's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Women's dress(71 posts)

Women's dressmoneyman
Aug 27, 2003 1:18 PM
I just returned from taking my oldest daughter back to college. She attends a state school in Western Pennsylvania, and we flew back there from Wyoming this past weekend to get her moved in. Something that really troubled me was the state of (un)dress for many of the female students. I have two daughters, 19 and 16. They are both quite attractive (got that from their mother) and I just have to grit my teeth sometimes when they go out. It is not uncommon for me to ask "What are you going to wear over that?", which usually gets answered by rolling eyes and an "Oh, Dad" comment. Yet the clothes they wear on their skimpiest days make them look like nuns in comparison to the women on this campus.

I got a cup of coffee in the union and sat outside drinking it, watching the world go by. The outfits the women wore were, shall we say, eye-opening. The skirts just barely covered what they were meant to cover; the shirts began above the belly-button and were skin tight; the shorts were shorter than, and covered less than, the skirts; athletic shorts were rolled down at the waistband and rolled up at the legs. There was not much modesty being displayed on that campus.

My question: Why do girls wear clothes like that? There is very little left to the imagination. Even my daughter wondered "Why do girls my age dress like sluts?"

What do you think?

Beautiful, isn't it?TJeanloz
Aug 27, 2003 2:08 PM
It's nice to be young. And what can I say, the girls know how to dress.
Working on campus...No_sprint
Aug 27, 2003 2:44 PM
Oh my do I love it. For a time I worked in a downtown office building. Lunches were great seeing everyone dressed to the hilt. However, that's 45 mins when the directive is really food. In comparison to my current atmosphere, well, it simply doesn't compare. I just got back from one of those eye opening strolls a minute ago. :)

What's the summer climate like in Western Pennsylvania?czardonic
Aug 27, 2003 2:45 PM
I'm guessing it isn't poodle skirt and sweater set weather.

"Sluts"? Sheesh.
It's a sad commentary on women...Matno
Aug 27, 2003 3:19 PM
when they feel like they have to dress that way to be noticed. Whatever happened to developing personal charm? Having spent most of the last 12 years on various campuses, I can vouch for the fact that things that used to be considered virtues in women (like femininity, kindness, and plain old civility) are quickly disappearing from our society.

As for the comment about sluts, it makes sense when you think that what was considered "slutty" just a few years ago, is now practically mainstream. Doesn't make it any less despicable in my book. These days, if a high school or college student publicly declares that they are a virgin, they get put on the cover of a magazine as if they are some sort of anomaly!
What's really sad is.lotterypick
Aug 27, 2003 3:26 PM
That parents aren't teaching their kids what matters most and what should be valued.

His girls sound like they are doing alright, but many girls have nothing but society to teach them the value of themselves as you say.

The parents need to teach their kids, from an early age, that modest dress shows strength and holds special things for the special person.
The days of relegating the provocatively bared ankle. . .czardonic
Aug 27, 2003 3:52 PM
. . .to the marital bed chamber are over, gentlemen. These women aren't displaying anything that we don't know is there and (presumably?) haven't seen elsewhere. So what is the big damn deal?

lotterypick, if you think that kids who have been taught "what matters most and what should be valued" would be paying attention to your anachronistic, puritanical fashion advice, then you are truly out of touch.
    "The parents need to teach their kids, from an early age, that modest dress shows strength and holds special things for the special person."
I can't imagine why a message like that would not be embraced by the youth of today.

Maybe these women want attention (like that middle-aged guy on the $3000 doesn't?). Maybe their clothes are functional (like that middle-aged guy on a $3000 won't insist?). Maybe that is what the popular labels are selling this year. And maybe they have decided to dress however they want let the leering old men worry about their own dirty minds.
burkas for everyonemohair_chair
Aug 27, 2003 6:04 PM
Damn these young women, tempting us men so. It's their fault I get such dirty thoughts in my head, dressing that way. We need to protect our women from guys like me who have such dirty thoughts, and burkas are the only way. They must be covered at all times. Plus, we need to make sure they remain virtuous, so they can't go outside anymore unless accompanied by a male relative. And to save them and us from impure thoughts, no more school for women. Finally, because women might actually enjoy sex and therefore seek it out, everyone of them gets a clitorectomy. No more sluts, that's what I say.
Czar & Mo.jesse1
Aug 28, 2003 2:44 AM
It's not us that these "provocatively" dressed girls should be worrying about. There are plenty of others that if given the chance, would take advantage of a female if they thought they could get away with it.
Our society, and the consumer establishments are teaching the degradation of females at an age you wouldn't believe! Heck, I didn't know about it until this past week!
My wife being a teacher, is always getting these "liberal" publications about the rearing of our young. I saw one the other day & picked it up with extreme skeptism. It's called "Teaching Young Children In Violent Times - Building A Peaceable Classroom" by Diane E. Levin, Ph.D. .
Looking through it I saw a chapter addressing "action figures". Oh c'mon! What's a little harm with G.I. Joe???
If only it was that!
There's a generously endowed figure of "Sable" marketed by the WWF, with a half zipped "leather" bra, a whip, and high heeled spiked shoes. Another figure, "Al Snow" has the SEVERED HEAD of a woman in one hand. Another, "B.A.Gunn" has on his briefs, lipstick marks, with the largest where his genitals would be. These are recomened for ages 4 and above!
Do you have any idea what these types of toys, and the video games out there are teaching kids at this age? I don't, but according to the studies by this Ph.D., you wouldn't want your daughter hanging with these kids!
And these kids (and most will become adults) don't need much imagination to set there hormones on fire by seeing females dressed like some of the rock stars out there.
oh come onmohair_chair
Aug 28, 2003 6:24 AM
These types of things freak out parents far more than their kids. Do you think kids who play with dolls have any idea that Sable is generously endowed? And if they do, so what? are you trying to pretend that there aren't generously endowed women out there.

