A Lingerie Line For Little Girls?
by WrathofG-d ( 247 Comments › )
Filed under World at February 3rd, 2010 - 4:00 pm
I wish I could be more eloquent regarding this issue, but all I can say is: what the _____!
Miley Cyrus’ 9-year-old sister launching a lingerie line for kids
The company’s website describes The Emily Grace Collection as having a “trendy, sweet, yet edgy feel, reminiscent of Emily’s true personality. She is collaborating with Ooh! La, La! Couture designers to create versatile styles that can be worn with sweet ballerina slippers, funky sneakers or paired with lace stockings and boots for more of a rock and roll look. Emily’s collection will appeal not just to little girls – the line also has an exclusive Teen Collection available to a size 14.”
{The Article}
Ok, so it all sounds so innocent, right? Well, go here and here for some pictures and video of the “trendy, sweet, yet edgy feel” child lingerie that could be gracing our children in the future. For numerous reasons I won’t be posting them here.
(Don’t forget to vote in the Blogmocracy Awards! One vote per award, per day~ Voting ends Feb. 5)
► Hot Links
Tags: Child Lingerie, Noah Cyrus, Social Conversation
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 at 16:00 and is filed under World.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.
Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.
Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.
We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.
Play nice!
Mothers…..don’t let your daughters grow up to be……..whores!
I didn’t go there, won’t go there, and won’t get any for anyone that I know!! Really creepy
Ot really early but a thread this creepy needs to go OT very soon. Just read this on another site and laughed so hard I thought I was going to lose it!!
“14.9 million unemployed Americans now. WOW! That’s alot of new Blogs to look at!”
Um, no. Trendy and Edgy are giant warning signals. If my daughter is never described as either I’ll be happy about that.
Related:
Ace’s take on Abstinence being more helpful than sex promoting education is worth reading.
Oh Wrath dont get your bowels in an uproar. There are far more important things to be worried about.
@ WrathofG-d:
This is disturbing.
@ SciFiGuy:
Remember when the left mocked parents for showing concern over Bratz dolls – exclaiming that there is not effect on children by these things, and that any concern is exaggeration?
The Left’s largest fault is that they are willfully blind to the damage their policies ACTUALLY cause. Sure, a “right-wing, Conservative, Religious-Right” lambasting the immorality might FEEL uncomfortable and more harmful to society, but the reality of the immoral slide this country has taken tells a different story about liberal values.
Speranza wrote:
umm… sarc, right?
Rodan wrote:
I nearly fell out of my chair when I read it. What in the world is wrong with our Country?
The fact that anyone would think this was appropriate frightens me.
Just another sign that We The People are NOT doing our job as parents.
Uh…. one of the links showed this 9 year old and her friends all clamped onto a stripper pole.
Child Molesters worldwide just got a stiffy and anyone ‘ok’ with this needs serious help.
9 year old girls should NOT be acting/dressing like a slutty college girl.
@ WrathofG-d:
Or enough liberal idjits for a niche market, anyway.
@ WrathofG-d:
Don’t think that it is Willfully BLIND, I think that it is just WILLFULL promotion of it and to justify their own weakness and faults.
Pedophiles drooling all over their screens.
What the fuck happened to Billy Ray has he lost his mind.
sick, sick, sick shit.
SciFiGuy wrote:
Fair enough, and good point – its really that the insane are running the asylum.
We are letting the most immoral dictate morality.
Little girls do NOT need a “trendy, sweet, yet edgy” feel to their underwear.
This is sick. This description is really inappropriate. ” edgy” WTF does that even mean?
Little girls need to be left alone to grow up at their own pace.
What happened to cotton knit with prints of flowers, cuddly puppies and kitties, birdies, stars etc.?
The thong is ended, but the malady lingeries on.
@ chickadee:
Has my husband been revealing the contents of my undies drawer on here?
@ WrathofG-d:
This just sickens me. We are turning little girls into sex objects. This is just sick. No wonder Progressives love Islam, they both support Pedophilia!
This just makes me upset.
@ WrathofG-d:
Our society is worse off for it.
When I found it, I felt that this article was quite appropriate.
Teaching your children the fine line between needs and wants.
vagabond trader wrote:
LOL, that’s what I still wear too.
But but but, the designers are donating to a good cause, so its all good.///
Don’t these idiots remember Jon Benet Ramsey?
@ chickadee:
it makes you wonder about the motives of those who would support such clothing.
People like to look at women who dress slutty out of feelings of lust.
Why would anyone support allowing little children to wear slutty clothing that would induce lustful looks from others?
One unintended consequence of sexualizing our kids is uniforms are making a comeback in schools.
@ chickadee:
I don’t get all the itchy polyester frills and thongs. Blecch. Gynos make a fortune out of airtight undies.
vagabond trader wrote:
It is just a money making scheme at the expense of children’s safety and well being.
That is really horrifying. Imagine how confusing this is to 8 year olds who still want to play with their dolls.
@ chickadee:
I question their intentions and do believe there is a perverse kind of projection going on here.
LanceKates wrote:
Parasites who want to make money on these kids and stupid parents who don’t see the harm or danger.
Rodan wrote:
Exactly!
Here comes the controvesial statement….
and it is things like this that make me even more a fan of extra restrictions on behavior to ensure that one does not transgress the actual sin.
meaning this is exactly why a man should not even LOOK at a woman other than his wife (especially if she is sexy), and why a woman should not be in a room alone with a man unless they are married.
We like to say we can control ourselves, and these types of restrictions are crazy, but the reality is, when we are being truly honest with ourselves – that we cannot!
If we could, society wouldn’t have the issues we do
@ vagabond trader:
Is this in response to the sexualizing of children in an attempt to stop it?
I think mandating uniforms in schools is a great idea, even if the uniforms are fairly simple in design (such as matching sweaters and solid color skirts for girls, etc.)
It is almost impossible to find plain, ordinary, comfortable underwear any more.
It may be possible to find plain men’s cotton briefs which are not designed to put the package on parade, but plain all-cotton boxers which are not low-cut, or side-slit, and which have a cotton-covered waistband, require a search almost akin to the Holy Grail.
I see what my girlfriend goes through in order to find plain undergarments which are, again, all cotton, and not designed with whorishness uppermost in mind.
Don’t get me wrong; there’s no reason why people can’t have all the silly “sexiness” they want. I’m just annoyed that the other option is virtually unobtainable.
@ WrathofG-d:
Snius is a tough sell these days.
