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 ...
Married men don't talk about sex with their wives behind their wives' backs. Everyone knows the most effective oral anti-aphrodisiac for women is wedding cake.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Shalom.
Chivalry isn't completely dead. However, it may be on life support in some cases.
Sad, but true...........
Your post illustrates "the fallacy of the idealized present." The idea that the present is better in all ways than the past. Of course, it's not true that everything about the past is better than the presents, we've made some improvements no one wants to see erased. But that doesn't mean somne things haven't gotten worse, as other got better.
The guy who drove past the parking lot without turning in, silly. You?
;)
Shalom.
really? I haven't seen it actually.... I've been called other things on here... but "prude" isn't one of em.. funny considering that in the world's eyes, I'm quite a 'prude'..
"I will never believe it.
"
OK, but your not believing it does not mean it did not happen. It was quite common, and didn't end until sometime in the 70s.
" I buy them at LL Bean, Land's End or Talbot's."
There you go. The quality of the clothes from those retailers is much higher, too, making them a bargain in the long run.
People who say there are no modest clothes just haven't looked. There is plenty, and fashionable, too. As for kids mocking other kids who wear modest clothing, that's not all that common, either. Generally, the mocking is aimed at those who try to be "in style" but who don't buy the "right" clothing.
LL Bean, Lands End, etc., are always in style.
Uh, I went to high school from 1959-1963, so my experience goes back a bit farther than yours. I can tell you for an absolute fact that kids were having sex back then. My high school had just 600 students in it. In the four years I was there, I know of at least a dozen who got pregnant, then went to their "aunts" for a few months.
There was even a doctor in town who did abortions. Everyone knew about it, and lots of girls in my high school took advantage of it. It was illegal, but, as was the case all over the country, it was overlooked, since the minister's daughter and the police chief's daughter were just as likely to need that service as any other kid.
At my class' 25th reunion, an anonymous survey was done of the class by someone working on a PhD. The subject was sexuality. The stats came out almost identical to the stats of surveys done today of high schoolers.
And that's the fact. You may like to think that your time was more modest and less sexual, but it wasn't. The 70's and 80's were possibly even more active than the 60's, due to the advent of oral birth control for girls.
Styles change. Music changes. Teenagers having sex does not change.
I never said they weren't. I said it wasn't as common.
My high school had just 600 students in it. In the four years I was there, I know of at least a dozen who got pregnant, then went to their "aunts" for a few months.
A dozen out of 600 over four years? That's a pretty miniscule amount, IMO.
Teenagers having sex does not change.
Some will. Some won't. If the society pushes them not to, fewer will. If the society pushes them the other way, more will. That's just plain common sense.
If you want to argue that it's inevitable in all cases, or even most, your appeal will fall on deaf ears. I know better.
"Please read #52 and note that the posters claimed that nude swimming was FORCED on unwilling swimmers by his public scool."
And so it was. In places where boy's swimming was done naked, everyone swam naked. Suits were not allowed. The reasons for this I don't know for sure, but probably date to the "physical culture" craze that ran from the late 19th century well into the 20th.
Suits weren't optional in these schools, which included public and private schools, including schools run by churches. It was the way things were done back then. That's all. It wasn't shameful. It had nothing particularly to do with sex. It was just the way boys swam in swimming class in many schools.
Some boys were embarrassed. No question about it. Yet they still swam naked. They got used to it, for the most part, and that was that.
Got a link?
This is speaking of birth rates, not pregnancy rates. Many children of teen mothers today are slaughtered before birth. In the past they were given up for adoption. My aunt gave a baby up for adoption at age 13 in the early 60s. At least ppl corrected their mistakes without murder.
Also I disagree that sexual intercousre was as common then or as is it alledged to be today amounst teenagers. Girls that did were tagged easy, it was a dsgrace and the girls did not want that tag. Lot of petting, very little intercourse.
Touche.
Well since I was in NY Public Schools system in the 60's I know that this is not true. Also the page reads like a homosexual site.
Let's take my wife as an example...
She's a Filipina who grew up in a very rural location. She had 10 siblings, and they shared a room with their parents. And yes, there is plenty of prostitution in the Philippines.
She knew the basics of the sex act - after all, she had been raised around dogs, buffalo, etc - not much surprise in the basic functions.
When she first went for an exam, she surprised the doctor when she broke out in tears - she 'felt dirty' exposing herself to a man, even a doctor! She wore one-piece suits when swimming - thought women wearing bikinis looked like sluts.
Fast forward 20 years - she's a nurse who has seen folks in all kinds of nakedness - she still checks to make sure her 'brights' aren't on, or that her underwear isn't visible thru her clothes. She still gets shocked at what she sees in the malls.
Modesty isn't about what you have seen, but how people are using it. Don't think for a moment that living together in a common rooms prevents modesty.
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.