Do you think kids see a doll holding a severed head and think that's real and normal? How different is it, really, from Little Mermaid dolls or dinosaurs? Are you as concerned with stuffed animals? You might be giving your children the message that bears are cute and cuddly animals, and the next time you are in Yellowstone they'll jump out of the car and try to hug one.

Have you ever read Grimm's Fairy Tales, which almost all kids read or hear? Hansel and Gretal were going to be cooked in an oven and eaten! Not exactly pleasant stuff. By the way, those have been around for at least 100 years!!

Somehow I don't think "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit" doll is going to sell very well, and for good reason. It's boring. Kids should be encouraged to have a rich fantasy life. It encourages creativity. If that means a world of dragons and demons and sword fights between well endowed women and men carrying severed heads, great. If that means a world of butterflies and mermaids and catillions, that's great too. Kids know it's not real. It's parents who seem to have forgotten what it was like to be a kid.
What color is the sky in your world?jesse1
Aug 28, 2003 2:21 PM
You are so far out, you might be touching Mars right now!
Yeah, why stop at severed heads of women for 4 yr olds? Let's just get them all naked, and start teaching them about sex. There's your "rich fantasy life"! And as far as "parents who seem to have forgotten what it was like to be a kid" - When I was a kid, it was wind-up toys, scooters, wagons, etch-a-sketch, Tonka Trucks and listening to 78 rpm records. For some reason, when I graduated from high school in 1969, no one had ever been stabed, shot or raped in 12 yrs of schooling. We just never thought of it.
Do you have kids? If not, your opinion WILL change when you do. And you won't be able to help it.
Aug 28, 2003 3:01 PM
I can't imagine that any child who wasn't severly sheltered would never have thought to play war, "cops n' robbers" or "cowboys and indians" type games. Such violent fantasies were certainly common among children in your day, as they have been common throughout human history. But you never thought of it!?

Yet these days you seem to have an extraordinarily lurid imagingation when it comes to dreaming up paranoid fantasies, so I guess all's well that ends well.

Oh, but it is true that these violent games rarely led to real violence in your day. It is still true today.

In my day the boys in the neighborhood were armed to the teeth with very realistic looking cap guns. I had a sweet Tech 9 that I was particularly fond of. Yet, it never occured to me to shoot someone with a real gun. Frankly, real guns scare me. I don't think I'd even want the fake ones in my house these days. Maybe I grew out of them. Heck, maybe being allowed to indulge in these things when I was a kid allowed me to "get over them," so now guns hold no fascination for me.

Meanwhile, in my experience the most sheltered kids where the ones who were champing at the bit to skip childhood and get into the hard stuff. Their parents ever had a clue about what was going on, but they were invariably convinced they were doing a stellar job rearing their little angels.
To quote Ronald Reagan...jesse1
Aug 29, 2003 2:50 AM
..."Now there you go again." Misrepresenting. Misquoteing.
In the post you replyed to, I said that we just never thought of "shooting, stabing or raping". This was in the context of reality and not referred to in play. I grew up with either a high powered pellet or BB gun, and was quite content to shoot paper targets with circles on them.

I'm still trying to figure out your comment on my "dreaming up paranoid fantasies".

Although I'm no expert on the effects of the play you desribed (with cap guns), vs the play nowadays with pretty realistic video games (complete with blood & guts splattering), the must be a huge difference in the effects that would appear on a young child.

This has gotten away from the original thread, but can you deny that this is a much more hostile world for children growing up today? Why? There's plenty of things that shape the minds & futures of children now that didn't happen 10 yrs ago, much less 40 yrs ago.

Even if I didn't have a wife, a daughter & 3 grand daughters, it would bother me that supposedly 1 out of 3 women will be sexually assalted in their lifetime. I thought that figure was un-believable! But just this morning, on virtually every network news, it's being reported that about 20% of the female cadets at the Air Force Accadamy have been sexually assalted by male students there. If you believe the "hype" that in our military acadamies we only have the hand-picked, cream of the crop, what's that say about the rest of their peers?