@ Eliana:
What I’ve heard, it is in response to the competetive nature of fashion and kids but controlling immodest attire has also been a factor.
@ chickadee:
Only marginally higher than the child molesters that prey upon them.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Sorry to laugh but LOL. That comment is such a 180 from what you usually post. I know the horrors of buying mens undies…for the men in my house of course. Chick undies are just as bad. Everything rides up your…….
NoThreat2U wrote:
I had no idea I had a reputation for racy, revealing posts!
@ buzzsawmonkey:
lol, same here. Tell your lady to check TJ Maxx if you have one convenient. Just bought some nice comfy stylishly modest St Eves all cottons.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Its a horribly tough sell, but only because we are addicted to failure. That doesn’t mean its not right. Sodom & Gomorrah come to mind as an example.
We like to tell ourselves (a) that these things “just happen”, and (b) we can control ourselves.
However that just aint true. (1) Nothing within our own choices “just happpen”. when one honestly looks at themselves we really can’t control ourselves (or at least we can use as much help as we can get)
btw: snius means “modesty”
@ WrathofG-d:
I’m surprised someone hasn’t come out with a line of slutty clothing called “Gomorrah Girl™.”
Sadly, I bet it would sell.
@ WrathofG-d:
What??? My husband and I married for 21 years have never cheated on each other and never will. Its called trust, mature self control and mutual respect.We are also allowed to look.
I saw that article earlier today and thought the same notion as many here, who is going to find this a sexy turn on? Grown men, certainly not 9 year old boys. And really, if parents are encouraging young boys to find little girl slutiness a good thing, well, good luck when their men. Really disturbing and sad. Why would parents think its cool for a child to look and feel sexy? Yes, they are inviting a world of trouble from sick men and training the children that being a sex object is a good thing. How sad.
I am very glad I only have sons. Sick
teacake wrote:
well today’s society sure isn’t teaching kids to use their minds….. all that’s left IS to use their body.
pity it enslaves their soul.
vagabond trader wrote:
I never stated that everyone who looks will cheat. What I am saying however is that if you NEVER look you will NEVER cheat.
I don’t want to get stuck in the morass of the “i’m not that way” (taking it personal) or the “I know this one guy” (using the exception to prove the rule) arguments.
The reality is that over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and other horrible personality/moral traits are rampant.
I’d love to know how one who cannot be in a room alone with the opposite sex could end up cheating on their spouse.
What most people, especially liberals, need to learn is that Liberty/freedom doesn’t mean doing everything you want, but being able to.
Where is the National Organization for Women on this? Whay aren’t they screaming from the rooftops about the objectification of little girls?
Oh, I forgot. They’re busy doing the dishes or washing their hair I suppose. The harpies only come out if it’s an identifiably conservative target.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yea, I know. I just don’t bother anymore.
The notion that you can have an anything-goes, hyper-sexualized culture for “consenting adults” and keep it isolated from children has turned out to be manifest hooey.
ewwwwwwwwwwwww
WrathofG-d wrote:
You shouldn’t project your character on others.
@ wolfie:
Indeed.
LGoPs wrote:
Men making women into sex objects is terrible, and men must be excoriated for doing this.
Women making themselves, or other women, into sex objects is noble and empowering, and must be encouraged.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
i thought you said gonorhea girl
vagabond trader @ 26:
Could come handy after a meal of hot chili.
wolfie wrote:
Forget merely “keeping it isolated from children.”
The anything-goes, hyper-sexualized culture for consenting adults has left the landscape strewn with emotional wreckage and battered hulks in the form of ostensible grownups who remain perennial adolescents or who have been irreparably damaged by mistaking license for freedom.
phoenixgirl wrote:
That would probably sell, too.
@ WrathofG-d:
I’m afraid that barn was emptied at least four decades ago and the old horse ain’t returning anytime soon.
@ Beltfed:
lol, you’re baaaad tonite Beltfed.
phoenixgirl wrote:
And I thought you were being a little sheepish when you said ewwwwwww
@ Poteen:
LOL.Commando, eh?
Billy Ray Cyrus should be shot at sunset.
(That was metaphorical, stalkers. A figure of speech.)
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
The jetsam and flotsam of the ’60′s culture. They should be called “the most destructive generation”.
“…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
/but that is sooooooooo judgmental!
@ vagabond trader:
Actions have consequences. I wonder if folks who feel otherwise would prove their beliefs by violating certain laws of physics…. like leaping off a cliff.
Well what can we expect when we start teaching sex ed to kindergartners.
I bet our new school safety czar is really OK with the fashion line too.
But I find it really sexist – where is the little boys line of “edgy underwear.”
And so cruel to give nothing to the pedophiles who like little boys.
They will probably sue for equality.
@ LanceKates:
Lance, I know plenty of my own generation who have leapt off that cliff and don’t even know it. Too bad they have also taken their kids with them.
@ Rodan:
Check your email
@ vagabond trader:
problem is, they may not even realize it when they have that sudden stop at the bottom.
Guggi wrote:
I’m not sure if that was a joke or not, but …
Um, I used larger society to prove my point, I wasn’t only speaking of myself. (I too am human)
I guess I’m also not here to convince people of the reality of the situation if they don’t wish to see it or simply disagree. I know it is true.
LGoPs wrote:
It ain’t just the ’60s generation.
The notion that you can and should “have it all” (whatever that means this week) encourages promiscuity. It is instructive to look at a few movies from, say, the ’30s (many of which are still pretty racy) and see how thoroughly held the presumption was that despite flirtation you held out for the marriage and did not mess around even—especially—if the opportunity presented itself.
That attitude was beaten to death in the late ’60s. Well, what does that mean? It means that everyone is continually shopping for something better, or for the next thrill, and that if you don’t you’re a sap. The idea commonly expressed in popular entertainment of the up to recent past that a woman should respect herself not to give in and a man should be ashamed of himself for trying is nowhere to be seen in today’s films and TV shows, where the surprise, if any, is that the hero and heroine haven’t made it into the sack before the second reel.
You get used to roaming, and it’s hard to settle down; hard to choose to do it, and hard to stick to it—because staying settled down is work, and roaming gives you the jollies without the work. That makes for late and lousy marriages, it makes for children born later (and fewer of them); it makes for a lot of things that subtly change society not for the better.
And it’s not just the ’60s generation that experienced this; these things are the common coin of society today.
