Posted on 07/08/2011 9:29:34 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
Dennis Prager had a similar column
IMO this all stems back from the 60’s when it became popular to talk about sex and that it needed to be “out in the open” instead of “repressed”. The problem today is that things are too open and its nigh-impossible to avoid being barraged with sex, nothing is private or off-limits anymore.
Can't have naked fish.
Yep, and now we’ve got female teachers who don’t seem to know it’s wrong to seduce teenage boys, teens who think they need sex-change operations, and pre-teens with breast augmentations...
That “do your own thing” philosophy sure seems to be working out swell, doesn’t it?
“She believes the “intense modern obsession with appearance” began in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the advent of supermodels.
“Everybody knew the women only by their first names and simply because of their appearance”
Oh, it started much earlier. My impressionable years were the ‘60’s, and girls were reading Seventeen Magazine (which was geared toward college girls) even before they themselves were teenagers.
One-name supermodels existed even then. Remember Twiggy?
Good article, though, and all too true.
The rare times we do venture into a mall she always says look at those moms & their mini me daughters....what is wrong with them? I wonder about that too. Little girls with hair streaked liked mommy & dressed to match. Yuk! Girls 11 yrs old wearing white shorts up to their behinds is not cute. It is dangerous. Children deserve to be children not mini me's!
you’re right, it was the 60’s that changed everything - and, mostly, NOT for the better.
You could mention Marilyn Monroe if you want to go even further back in time. I think she was the first woman to grace Playboy magazine in the early 1950s.
If you find a chance, go to a library, especially at a university and look through the yearbooks. All it takes is ten of them, 1960-1969. While all look nice and polished in 1960, by 1967-68 it is the women who change first, and by 1969 there is full blown rebellion in the appearance of the students. These are now the grandparents of today’s children.
But it's not a stretch to imagine it happening.
So the writer is writing about something that didn't happen, and opining on what could have been?
If this is journalism, sign me up. I can get drunk and spout drivel. I have witnesses, here on FR.
/johnny
“I think she was the first woman to grace Playboy magazine in the early 1950s.”
Well, yes, but we were talking about little girls’ role models, and they didn’t read Playboy (I’m pretty sure :-)
Don’t be too hard on Tom and Katie. Little Suri probably browbeat them until she wore them down. I really don’t think the high heels were their idea.
She probably just wanted to be more like Daddy.
“It’s a pedophile’s paradise.”
Sure sounds like it, but Ya better not say it again.
The Regime is not amused by mere Christianity and its finger waving, judgmental moralists.
Embrace Diversity!
After all, if it was good enough for MadMo and his followers, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
I don’t think the problem begins with supermodels...Have you seen the kids shows that are on? It’s hard to find any that don’t revolve around crushes and hormones...Even Phineas and Ferb, one of my favorites, has a constant backstory of girls chasing boys.
Haven’t seen Phineas and Ferb, but as a mother, I recall horrid love notes from 7th grade girls to boys in their class over 35 years ago. In my time, admittedly sometime during the last Ice Age, it was there, but more subtle, if 11-12 year old girls are capable of being subtle.
Girls have always had crushes.
I have seen this first hand several times. It's heart-breaking. It's as if the girl, or young woman, is brain washed and beyond reprogramming.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.