Now getting back to the original thread, about the dress of young ladies, if the figures stated above are to be believed, why present yourself as a "target". Now stop right there! Don't even think about quoteing me as claiming that they're "asking for it". No sane person would. But to someone "looking for it", some targets will be more inviting than others. Why tempt fate if 33% of women will be sexual targets?
Simply put, your fears are irrational.czardonic
Aug 29, 2003 8:54 AM
They are not based on any real evidence that kids grow up in a "much more hostile world". Violent crime is down. Safety measures to protect kids are up. It is a much safer world for kids today that it has ever been. What has you so convinced that the opposite is true?
Chalk one up for the Bush administration!jesse1
Aug 29, 2003 1:36 PM
Can we agree that if violent crime is down, it's thanks to the administration in office? Sorry. I couldn't pass on that.
But, I don't believe violent crime is down. Down from what? When? From a year ago? 5 years ago? If so, that's still a lot different from when I was in school. And I'm sure you as well. When schools don't have to have security guards, metal detectors and drug dogs searching lockers, I'll change my opinion. But for now, we live in a violent society. I'm not afraid for myself, but if I was a woman, and had a 1 in 3 chance of being sexually assulted, it would be on my mind everywhere I went. I can't immagine how that would feel.
Men are more likely to be victimized by violent crime. . .czardonic
Aug 29, 2003 2:04 PM
. . .than women, FYI. But violent crime rates in general are lower today than they were in 1973. (BTW, the most precipitous drops started under the Clinton Administrations.)

The perception of skyrocketing crime rates, on the other hand, continues to climb. Of course, (big surprise) people who are frightened spend more money and surrender more of their rights. So chalk up one more wildly successful manipulation for the marketers that you accuse of degrading our young women. And really, what's more degrading than living in baseless fear?
Have to disagree with you (big shock, huh?).jesse1
Aug 30, 2003 2:44 AM
Lower violent crime than '73? I'd like to see the stats on that. I'd agree that in certain circumstances, and geographic areas (gang activity) men would be more likely to be victims, but cowardly thugs would be more inclined to go after a target who's more likely to not fight back, or not be able to harm them if there is resistance.
Here are the numbers I am referencing. . .czardonic
Sep 2, 2003 9:47 AM
. . . (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Check out the links under "Crime & victims".
Real guns scare you? Hmmm....RhodyRider
Aug 29, 2003 6:43 AM
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis."
Cute. (nm)czardonic
Aug 29, 2003 9:04 AM
oh come on now!ColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 7:43 AM
there is a difference between dressing sexy and dressing like you're a hooker. what's wrong with the human body that people think it needs to be all covered up?
I think girls should run around nekkid, myself.OldEdScott
Aug 28, 2003 8:45 AM
You're not serious are you?Live Steam
Aug 27, 2003 6:08 PM
I usually love to read you posts - especially when you are busting Czars cahones :O) But come on! Why do they wear that stuff? That's not a real question is it? Hey I'm all for 'freedom of dress':O) Call me a Liberal :O) I can tell you one thing - they didn't look like that when I was in high school! :O( Don't get me wrong, there were some nice things to look at, but not what I am seeing today. I think it's all the hormones they feed the chickens and cows with. I live immediately adjacent to two colleges and schools back :O) Ah, college coeds! I hope I'm not makin' ya' nervous or anything Money :O) Hey our parents said all the same things about us kids about 25 years ago. Now it's your turn to sweat!
I think you are a dirty old man.dr hoo
Aug 28, 2003 4:30 AM
I don't doubt that you NOTICED the scantily clad women in the summer heat. Clearly you LABELED them as sluts, and not people seeking relief from the heat. Clearly you IGNORED all the women in t-shirts and jeans on campus.

Why do they wear them? Why was it mini-skirts and hot pants back in the ancient days from whence you hail? Why did flappers show so much skin? They are young! You are old. Get over it.

The only time I think about it is when it is cold, or the woman is fat. Then I question their motivations. Then I think about how only the thinnest of women look good in those clothes, how any the slightest bulge stands out like it's spottlighted. How this ideal of beauty is unhealthy.

But it does look good on a few.
uhhh, actually...loki_1
Aug 29, 2003 9:40 AM
i have seen many of them label themselves as "SLUT"... literally, right there on the back of their shorts (and many other labels). : )
Until Madison Ave breaks out the turgid penis and sexualizes men128
Aug 28, 2003 4:45 AM
it's hard to see this style of dress as anything but a double standard, consumer fetishism and profiteering on the backs of women. As usual. And what about the same dress on fat ugly people? Is it funny? Absurd? Are you as concerned there? So the adverts place a sexualized unclothed girl next to two guys in baggy clothes, dark glasses and hats; any power differential there? Undress those boys, I wanna see some shaved cyclist.

The puritanical conservatives, as they push this sexualized product, are hypocritical to their ideals of modesty. The ever vigilant liberals protecting us from ourselves have no problem broadcasting this sexualized product. Selling product prevails. Protect our children, but dress them and strut them like Joan Benet Ramsey first.