@ WrathofG-d:
You should feel right at home in Iran. Hey Dude, this is a secular country and if you are not happy with that, there are plenty of theocracies out there. Married people are still normal people and will look at others and if they cheat, that is between them and their spouses and none of your and mine beeswax.
Speranza wrote:
so you support 9 year old girls wearing mini skirts and posing at stripper poles…. is that it?
What does that say about you?
@ phoenixgirl:
I am still laughing, you made my day, my eyes are wattery, can hardly see what I typing.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Yeah, there’s always some extra frill, like explosives or something.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I have watched my oldest (longest standing) moonbat friend become a cultural conservative over the last two decades as she left the ivory tower of teaching/research to practice clinical psychology. She has come to see that “sexual liberation” has been devastating to both individuals and society.
Speranza wrote:
Getting a little harsh there.
Wrath is talking about a social attitude, not something legally compelled—and the idea that while we all fall short of an ideal, that makes it necessary to have the goal fallen short of be more stringent than not.
@ Speranza:
I replied and emailed Grimcargo.
@ PENDAJO:
I like that name!
WrathofG-d wrote:
Really?
This makes us sound like animals unable to control our basest instincts. I spend time with alone with women and my wife spends time alone with men, it’s something of a necessity these days and I don’t feel the need to have her chaperoned when she meets with a co-worker. I also let her wear what she wants and talk to who she likes, male or female.
I’m funny like that. I actually trust her and if, for some reason, she should stray I expect that it would have far more to do with her dissatisfaction in our relationship than suddenly being overwhelmed by uncontrollable lust. For myself, I am entirely capable of keeping my pants zipped.
As far as looking goes… any man who tells you he doesn’t look is either gay (and looking at the same men you are) or lying.
I’m just glad the Village People didn’t merchandise an underwear line back in their heyday.
@ fultonchain:
Going to Miami for the Superbowl!
vagabond trader wrote:
You might be okay with that attitude. My home will be one where the barn… er… is closed? Okay, not sure how to make the analogy work, but
You don’t have to let the culture dictate your values or how you raise your children.
Totally OT, where do you go on the profile page to turn your nic live?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Fortunately for me, Hanes makes women’s plain white cotton briefs. Comfortable, modest, and inexpensive.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
That would be a good advertising campaign for condoms. “Watch out for Gonorrhea Girl”. Show a picture of Paris Hilton or something.
LanceKates wrote:
Jeezus Louizas I was talking about Wrath’s attempts to regulate married peoples behavior through his ultra Orthodox personal beliefs. Get a grip.
@ Nikis Knight:
Didn’t say I was “OK” with whatever you think my attitude is.I was addressing the attitude of liberals as stated by Wrath. I know that species all to well. What others do or don’t do with their kids isn’t my problem, just stay off my property.
Speranza wrote:
I have to disagree. That cheating causes divorce, hurts the children, diminishes income so it harder to give the children a stable home and good education. Kids have to accept an array of substitute parents. Businesses and homes are lost. Careers ruined.
I don’t trust anyone who cheats on their spouse.
Rodan wrote:
Good because I have been calling and texting and emailing admins and everyone has their fingers in their ears.
@ Speranza:
He didn’t try to REGULATE a damn thing. You just don’t like that he suggests morality in a relationship.
Are you suggesting that he shouldn’t be allowed to put forth his beliefs?
you say Orthodox like it is a bad thing to have strong moral roots.
Now back to obama for a second. lolol How many weeks ago did obama say no more gigantic bonuses for fatcats?
Pay Czar: AIG $100 Million Bonuses ‘Outrageous’ But Defensible
Speranza wrote:
Um, hello? Last I looked Wrath is not the government. Just as you are allowed to comment on his speech, he is allowed to offer his opinion of other’s behavior.
If he’s advocating coercing his mores onto people, well I disagree. I don’t think he is. He is giving advice on how to make sure one does not fall into a pit that very many people fall into.
And if two people make a vow before God, society, and their friends and family and break it… well, I’m all for redemption, but it hardly affects only them.
yah wrote:
That is all well and good but we are not in Salem 1692.
OT- The Obscure mediocre Jazz Artist si now saying James O’Keefe is a racist! He was ta some conference attended by Racists.
@ Speranza:
ahh, now it is not just passe to have strong morals, but old fashioned and outdated.
I’m glad you’re not in charge.
If the Cyrus kid wants to launch whatever line of sexy clothes for little girls, well, maybe she sees a market for it.
I wouldn’t hold it against her if she’s right, but chances are it’ll flop and it’ll be tough for her to try to live it down. Prolly not worth the risk.
@ teacake:
What??? He lies!!!! Beck showed how hes been lying all along about keeping your own doc and insurance if hellcare ever gets passed. Shocka,dude is incapable of telling the truth.Pathological imho.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I agree. On a somewhat related tangent I was musing with my wife the other day about a couple we’re friends with……and their horrible children. Our friends are making a mess of raising the kids (2 and 4 years old), as evidenced, in one example, by an entire restaurant full of people applauding when they were asked to leave by the management becuase the kids were unruly. The parents seem obsessed with making sure that the kids are always being entertained and doing exciting things (going to Disneyland every other week is a routine). My view is that this ill prepares children for life, much of which is routine, boring and mundane. Learning to live and cope with that is part of growing up. If you fill your kids with the constant expectation of excitement, you will rapidly run out of more fun things to do, have disgruntled kids and probably create maladjusted adults who make life hell for their partners.
Just some rambling thoughts……
Rodan wrote:
I am SO jealous… sure hope your not a New Orleans fan. The Colts are going make Katrina look like a spring shower.
yah wrote:
That’s a good starting point, that would have ruled out Clinton, and definitely would have ruled out Edwards, but Obama proves that you can (as far as we know) be faithful to your
wookiewife and still be a disaster.Rodan wrote:
Saw that. Haven’t we been here before?
Rodan wrote:
New Orleans (chocolate)city hall?
LanceKates wrote:
again you are putting words in my mouth and I find that annoying. He is advocating that a married man (or woman) never be alone in a situation with an unmarried woman (or man) which is ridiculous. Taht is something that I would expect in Saudi Arabia. I have plenty of married female friends whom I go to lunch with, chat on the phone with, and sometimes even go to a sporting event with and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. WoG once wrote that he favored making adultery a crime and I thought that was one of the strangest things I have ever seen written and I am not a fan of adultery FYI.
Rodan wrote:
Ah the good old fashioned Johnsonian 6 degrees of separation guilt by association bullshit.
