one article a week. That's my goal for as long as I can maintain it, as long as I have relevant topics to discuss.The question I have...
by cjhunsinger 8 years ago
As the un-believers would have us believe, Man was created, specifically, by a form of deity for the purposes of testing. In this creation Man, being an inferior life form, would be subjected to a hostile world without an instruction manual, but no matter, Man could not read or write anyway. In...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|