But, Heaven forbid there should be but the slightest crotch bulge or a male showing skin and sexualizing himself at work or play. Ashcroft will call out the hounds. Dress codes will be rewritten.

Do only women get to be sexual in the media and cultural psyche? Are men just stereotypically "gross" and all the macho homophobes intimidated by male sexuality? What should a sexualized dresser expect for attention? What should the viewer consider appropriate response?

In my opinion, we could all walk around naked. I take any chance I get to wear as few clothes as possible.
I think you're rightmoneyman
Aug 28, 2003 5:49 AM
There is clearly a double standard, and both my daughter and I commented on it. While the women wore very little, the men wore baggy shorts, long t-shirts and generally covered themselves. Is it a power move? I think so. That's what bothers me so much about this standard of dress - that it is demeaning to women. When a woman wears these tiny clothes and shows off all that she has, the thought process runs to sex, as exemplified by the responses to my post by men who enjoy the view. A woman in tiny clothes is probably not regarded, first and foremost, as a PhD candidate or a future CEO.

I'm conservative, but I'm no prude. I just think preserving one's dignity is important.

welcome to the 18th centuryJS Haiku Shop
Aug 28, 2003 7:10 AM

"There is clearly a double standard, and both my daughter and I commented on it. While the women wore very little, the men wore baggy shorts, long t-shirts and generally covered themselves. Is it a power move? I think so."

the guys didn't get together in the campus gym and devise a plan to dress in a manner that offset what the girls are wearing. this is all about style, fashion or anti-fashion, and partly about not giving a sh!t (on the boys' behalf).

"That's what bothers me so much about this standard of dress - that it is demeaning to women."

It would be demeaning to women if those wearing it were forced to do so. If they've worn it by personal choice, it is not demaning to anyone but themselves, and only if they feel "demeaned".

"When a woman wears these tiny clothes and shows off all that she has, the thought process runs to sex, as exemplified by the responses to my post by men who enjoy the view."

News flash--your first thoughts ran to sex, good or bad. But, we're talking about high-school and college-aged boys here, not 80 year-old Tibetan monks. Skimpy clothing is not required for the throught process to "run(s) to sex"; it's already there.

"A woman in tiny clothes is probably not regarded, first and foremost, as a PhD candidate or a future CEO."

Oh, c'mon! They're college kids. 98% of them aren't trying to put on the airs of a PhD or CEO, anyway. Who do you think they're trying to impress?
Godd response, but not what he wanted to hear. nmLen J
Aug 28, 2003 11:57 AM
take a look at any cologne ad, or any ads in women's magazinesrufus
Aug 28, 2003 6:11 AM
there are just as many unclad young men, hell, more like boys, as there are women. men in their underwear, or even less, pushing all kinds of products. that's the state of advertising today.
I have128
Aug 28, 2003 6:36 AM
and I hear you, there is some. But it simply does not compare to the female side. Usually, it's a male's profile from behind looking down on some up-gazing AMAZINGLY BEAUTIFUL!! woman with the "I just came hard" look caressing a bottle of metaphor. I love the subtley of those ads: the voyeur and the harlot. And women do look like that sometimes (usually in the privacy of their own bedrooms- or dressing rooms at the department store where I like to...errrt!) But what would be the male corrolary? Pained orgasm like the women? Power thruster? How could the advert. pictures do justice to the male side of the sex act? Soon pornography will merge with the advert. industry and we will have met the end of consumer history.

Calvin Klein is trying, so there are some naked boys there. (He did once have a naked kid holding his jeans "there" in a clever phallus rumple of pants in his hand. That was cool.) But why not profile his penis under those Jockey briefs, and it's length and girth under those tighty whities rather than airbrush it out? (A: most laws are written that "turgid penis" is prohibited. While at the same time we worship anything phallic: beer bottles, colonge bottles, lipstick etc but the entire advert. industry has a tough time comoing up with even a decent bulge here and there)) So that the girls can SEE IT! and the men can aspire to it! Just like the anorexic busty babes the girls get to aspire to. Men need better role models!

So you take your pedestrian airbrushed Jockey underwear men and place them next to Versace's death-white woman on the marble staircase with her dress pulled up and let's see who gets wetter. Me or her. :)

Btw, there is a growing trend in the advert industry to 'sexualize' men as women have been so we can fairly exploit both genders. (much rejoicing)

What we need is to get advertising out of it and just have gratuitous naked people walking around offering hand outs...
Do you really want to be in our shoes? The grass is greener until you get to the other side.Kristin
Aug 28, 2003 6:43 AM
Do you want to be bombarded daily with images of sexy, gorgeous women who have silky bronze skin, perky breasts, belly buttons that go in, smooth curves in all the right places, precisely applied makeup, and not a hair out of place? A gentle breeze follows these women wherever they go. Music plays when they kiss a man. (God, I wish that would happen for me just once.) And the sun always shines. Even if it doesn't they are still beautiful. They are everywhere; these beautiful, perfect women. They never stumble or trip, cry, get dirt under their fingernails or need to itch anything...ever.