Speranza wrote:
No this is not Salem, 1692. It is 2010. We have AIDS, hepatitis, and all kinds of STD’s. If people have promised each other to be faithful, you should be able to trust them.
People should keep their promises no matter what century it is.
LanceKates wrote:
Oh good grief!
Speranza wrote:
blah blah blah. Now you’re backpeddaling. Having an opnion that men and women should live above reproach is not a bad thing. He didn’t call for REGULATION of anything.
yah wrote:
I agree but their marital infidelities is between them and their wife.Yes it does bespeak of a weak character, I wont argue that. Do you want to criminalize cheating behavior as others want to do? Should John Edwards go to jail for doing Rielle Hunter?
snork wrote:
Well Obama has f_cked over every person in the US. And I can’t think of one promise he has kept.
Reading about the 54 known victims of the Green River Killer, who targeted prostitutes and “throw-away” people.
52 of his victims were prostitutes.
The other two were in the kill zone by accident.
52 of the girls grew up without a father.
Two had fathers present when they grew up.
Can you guess which two?
We underestimate the importance of fathers in girls’ lives.
@ Speranza:
Not jail, but I know a few good opthamologists and shrinks.
Howdy folks! Well, this is a disturbing topic…child lingerie… there’s just something WRONG about that…
If you have any influence or stature, it is certainly incumbent upon you not to be alone with the opposite sex, because you never know when an allegation is going to be made regardless of whether anything happens. That was one of Billy Graham’s rules for himself.
That’s not the case for most us, but keeping one safe from gossip as well as temptation is still a good idea.
@ Speranza:
I don’t think it should be criminalized, but I don’t think it should be considered acceptable behavior either.
LanceKates wrote:
blahblah blah back at you. His implication was that that sort of behavior should not be allowed. He is a fudnamentalist Jew (which is his right). He himself once many months ago told me on this very blog (and go ahead and ask him) that adultery and infidelity should be made illegal.
Now go ahead and get the last word in.
@ savages_girl:
Hey {SG} how ya doing?
@ Speranza:
Ahh…. so that is where you have a problem.
yah wrote:
I never said I condoned it or felt that is was acceptable behavior. I think it is morally wrong behavior but human nature being what it is, it will always be around us.
@ WrathofG-d:
No joke.
Isn’t it curious that we in our non-segregative Western societies have less rape acts than those societies who follow gender segregation ?
A true fundamentalist ! You know it all ! You are in the possession of the truth ! But wait: what do we do with all those working women together with men in one room ? Should they wear a burkha ? Should we bar them from working ? And what do we do with all those single women and men ? Forced marriage ?
Now this is frakking SICK.
@ yah:
I couldn’t agree more.
While some behaviors may not be illegal, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be publicly shamed.
@ wolfie:
How very sad. I knew most of those poor women were hookers but did not know about their fatherless childhoods.
LanceKates wrote:
Whatever man.
(Channeling Charles Johnson)
@ LanceKates:
#10
The parents start the girls dressing up younger than 9 years old? Have you seen the TLC show “Toddlers & Tiaras”? It’s about the parents and the kids they put through these beauty pageants. It’s enough to make you sick.
vagabond trader wrote:
Definitely a homely looking gal that’s for sure!
Some people don’t like other people expressing their opinion. Telling them they should be concerned about specific things. Telling them what things not to be concerned about. Ridiculing opinions and concerns not their own. Hmmm. Sounds like some would feel better if they lived in a fascist single minded system like, oh, wait, Iran. Watch the pot call the kettle black.
Adultery is a crime in the US military. I don’t see any problem with it being illegal in every state. If it’s good enough for the US military it’s good enough for you.
goddessoftheclassroom wrote:
very much so, including those who defend such behavior as either ‘ok’ or ‘just how it is’ (as though that should be just cause for not viewing it as deplorable)
@ Speranza:
Never thought he was any prize either.”The Breck Girl” as Rush called him,lol.
@ savages_girl:
I saw about 2 minutes of that show once.
I’d have watched longer, but I paid alot of money for that television and I’d have hated to have to buy a new one.
For the record:
To treat children, especially girls, like children, is an intervention of the 19.th and 20.th century. Before that children have been treated like grown ups and were dressed like grown ups. Female toddlers already wore corsages like women.
@ Guggi:
and they were dressed like responsible adults, not commonplace whores.
@ wolfie:
That’s a whole other subject, but yes. The divorce and child support industry is working to throw fathers out and keep them out. A lot of this is due to social trends, but the government has a big hand in it, too.
justdanny wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, the military rarely went after adultery unless it was forcibly brought to their attention, usually by an aggrieved spouse. Even then, the punishment seemed more for exercising bad judgement than for a moralizing purpose.
LanceKates wrote:
Interesting the way you put this… “above reproach”. That seems to imply that there is something shameful or immoral with a man and woman being alone or checking out a finely tuned calve. Outside of Ultra Orthodox religious sects (and yes, Islam is one of them)this kind of segregation of the sexes is regarded as somewhat backwards.
If 2000 years of instilling Christian ethics in our society has gotten us to where men and women can’t be trusted to restrain themselves from inappropriate sexual conduct, I have to wonder what the point is.
This assumption that men cannot restrain themselves and women are too weak to say no doesn’t do the whole personal responsibility thing much credit.
savages_girl wrote:
I’ve never see that program, but there’s a woman down the road for us who put her daughter through pageants. Ugh.
@ fultonchain:
This is all a very male point of view since most women are just not that attracted to every man they see, unlike the problem men have with females. LOL
Speranza wrote:
“Fundamentalist” is kind of a loaded word these days, as is the term “ultra-Orthodox.”
That aside, what Wrath was talking about, it seems to me, is the re-introduction of certain levels of decorum and, yes, shame in society. I don’t know how old you are, but such things did exist in the US well within living memory.
If you agree that it is appropriate to turn the clock back on, say, the government entitlements that have blossomed over the last 40 or 50 years, I can’t see why it would be considered controversial or threatening to observe that society could benefit from backing away from the gross loosening of public morals and behavior that has occurred in the same time.
It is instructive to compare the hit Supremes song “Love Child” (mid-’60s) with the hit of a year or so ago “Baby Mama.” The latter exalts the status of unwed mother; the Supremes song has a woman who, herself born out of wedlock, refuses to sleep with her boyfriend for fear of creating a fatherless child. Quite a change in forty-odd years, is it not? Is the world of the pre-license ’60s really so terrifying to replicate?
