Posted on 02/16/2005 7:35:13 AM PST by MisterRepublican
If you watch a lot of cable television, you've probably seen the ads, especially late at night or early in the morning. The "Girls Gone Wild" videos promise to show you coeds behaving badly on the beach during Spring Break or getting down and dirty at Mardi Gras. The formula is simple: find a group of nubile young things drunk out of their heads and induce them to pull up their T-shirts or pull down their shorts and expose themselves to anyone willing to fork over $19.95 for the privilege. The most recent incarnation features gangster rapper Snoop Dogg hawking fresh, young flesh.
Call me old-fashioned, but I just can't imagine what these girls were thinking when they agreed to "show off their assets," as one knock-off video boasts. These young women aren't pros -- they are not part of the pornographic underworld -- but ordinary teens and twenty-somethings who one day will be wives and mothers. One young girl, who was 17 at the time she allowed herself to be photographed topless, has already sued the producers of "The Guy Game," a video game featuring females in various stages of undress. Her suit claims she did not give a "valid or enforceable consent or release" for photos to be used by the video game makers. "Plaintiff is still a teenager and wishes to attend college, develop her career and be active in her community and church." Good luck.
What is most shocking about this phenomenon is that we're not all that shocked by it. Modesty used to be considered a natural female attribute. No more. Just take a look around next time you're at the mall.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Yeah, except we'd probably be insulting most ancient pagans. At least they considered their children a blessing, and not a curse.
...exactly. And, it's all Bush's fault, too, isn't it?
Okay. So what?
But I don't know how to get back there.
People did swim nude. It was also (A) not co-ed, (B) indoors, and (C) the girls generally did wear bathing suits, so I'm not sure why it is any more relevant than school kids using the showers in gym class. Of course that doesn't mean it was perfect, either.
Please also note that making activities not co-ed was a common way of dealing with the privacy and exposure issue in ancient times, ranging from the fact that the early Olympics didn't have women spectators to the fact that Orthodox Jews still have people dance with members of the same sex rather than members of the opposite sex.
We had shotgun weddings back then. If a man knocked up a girl before marriage (which was common) he was expected to marry her and provide. And if he didn't want to, he was persuaded nonethless (hence, the shotgun). A man would be ostricized if he simply knocked up a girl and abdicated any responsibility.
[excerpt]"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
[/excerpt]
it's a love-hate thing, admit it. I do prefer a modestly dressed woman, but headlights is headlights.
White feminie virtue was esteemed. This is why so many slaveowners had relations (whether or not against the will of) with their female slaves. Yeah, great time. People could talk a good game then.
Seriously, dude, why are you so freaked out about this? I can attest the I did it in high school from 1974-1978. It was no big deal. It was just a swimming class part of PE, and since nobody had any trunks, you just swam nude. Heck we all showered nude, so what? The problem now is that schools want to mix girls and boys, as if they were interchangable. Back then, since we were separated in gym, there was no chance of offending anyone. Really, why won't you believe it?
The vast majority of white men, even in the South, weren't slaveowners.
Well, Chris Gregoire does resemble Beavis.
I am aware that most were not slaveowners. However, of those that did, many did not find it repugnant to sleep with a female slave, as white women were to far virtuous to consider having sex with for more than procreative purposes.
Apparently it is enforced to a certain extent around here. About 2 weeks ago there was a conversation about it at the Moose Lodge, one of the members had gotten a call to either bring her daughter a decent shirt or come get her from school......and she is in High School.
I realized your questions were rhetorical - but it is a subject that drives me crazy. It is also an issue that transcends public vs private school, because it is found everywhere.
Hubby has decided that his wife and daughter are in need of new clothes and so we are going shopping this weekend.......the one place I want to go to is is having their big end of season sale, and so I plan on stocking up on clothes for her for next winter, particularly shirts.....and buy them several sizes too big. Because she has grown a bit over the winter, shirts I bought in September are already too short.
the "Bratz" (little hooker) style is not something either brought into or worn out of this household.
Yup. C.S. Lewis was prescient when he predicted that the post-Christian age would be far darker than the pre-Christian pagan age.
I think that women need to pay attention to the scene in the movie Analyze This where the Robert Deniro character explains why he has a mistress as well as a wife. No, it doesn't make having a mistress right but men do classify most adult women into two categories -- sex toy and human beings. If more women heard how men talk about sex toys in private (and I often wonder if men even consider sex toys to be human), they'd be in much less of a hurry to be one.
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.