Okay, now extract yourself from the fantasy and imagine you are a less than perfect woman who is being bombarded with this image at least 150 times each day. Advertisers flaunt these beauties, sending out the message that I must strive to be like her or be dubbed nasty, ugly, hag...fatty--to use a term I've heard on this board several times. In the world of women's marketing, there are only two camps: perfect and imperfect. Why wouldn't pretty girls between the ages of 15 and 25 do everything in their power to look like a cover model? Why wouldn't they reach for the ideal? No one wants to be placed into the imperfect camp. And men for the most part, you support and encourage it. You ogle and drool, encouraging the pretty ones to take more off while making comments that make the less than pretty ones feel, well.less than pretty and without value.

Gentlemen, if the trend is going to change, the heart of our society must change; and I do not have much hope for that.
Well, a little north of there usually. ; )128
Aug 28, 2003 7:33 AM
You make my point(absent the sarcasm)well. I agree. I just wonder why the male body is rarely eploited as beautiful but often only as brutal. Don't know if it's only men encouraging 'the pretty ones' (BAND NAME ALERT!), ladies buy into the imagery as well. Point is, the female form is more visually appealing than anything else to the eye. Maybe women, and people, don't care for the male form. Maybe we're just afraid of it.

Just once I'd like to see a sexed up guy on his knees generously licking the creamy filling of a gently spread Oreo. He then acts as pleaser, as opposed to the one pleased. Kinda like all those beer and ice cream ads the ladies give so much pleasure in. Is what men do 'icky'? Not fit for exploitative viewing?? Maybe....

Oh, and go easy on those delicious desriptions would you! I'm at work ya know...And I'm just that close to breaking the law.
It's that way for men too...ColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 7:49 AM
you don't really think there are that many men out there that look like GQ models do you? And most of us less than ideal men probably obsess about weight and looks as much as women do. And if it isn't that we are expected to live a certain lifestyle according to the media. Dress nice, own a big house, drive a fancy car. I just don't buy into the media excuse.
But it's not sexual, not exploited and not everywhere you turn128
Aug 28, 2003 8:28 AM
I agree, the commercial and sexual pressure men face is TOTALLY ignored as far as I can tell (controlling/abusive women, job humiliation and pressure to produce and protect for the present and future, be open and talk and when they do are admonished as not real/strong men etc). But it is not the same as the sexual exposition of the female form for sales figures. I think this is about sexual exploitation, not the fabrication of desire around lifestyles and good lookling models. GQ models have clothes on, for starters. And theyre not posed, and poised and brushed into uncommon physical positions which display signs of sexaul availability and neediness. This is about the commercialized, sexualized body. An intimate thing if you think about it.

I did actually get a deal on a GQ sub. and I read it. It's a fashion magazine. LOTS of REALLY NICE clothes on hansome men. Lots of actual, wearable vestements. Women's mags are soft porn. There are few clothes. And the articles are not much better. They're mostly outlandish fashions of haute couture, very little practical wearable clothes.

The issue as I see it is sex, not fashion. Children, not adults. Adults pushing the creation of desire through marketing farther and farther down the age brackets. It's basically irrresponsible.

As for college kids? Don't worry about the clothes. They'll be naked most of the semester anyway....
I could take what you wrote...........Len J
Aug 28, 2003 12:07 PM
change the female references to to male & the same is true. As a dorky looking, skinny, nerdy, pimply faced, too young looking teenager & young man, feeling inadequate was reinforced from every direction. Listening too my kids, both male & female tells me this hasn't changed.

Until what is on the inside is more important than the outside, nothing will change.

Youth culturerwbadley
Aug 28, 2003 7:17 AM
Our culture here in the States is quite obsessed with the whole 'young, tight, hard-body' type of individual. Look at our TV shows (if you dare) and you find all programs inhabited by chillens under 25. A show that dares to show the 'mom and dad' will portray them at 35-40 years of age, and they better be good lookin'.

Having watched a fair number of the Brit shows, I have noticed one difference being the portrayal of a much higher percentage of older (sometimes much older) persons that may be also heavy, too skinny, bad teeth, hair etc. yet these shows are attractive in their demonstration that life is not just for the 25 year old beauty, instead choosing to display what may be termed a more average sort of person. Granted this person oozes character and lifes learned lessons. This could be easier to relate to than a show inhabited by the ideal figure, we are told that in the US the sex sells and the 'ideal' is what people want to see. They (the public) can see the average every day and really only want to be entertained by the fantasy of perfection.

When this image of visual perfection becomes accepted as the norm, we have our young striving to meet the visual standard, let the character and intelligence issues fall where they may.