Perhaps the social mores which decreed, in the late ’40s and early ’50s, that a girl who would be seen in a convertible car was automatically “fast,” are a bit too hidebound for us to imagine embracing—but America didn’t seem to wither and die under those hardly Taliban-like restrictions. It is unlikely that, even if the social shame of “Love Child” were to be set as a goal, that we would go back that far. But I cannot see the harm in trying to do so a little bit.
@ fultonchain:
I cannot believe it but I am actually in agreement with you. It shows a very low faith in human beings to assume that they are all sensual animals with no self control
@ LGoPs:
Wanting to make the point that the notion isn’t so absurd that it’s like some archaic artifact of backwards tribalist culture like in SA. Neither is believing it to be criminalish a solely religious oddity. I’m atheist and I believe adultery is a heinous act.
fultonchain wrote:
Interestingly, most of the men and women alive today are not 2000 years old.
savages_girl wrote:
3.8 TRILLION UPDINGS!
@ fultonchain:
Christianity does not claim to perfect human nature. The point is to reconcile man to God and create a stable, free society. Take a look at the alternatives.
And the implication was not that there is shame in being alone with the opposite gender, but that by avoiding doing so you avoid the appearance of impropriety, as well as protecting yourself from temptation.
Guggi wrote:
That would come to mind actually Guggi when Michael Jackson would whine about his not having a childhood. Poor boy… childhood only lasts about 10 years anyhow, or at least back in the 50s.
@ Rodan:
I was just about to ask if it offended any body, You in particular, for while it does not mean a thing, the closeness to an unnecessary descriptive word in Spanish might be too close for confort.
Thanks, I will be changing it in the near future though.
@ fultonchain:
living above reproach isn’t about an inability to control one’s actions, but about not being seen in situations that can be misconstrued as being bad situations.
Example: If John Edwards lived above reproach, he wouldn’t have been in situations that tempted him to cheat on his wife who was, at the time, fighting cancer….. which lead to him fathering a child.
does it mean that men and women can’t comingle? of course not.
it means, live above reproach.
oops… gotta catch the bus
snork wrote:
Yes. As VT said, putting the horse back in the barn may be impossible, as far as the social trends are concerned. But it would certainly be nice if government did not do so much to encourage destructive behaviors!
teacake wrote:
Well I know that! lol
justdanny wrote:
I hear ya.
I have had the unfortunate experience of responding to a sexual assault call. A 37 year old male had made lewd and inappropriate comments to a 10 year old. After his comments he exposed himself and tried to force the 10 year old female to “touch it”. I was flagged down by a concerned citizen and responded. I arrested the male….he was quite suprised why he was arrested, he tried to explain “the way she was dressed made him believe she was “open for that kind of stuff”. As I drove back to the scene I could almost see what he was talking about, the 10 year old was dressed in a Mini skirt (when she bent over you could see the “thong” she was wearing and the Bra(?) strap under her cut off shirt to show her midriff. Her mother was dressed almost the same. Oh, BTW, the child was walking home from school when this incident occured.
That is a true story, the mother could not understand why this happened to HER child. Now we have “edgy” night wear for children, I have to ask WHY!!! is this really needed??? I am so glad I have retired, now let someone else deal with these perverts and there parents…oh sorry I mean ENABLERS!
I so wanted to arrest the mother! and move the child into a “better” family!! But hey I did my job and he went away for a while, but he will be back out, and thse parents will still dress their children like sluts and they will be assaulted and arrested all the while these “parents” complaining about what has happened to socitity and how it is not safe for children….and it will continue with these morons not understanding their complicity in the problem…
Sorry long post, I will try to keep them shorter.
ps..forgive the lousy spelling.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Hear, Hear.
justdanny wrote:
Nonsense.
What’s good for the military is not good for me. I, as a citizen, retain my right to dissent. Along with a slew of other rights — silly little things like free speech and protections from illegal search and seizure — that our service people willingly abdicate for the greater good.
Military justice is a beautiful thing. For the military — myself, I’d rather not have to take orders and prefer to pick my own jobs.
Societies ruled along military lines have a name, they’re called dictatorships.
@ Conservative Democrat:
if your gravatar image reflects your prior service, thank you for serving, and if it brought you overseas, welcome home.
{ Hi VT }!
@ fultonchain:
Again I am agreeing with you. Something is wrong with the cosmos.
@ Conservative Democrat:
Thanks for your service CD.
Also in the military you are not allowed to criticize the POTUS who is the commander-in-chief. That is not good enough for me. I choose to retain my right to criticize BHO.
@ Conservative Democrat:
Shocking story.
It is amazing how often the parents don’t realize what they are doing when they let their little girls dress like that.
IMO, fathers are far more likely to see the problem than mothers.
wolfie wrote:
In academe, its still controversial whether fathers are even beneficial, let alone important. We seem to be turning the corner as far as policy goes, but some feminists are still screaming at the tops of their lungs that fathers should furnish sperm and money, and otherwise be out of the lives of the children and mothers. This isn’t something that just happened, it was part of a grand plan, with peer-reviewed junk science, and the whole nine yards.
so now adultery and dressing little kids up like whores is akin to freedom of speech.
nice.
@ Macker:
#141 AAAAGGGGHHHH!!! I’ve been up-dinged!!!
@ snork:
The feminists can’t risk having a good man around to hinder their teaching that men are evil.
@ wolfie:
I’d be happy to see a bit more shame come into vogue again. It seems nearly extinct as far as parenting goes.I agree government is a huge influence and the present manure in DC is amoral at best,leaving their droppings right down the line to the local level. Case in point, the safe schools czar. What a perversion of decency.
savages_girl wrote:
you’re in for it now……
Disclaimer: I am the victim of adultery, so I am not unbiased.
Adultery is the breaking of a legal contract. It is a civil, not a criminal, offense, but society DOES has a stake in encouraging its members to honor their word in contracts.
When sexually provocative behavior, including manners of dress, are socially acceptably, society is degraded. Yes, people have the freedom of expression, but others in a society have the freedom to criticize and stigmatize their choices of expression.
snork wrote:
Yep.
vagabond trader wrote:
When I was reading the first two sentences in your comment, I was thinking about the last 2.
goddessoftheclassroom wrote:
100% agreement.
Freedom is not life without consequence. Freedom is life with Responsibility.
@ Conservative Democrat:
You said it all. Enablers and complicit parents, exactly.
vagabond trader wrote:
I read an essay back in the 90′s that stated that shame was one of society’s most important guardrails and provided a mechanism for keeping its members from going over the edge. The 60′s generation tore down those guardrails to the detriment of everyone. I too, would like to see them put back.
@ 10 LanceKates: I’d agree. This site will be most popular with child molesters. Money is making Billy Ray a little off.
LanceKates wrote:
I’m sorry, the conversation seems to be moving a little fast for you.
To summarize: I initiated this by disagreeing with justdanny’s assertion that military regulations are fit for civilian society. This evolved into a brief discussion about other differences between civilian and military rule and Speranza pointed how free speech is abrogated because the President cannot be criticized.
Sorry we got off track and yes, dressing kids up like whores is a bad thing. I thought that was a given.
@ LGoPs:
I remember a professor once telling me that no one should ever feel shame… they should feel guilt.
I disagree, people should feel shame for their actions and it should lead them to guilt.
Kinda like ol Adam and Eve did one day in the garden.
@ Conservative Democrat:
One of the things I have heard from women—I’m not talking about kids, now—is that they “should have the right to dress how they want to” without having to worry about being assaulted.
Well, yeah. But only an idiot will assume that every person that one meets will behave in an appropriate manner, no matter what one’s “rights” are, or what the law says. I know that to say this is to have a shovelful of shit immediately dumped on one’s head—you’re “blaming the victim,” which is an inexcusable crime, and saying that a woman was “asking for it,” which one cannot, today, say under any circumstances.
Well, no. Not really. I’m saying that abstract “rights,” or an ideological belief in them, do not or should not trump common sense. If you’re going to dress provocatively and wander lonely streets at night, you are putting yourself at risk no matter what your “rights” are—and one “right” you do not have is the right to assume that anyone and everyone who might be wandering those lonely streets is going to treat you with respect and not take the wrong cue from your get-up.
That doesn’t mean you should expect to be assaulted; it doesn’t mean you were “asking for” anything. But you can not be asking for anything and still be an idiot. Respect is still something that is earned—and while you can certainly be maltreated just as easily if you are not provocatively dressed and conducting yourself with complete decorum, and while the person who has exhibited bad judgment is still entitled to redress for their person being violated, there is nothing that says you are entitled to deference for having been stupid enough to intentionally lower the odds in your favor and increase the odds against you.
@ fultonchain:
your buddy speranza doesn’t think so. I’ll quote their first comment on this thread:
And, to be most fair to you, that comment of mine wasn’t directed at you.
@ LanceKates:
He is a beaut, ain’t he? Like Conservative Democrat said, if a kid went to this Jennings class and later tried out some of the “techniques” on an unwilling classmate, the parents would be howling with rage about what has become of society.After they just got home from voting for Hope and Change.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
when I go to sleep on the railroad tracks, I’m not asking or hoping to get hit by a train, but you can bet that I likely will be.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
If you want to see “shame societies” go to the Arab countries in the ME and than tell me if this would be an improvement to our societies.
@ fultonchain:
Quite concur (channeling Dark_Falcon). I rememember a general (John Singlaub?) being canned for criticizing Bill Clinton as a “draft dodging, womanizer”. Now he broke the military coed which forbids criticism of the POTUS so the government had the right to sack him, but I as a civilian decided that the right to criticize Clinton, or later Bush or Obama is too precious to me to give up.
Speranza wrote:
Not quite, that only applies while in uniform.
vagabond trader wrote:
the part that got me wasn’t the part where he talked about confused children as to whether or not they were gay (from his skewed perspective that they were because he was), but that he discussed fisting with them and told them what gay clubs those underage children could go to in order to meet men.
Guggi wrote:
Honor killings are the result of those “shame societies” in the Middle east and Central Asia.
Guggi wrote:
You either did not read my entire post, or are too young to remember when the concept of shame existed in Western society (well within my memory, for one), or both.
There is a world of difference between what Western society was less than half a century ago, when concepts of shame were still intact, and Arab society then or now. You are making an utterly false comparison.
LanceKates wrote:
yes, thank you, I did serve in V/N served mostly in RR and combat longistics as well as Search and recovery. Also spent some time in some “CCI” activity, went civilian Police, when I got out. Now I am retired, and thank all for the kind words.
@ Guggi:
once again, the only two options are moral anarchy or islam?
Funny, people call ME a closed-minded person who only views things in black or white.
goddessoftheclassroom wrote:
A right, beautifully exercised, by the great People of Walmart. LOL
LanceKates wrote:
Well played, sir!
Bordm wrote:
Well I for one want to criticize the POTUS whenever I feel like it no matter what outfit I am wearing. So what is good enough for the military (as much as I honor and treasure them and their service – two cousins killed in Vietnam – one on my mothers side and the other on my Dad’s side) is not necessarily good enough for me as a civilian.
@ Conservative Democrat:
if you’re a conservative democrat we’ll likely have cross words. I do hope you’ll understand that our disagreements would be based on views, not a dislike of you. I’ve always been bitter at the left for their treatment of returning troops (and I wasn’t even around back then)
Our contemporary society is just as eager to point fingers and inflict guilt as any other. They just have different taboos.
We used to raise our eyebrows at unmarried 14 yr olds with babies.
Now we raise our eyebrows at 24 year old virgins.
There is always social ostracism and shame.
That Jeri Thompson (on Hannity right now) – is awfully smart!
@ buzzsawmonkey:
It has been said more than one already in this thread….. as though we have to choose total moral anarchy in order to prove that we don’t belong in Iran……
wolfie wrote:
Excellent and accurate observation.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
In other words, you don’t have to call 911 to have the law of cause-and-effect enforced, and if you do call 911, your satisfaction is not guaranteed. And you don’t get do-overs after you’ve been raped by some guy with AIDS.
Don’t think Charles Johnson would ever have directed this:
http://pjtv.com/v/2839
@ snork:
and yet none of it matters if you are armed with the discipline to defend yourself.
Amazing how the 2nd Amendment comes to the rescue yet again.
Maybe that’s why the left wants to get rid of it?
I Speranza wrote:
I have to run, (I have been working, so I apologize for not responding to the comments above – even the insults) but give-me-a-break with this jump from my statements about responsibility and personal high standards of morality and modesty to “honor killings”.
If you really think that my attitude is akin to the regimes of Iran, and excuse or advocate MURDER, well then I really don’t know what to say.