I'd like to add, that some of these scantily clad beauties are no doubt budding Einsteins and Mother Theresa's, yet the odds are that most of them may grow up just to be Humvee driving soccar mom consumers with a high maintenance life style.
There is a dichotomy here, though.Jon Billheimer
Aug 28, 2003 7:26 AM
Have you noticed of late the number of commercials which feature fat, frumpy actors, both male and female? I have. Particularly fast food commercials, but others as well. It's pretty interesting that on the one hand we're bombarded with all the young hardbodies while at the same time the majority of North Americans are overweight and a significant portion obese. To cater to this depressing everyday reality a number of advertisers are showing us as we are, hoping, I think, that the average schlepp will identify with their product.
Throw out your television and see what happens to your lifeKristin
Aug 28, 2003 8:09 AM
Forgive me if you've heard the story already, but one big shocker when I got rid my TV 4 years ago was the change in my spending habits. I had always told myself that advertising didn't sucker me in. That I was wiser than they are and that it really doesn't least no on me. Well, within 1 year of watching zero television and only about 2 movies each month, I watched three habitually red budget items go into the green and remain there. Home decorating, clothes and food. I hadn't realized that I was compulsively shopping until I the drive to do so was gone. And all of this in the power of advertising. Its like a cancer.
good adviceDuane Gran
Aug 28, 2003 9:24 AM
I've been television free for about 5 years. I'm out of touch with popular culture stuff, but on the whole I don't find that to be very useful to my life. I keep informed through newspapers, web sites and of course, RBR. ;)
No hockey? No football? No Miss Teen World? wow...nm128
Aug 28, 2003 9:27 AM
No hockey? No football? No Miss Teen World? wow...nmrwbadley
Aug 28, 2003 9:58 AM
The little bit of TV this house is exposed to doesn't entail much in the way of pop culture. Mostly bits of the public station and not too much else. I have noticed commercials are catering to the overweight everyman sort of character. They sure want to sell their product, and know the person who's butt they need to crawl up.

The folks at work know better than to ask me if I saw such and such on the tube. Nope sorry, missed it. We have no cable, no satellite, and only get five channels- three of them clear enough to watch without eyestrain.

I am all for folks dumping their TV, but if that were to happen the economy would go in the toilet- nobody would know what to buy! heh heh.
RBR was your only mistake. You are doomed now ;)(nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 9:56 AM
my first reaction isJS Haiku Shop
Aug 28, 2003 7:18 AM
that your post makes you come across in a similar light with great-grandparents of my generation (i'm in my 30s), and as they reacted to long hair and earrings on boys.

with more thought, my final reaction is that i'm glad i don't have female offspring.

it must be tough raising 16 and 19 YO girls.

something to keep in mind, if at least i can remember a bit from being 16 and 19, is that the 16 YO is almost grown, and the 19 YO *is* grown. like it, or not.

I was long gone from home, working 2 jobs, still in school (for a scant few months), and paying rent & buying groceries at 16. "kids" deserve more credit than is typicall afforded.

question for you: with a mighty attempt at objectivity, if you were not the father of two teenaged girls, would you "enjoy" 30 minutes at the campus commons?
I did enjoy itmoneyman
Aug 28, 2003 11:34 AM
The first few women (not girls - they are adults) I saw my eyes about popped out of my head. They were gourgeous, and all that skin and tight clothing served its purpose. Then as I saw that virtually ALL the women were dressed like that, the appeal wore off and the disgust wore in. Disgust as to what has become of modesty and dignity. I maintain that people who dress like that are not taken seriously, by young men or future employers. The young men see these women and respond sexually. The future employers see them and look elsewhere.

It is difficult raising girls to be respectful women. I'm no old fart prude who wants to keep them under lock and key, but the way young women dress today is, IMHO, shameful. Yet I dont' think its entirely their fault. As addressed elsewhere in this thread, advertising by the retailers has a lot to do with it. The picture here is from Abercrombie and Fitch's website. What are they selling? Hard to say, since the model has no clothes on. Young women and girls are fed this stuff 24/7. It doesn't take all that long before they start to believe it.

Were they interviewing for jobs in this attire? I doubt it.czardonic
Aug 28, 2003 12:23 PM
Will more conservative clothes make any difference in the way that their male peers respond to them? Again, I doubt it. What you see as scandalous is simply the latest evolution of normal to these women and their male contemporaries. I doubt that it fazes anyone under 30.

Judgementalism and narrow-mindeness. That, IMO, is shameful.
I've seen it...Matno
Aug 31, 2003 5:37 PM
When I interviewed for med school there was a girl who interviewed the same day wearing little more than a mini skirt and a bra. She had a "shirt" that was more like a fishing net over it (but any fish under 1/2 a pound would have gotten away) as well as a jacket, which she never actually wore because it was a warm day. I guess it must have worked though, since she is in my class...