Me I am Not that nice a person.
If your in fact a Democrat, did you vote for John F. Kerry for Pres.?@ Conservative Democrat:
wolfie wrote:
I knew a rape victim who decided to carry the baby to term and adopt him out. You would think that that would be met with unqualified praise, but she had to deal with a lot of ostracization from people (mostly male, btw), who called her all kinds of things for not getting an abortion.
It’s really pretty astounding how inverted some people’s values are.
@ notacompletedork:
LOL, nice hairdos.
@ ChenZhen:
That site is so mean spirited but I can’t stop looking. Bad bad me.
Guggi wrote:
False dichotomy.
The sexual mores of the West before the 60′s were nothing like the Arab ME.
Besdies, all societies are “shame societies” to some extent. (Notice, for example, how Buzz had to apologize for suggesting that a woman shouldn’t walk down the street stark naked at 2:00 AM. He knew he was violating a taboo by saying that.)
@ LanceKates:
My congressman and senators may be moonbats, and my state may be purpleish blue, but one thing we have is an article in the state constitution that says very explicitly that the people have and individual right to own and bear arms. I just checked today, and we have open-carry, no waiting period, and “shall issue” conceal-carry permits.
LanceKates wrote:
I was a registered Democrat, because all of my family has always been Democrats. But in the last 10 years or so, I have seen my EX party go from bad to horrible. I never understood what happened or why, and until 1991 (sept 11 to be exact)I pretty much did not pay attention, I was way to busy just trying to stay alive and feed my family. After that date I opened my eyes and seen a lot of things I just plain ignored. As I did more research a horrible truth came to me, These people just dont give a crap about this country….all they care about is MONEY and POWER, this goes for BOTH sides! But the Democrats seemed to get an extra dose of the stupids for some reason. Now I have registered as an Independent, but I am a true CONSERVATVE!!! and have been to a few of our “tea party” rallies. so in short I am no longer a Democrat, but I keep the moniker just because it is difficult to change all my sites over to a new moniker.
Check in later, ms tfk and I are off to see Cross Canaidan Rag Weed band at a honkey tonk east of here, “Southern Junction”.
Chad Canada did a fine job with the song “Freedom” ..
listen to it, then read the account of Recon Team Kansas near the DMZ near the end of the VN war that Kerry lied his life away about…
the song tells you what it is like, @ taxfreekiller:
Guggi wrote:
False dichotomy much? It’s possible that we can improve our society without becoming Iran or Saudi Arabia.
@ snork:
I grew up as a middle-class bubble-boy. I spent much time in the early 1970s lowering my social/class status by various behaviors which were then fashionable. Very soon I discovered the hard way—in my own life and by observing the lives of others—that the genteel mores of the middle class with which I was raised did not obtain outside of the bubble.
What that meant was seeing that women of the middle class who ventured outside of their protected zone often did not realize that what they considered bright, chatty, causal conversation was seen by men of another class as a come-on—and that if the woman who they felt was giving them such a come-on did not follow through as expected, things could get very ugly very fast.
It also meant finding that people who were not formally educated actually had respect for people who had had opportunities they did not—until the person who had had those opportunities attempted to pretend to have not had them. If one did this—if one lowered one’s self in the eyes of others by attempting to pretend to be what you were not—you were viewed with a contempt that could, in certain circumstances, become dangerous.
People who naively expect that everyone they meet will conform to their own expectations are, merely by that, placing themselves at risk—even without provocative clothing, drugs, or too much to drink. This kind of self-blindness is particularly common to the sheltered middle class.
snork wrote:
I have no doubt that would be the reaction of people in academia, except the females would be worse.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Good, always nice to see people closer to the conservative than the democrat.
I’m not sure how long you’ve been here, but Welcome.
correction 2001 sorry, just proofed the comment #204
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
In fact, it was during the 50′s or so, the time some here apparently think we resembled Iran, that the godfather of the Muslim brotherhood (Qatb, I think) expressed his scorn with how depraved the west was.
We have a hell of a long way to go before we resemble Muslim society. A bit of shame for shameful acts will be a corrective long before it turns us into Iran.
@ Speranza:
Yep and if men can’t oppress their sexual instincts they should be handcuffed and blindfolded.
@ Conservative Democrat:
You’re in good company.
Ronald Reagan for one!
There are a lot of conservative ex-Democrats here in Appalachia.
The party has been hijacked by leftists.
@ wolfie:
My mother was a lifelong Dem, no way if she were here today.
been here since I got the boot at “the other place” for defending Glenn Beck. Oh yeah and have NB Forrest as my avitar. About 4 or 5 months? I guess. I dont post much, but I always read the posts, and every now and again put in my pennies worth (deflation ya know)
I cannot figure out if i should go have unprotected sex in public orgies or behead someone for showing their ankle. any suggestions?
Rorschach wrote:
Yes. Work on your decision-making skills.
@ Conservative Democrat:
You know you’re old when a decade is a minor mistake.
@ Conservative Democrat:
That did throw me a bit…. I remember being alive in september of 1991, but didn’t remember anything noteworthy….. but I figured it was something personal, heh.
wolfie wrote:
Yeah, that I know…all I have to do here is get rid of Robert “montgomery Burns” Byrd and that asswipe Rockerfella. I sent letter on the TARP and healthcare to both and recieved replies from both. What was really weird was Rockerfella actually admitted in his reply that he “believed Health Care was a right” of all Americans… that alone is enought for someone to change parties! He is a complete Idiot!
wolfie wrote:
That is not the least bit surprising. Girls need a father figure in their lives. A male who treats them with love and respect from a young age. That underlies all their later relationships with men. My friends who have the most trouble with men did not have fathers there for them. This so sad. All those women on the street, who never learned a sense of self worth, putting their lives in danger. Heart breaking.
@ Guggi:
Yes, I agree.
But–
If women choose to excite men, who are easily turned on visually, when the man can do nothing about it, they are needlessly cruel.
Billy Ray is a nightmare. Good night.
@ chickadee:
There was a story on Big Hollywood a few months ago about by director who went to interview some women prisoners. He said the majority of them in there had some issues with their (usually absent) fathers.
@ Conservative Democrat:
they, purposely, frame it that way…. a right to healthcare.
I’d agree… you do have a right to go to a doctor just like you have a right to own a car.
now, you DON’T have a right to go to a doctor, paying with my credit card.