Funny thing is, she has a reputation for NEVER wearing anything that's not very revealing (which might get less negative attention if she were actually attractive). A bit of an oddity at a predominantly orthodox Jewish school. My wife and I run a small business that sells all of the official school clothing and other memorabilia, and one time she actually said "you don't carry anything I would wear." I had a hard time biting my tongue to keep from saying "that's because you don't wear anything!" On the other hand, I've seen a few guys who appeared to be wearing her...

BTW, I'm under 30 (barely) and I find revealing clothing to be very distracting. I say, anyone who isn't "fazed" by such things has more serious issues which haven't been addressed in this thread! (And I thought I was desensitized after 3 years in Europe...)

As for "Judgementalism [sic] and narrow-mindedness," most people (including you) seem to have that all wrong. To say that having an opinion that contradicts someone else's idea's of right and wrong is wrong, is a worse form of narrow-mindedness than to condemn what someone else is doing in public for moral reasons. It is not narrow-minded to have morals. For many of us who do, it simply means that we know there is something better out there. I truly feel sorry for those who follow the most misguided and narrow-minded philosophy of all: moral relativism.
Your exception proves my point.czardonic
Sep 2, 2003 9:55 AM
This "slut" (as you imply -- "I've seen a few guys who appeared to be wearing her...") is evidently of generally equal qualifications as you, her moral superior. How could that be?

As to your broader issue, I don't see (fail to see, as you may have it) what attire has to do with morality. I have no problems with morals that are actually based on something practical. But it is obvious to me that this particular aspect of your moral code traces back to sexual repression, immaturituy and poor self-control on the part of the beholder. I don't see what is moral about subjugating others to your own moral failings.
me like that picture...and you ARE an old fart prude ;) (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 1:23 PM
The young men see these women and respond sexually.rufus
Aug 28, 2003 6:07 PM
and perhaps that is the sole desired effect. i live about a half mile from the local high school, and worked with a lot of high school age kids. it's amazing just how sexual those girls can be, not just showing off what they have, but talking about, and aggressively pursuing guys just for sex. whether that is the result of the media advertising, tv and movie content, something else entirely, or a combination of all of them, i don't know.

all i know is that when i was in school, girls wouldn't yell out to guys walking by stuff like, "come over here, i want your c#*k", while you can hear all too similar comments frequently today.
Raising girls is just as easy.........Len J
Aug 28, 2003 12:15 PM
and just as hard as raising boys. The name of the game is instilling values, independance, decision making, responsibility and learning from their mistakes. You can't control the external influences so you have to work on strengthening the internal ones. Everything else is noise.

My parents thought our generation was too promiscuous too. This entire thread is laughable to me. Who the hell are we to judge the motives behind how anyone else dresses? There are soo many value judgements it's laughable.

Face it, every generation, in an attempt to demonstrate indepaendance from their parents are going to rebel and do whatever they can to be different (and atteempt to aggravate) their parents, dress different, listen to different music, etc, etc,. We did it, our parents did it, their parents did it, it's called growing up.

There are several people in this thread that should just lighten up.

don't know but I like itColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 7:41 AM
Then again I have 2 boys and my wife is the director of athletic programs at a local gym so maybe I'm just used to seeing women in skimpy things!
re: Women's dressmoneyman
Aug 28, 2003 7:46 AM
I am not the only one who is concerned with this. Here is a small sample of others' published opinions:,1375,VCS_230_2139330,00.html

And especially,,1413,36%257E28388%257E1576434,00.html

that proves nothingJS Haiku Shop
Aug 28, 2003 8:22 AM
I am not the only one concerned about alien beings' spacecraft propulsion systems exhaust disrupting my brainwave frequencies; i could site as many references online for related concerns and instructions for addressing them with aluminum foil beanies. the fact that people agree or disagree with your take on girls' skimpy dress is irrelevant.

this is going to turn into yet another non-cycling discussions board liberal/conservative debate, and you guys are going to start with the pseudo-intellectual $.50 words with all those syllables, and the buzzwords from the ny times, and then i'll have to remind myself "stay out of the non-cycling discussions forum".

btw, have you guys seen jennifer garner? wolf whistle! nmJS Haiku Shop
Aug 28, 2003 8:23 AM
she's wearing too many clothes. ;) nmrufus
Aug 28, 2003 8:43 AM
bad examplemohair_chair
Aug 28, 2003 8:47 AM
She's one woman who looks far hotter dressed up than dressed down. Pumps, little black dress, pearls, YOWZA! Makes grown men faint. Strangely, I liked her in bright red hair, too.
Is she Jim Rockford's kid? nm128
Aug 28, 2003 8:53 AM
go look in gyms/fitness facilities...ClydeTri
Aug 28, 2003 8:48 AM
most of the guys are in baggy sweats/shirts and the gals in skin tight tiny tops and shorts...yes, they want us to see, they are showing off...
doesnt it relate to the anthropology, the woman is by instinct wanting to show her "goods" as to attract an alpha male?
a good example is high heelsColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 9:06 AM
if that isn't a fashion over function i don't know what least the fitness babes can justify the tight stuff because it makes sense when working out--you want to see those muscles working. the lycra jogbras supports and wicks sweat better than an old cotton t-shirt.
Thank youDuane Gran
Aug 28, 2003 9:10 AM
Thank you for stating clearly what has been in my mind. I would prefer that women would dress more conservatively, but I have to hope this is a phase that may soon pass. I work on at a University and know exactly what you are talking about.
Required Reading...mdehner
Aug 28, 2003 9:23 AM
for anyone interested in or concerned with these issues:

Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls (Ballantine Reader's Circle) by Mary Pipher.