Because the money you’d be using isn’t yours.
taxfreekiller wrote:
From what I have read from you nice..a strech…..but friendly most assuridly. I enjoy your posts and most make sense, you know most!
And no I did not vote for John “I served in Viet Nam” Kerry. I even voted for bush BOTH TIMES!
Kerry is a clown and that other guy should have BEEN GORED!
Nikis Knight wrote:
Many do it knowingly (the women dressing and acting that way), some do it specifically so they can feign anger at men.
Like women who hate when men state at their boobs but wear shirts that show them off or have writing on them.
Some don’t know any other way. How sad is that?
Are we SURE these ‘nighties for tiny tarts’ aren’t some kind of set up?
@ LanceKates:
Yo Lance… the link in your nic is a bit broken… looks like you’re missing a “g”…
Personally, I’ve never got the whole fascination with lingerie. I suppose in the cases where I did get it, the lingerie hopefully wasn’t in the picture very long anyway. hehehehe
it is getting late gotta go check some other sites just to see what the Marxist has screwed up lately! see all of ya’ll later!
@ Conservative Democrat:
John Kerry served in vietnam? I wish he would have mentioned it…. it may have swayed some votes…. especially if he had received some medals for valor or being wounded or something.
Why didn’t he talk about it?!?!
( heh. )
@ wolfie:
The sexual mores before the 60′s were mostly hypocrisy. I can only speak for Europe (I doubt that it was very different in the USA) but a closer look “behind the curtain” of this hypocrisy unveiles a very different picture. In Europe those areas with the most strictly (Catholic) sexual mores had the most (of course forbidden) abortions and the most children born out of wedlock.
CynicalConservative wrote:
wierd that no one pointed that out before. Thanks, should be fixed now.
Guggi wrote:
I don’t know if you are actually old enough to remember the ’60s or are merely extrapolating from watching Mad Men, but the orgy of public rutting which destroyed social mores 40 years ago did not do away with hypocrisy.
Yes, there were people who sneaked around behind the facade of morality they presented to the public, but there is absolutely nothing wrong, and many things right , with vice paying virtue that public tribute.
There’s the problem. Sexual mores like “hung like a horse” Edwards. Sexual lesses like Chuck Johnson mean no worries.
@ Guggi:
1- Neither in the USA nor in Europe were abortion and out-of-wedlock births anywhere near as high as they are today. It was rather exceptional for a child to be raised in a fatherless home.
2- Sex was not invented in 1963, to paraphrase Philip Larkin. Of course people broke the taboos from time to time. If the temptations were not natural, there would be no need for taboos.
3- Saying “Good morning”on most days is hypocrisy. Hooking up with a guy you barely know because all the girls do and if you don’t he wn’t want to go out with you again is hypocrisy. Pretending you don’t want marriage and children even more than a career is hypocrisy. Pretending I’m just not into politics rather than admitting I’m a conservative where I work is hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is a constant in any social milieu. The question is what values, what results, does the hypocrisy serve?
You may prefer cities where one half of all pregnancies are aborted and over 80% of children are born fatherless. I don’t.
You may prefer colleges where over 60% of the females are on antidepressants. I don’t.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
That’s the quotation I was trying to find! “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.”
Wow… Just when I thought I’ve seen it all… The pictures really creeped me out. You know, thinking back on my childhood, my friends and I had only one shared opinion on all things “sex”-related: “Ewwww! Yucky!” We did not have much idea of what it all was about, but thought it was gross, anyway. “Sexy” clothes on grownups or even older teenagers made us whisper: “Slutbag” or something of the sort. I used to freak out if my Mom wore what I thought was a too-revealing swimsuit…
That said, what is wrong for kids is not necessarily wrong for adults. I, for one, refuse to wear granny-bloomers and dowdy “modest” clothes with “sensible” shoes. I do not care if some dude looks at me and drools and has “impure” thoughts, that is his problem, not mine. If he tries anything stupid, he’ll learn the painful way to not act on his ideas. I dress the way I like, for me, not for others.
Overall, it is up to the parents to explain to their kids what is appropriate and at what age, and what is not, as well as teach them self-respect, self-defense and responsibility.
Rorschach wrote:
Do it like the praying mantis: first have the sex, then behead them!
@ justdanny:
JUSTDANNY,
Good to have the honor of posting along with you on this board.
@ wolfie:
Not in Europe with all those warwidows and their children.
This is a strawman argument. I don’t know a single city in Europe where half of the pregnancies are aborted and 80% of children are fatherless.
To compare those hypocrisies with the hypocrisy of sexual mores in the 60′s is inadequate.
This is a specific problem of the USA. In Europe we don’t use that much antidepressants and I know a lot about students.
@ Guggi:
Well lets hope that one day we uncultured americans can one day be as good as you europeans……
Damm, what a kick ass band, this Cross Canadina Rag Weed…
Chad had 4 long ones, four beers and fun for all…
@ wolfie:
This phenomen is neither new nor singular.
For thousands of years, humans have sipped, swallowed and chewed endless remedies to soothe frayed nerves: fermented ales in medieval Europe, coca tea and tobacco in the ancient Americas, and kava kava concoctions in the South Pacific, to name a few. For the last century or so, with varied success, researchers have tried to perfect the packaging of anxiety relief into a simple little pill.
Snip
Demand for Miltown was unexpected and unprecedented. Millions of Americans begged their doctors for prescriptions. By 1957, a prescription for Miltown was filled an average of every second in the U.S.
Suburbs became the site for Miltown parties, cocktails were named for the pill (a Miltown replaced the olive in a Miltini) and high-end jewelers designed rings with compartments to hold the “tranks.” The “peace pills” were particularly popular in Hollywood, and television host Milton Berle joked on-air (and uncompensated by Wallace) that he was considering changing his name to Miltown.
Snip
And this was before the 60′s.
Most prescriptions of antidepressants are not because of clinical depression but because of “feeling better”.
What we have missed is to teach our children that liberties go together with responsibility.
@ LanceKates:
Show me where I’ve written one word about “uncultured americans” and where I’ve written that Europeans are better. It’s not the fault of the Europeans that two to three times more of US-Americans use antidepressants than Europeans and we had our 60′s sexual revolution too.
Wrath – good to see you posting here.
I don’t watch very much TV because of things like this. I am not surprised as Billy Ray’s family is no more than a money making machine. Proof of their poor judgment will be 10 years in the future.
[...] A Lingerie Line For Little Girls? › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]