A great, sad, and insightful book, not just for parents.
More Required Reading...Rode Warrior
Aug 28, 2003 10:24 AM
Try "Deadly Persuasion", by Jean Kilbourne. Although it did sound a bit preachy to me, it is quite an eye opener.

Don't for a second believe that you are above the influences of advertisers. They spend millions of dollars every year to crawl into your mind, and they are quite effective.
I talked this over with my 17yo son and ...rwbadley
Aug 28, 2003 11:24 AM
He just wanted to gripe about the fact that there are no 'Hot Chicks' in his econ class (In High School). I asked him if there were no firm, strong young women in the class. His reply was that their "faces all looked like they'd been hit with a frying pan"

My reply was "well what are you doing looking at their faces?" heheheheheh He then went on to say that in his University class "now that's where the real meat is"

I then suggested maybe he should take the camera to class, line 'em up for a group photo. "I'm just taking this picture for my Dad, he wants to see what you all look like. He can't believe there are no good looking ones in the class"

I imagine that would go over like a turd in a punch bowl...

I explained that it is wise to look more than skin deep. Son laughed and said "I suppose"

Now how does this reflect on we as parents? Oh gawd I have failed to instill values in my own son!?

I have to add, this seems to be a pretty typical response from this age group, as I am pretty sure 25 yrs ago my focus may have been similar. I have to honest and say I enjoy looking at 'the stuff' myself. Tho' not having daughters in that age group, maybe I don't feel guilty over the whole sordid lust instinct.

I guess it's best not to sweat it, as it all comes out in the wash.

he's 17 and full of hormones...what'ya expect? (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 28, 2003 1:26 PM
Aug 29, 2003 8:21 AM
Okay, I don't often agree with your take on politico/social issues so there's no reason to start now I suppose. I'd offer this thought. One of the few generalizations/truisms that I think apply to human behavior is this. To better understand why the way people dress bothers you, ask yourself why it bothers you in the first place. Why do you care? Extreme example. When Woody Allen married his adopted child whol was of legal age and consented (I think that they're still together? Dunno though) many people were disgusted. Why? I'd guess the fact that many in our culture a reared to abhore this. Is it our puritan background that taught us to think this? Where are your "values" derived from? My guess is that what's been wired in you is some sort of relativism based on a judeo-christian (puritan-like) upbringing. The pitfall to your relativistic judgements is just that.....they're relative to the times we live in and by what those who taught you your "values" thought was "proper." Czar is famous for reminding people of a moral/social/political-relativism now and again, and I'd have to agree. (I'm guilty as well less you think that I'm some sort of bohdisaatva or something.)

Remember, tolerance is a two-way street.

Its got nothing to do with tolerancemoneyman
Aug 29, 2003 9:11 AM
And I take umbrage at your assessment of me being "hard wired" in any way. The morals and values I have are those I have accepted, not ones that have been force fed. Moral relativism is not a credo I subscribe to. With moral relativism, there is nothing that could be reasonably objected to, as someone, somewhere would say "Didn't affect me. Doesn't matter. Must be OK."

My objection to the dress of these young women is based on the fact that it is degrading and objectifying to the women. They become objects of sexual desire and male attraction at its basest level, not individuals who have much more to offer than T&A. In the same way that feminists rebelled against pornography as disrespectful, degrading and objectifying, I object to this manner of dress. Its attraction is prurient, and it is not just a matter of young people asserting their independence. In a greater sense, it is a case of the masses being had by the marketers, as explained elsewhere in this discussion.

You and czar are certainly birds of a feather. I don't agree with his assessments, either.

Its not their fault that <i>you</i> look down on them.czardonic
Aug 29, 2003 9:28 AM
Nor is it their fault that some bare skin chases all thoughts other than sexual desire from your mind. The clothes are not degrading and objectifiying. Those are products of your own (apparently actively embraced) attitudes.

I submit that your contempt for them is based on your discomfort with the "bad" thoughts that they inspire in your own mind. Maybe you should have reeled in your tounge and actually talked to these women. You might have discovered that a hot, half naked women can also pack enough wit and intelligence to keep the callow imbeciles at bay.

I think that the Taliban comparison is a tad gratuitous, but it is hard not to notice the similarity in mindset. Some feminists may object to pornography, but that does not mean that the opposite extreme of de-sexualizing women to "save" them from the alternating lust and projected self-disgust of men reflects feminist attitudes.
$$, If it's not hard wired, change it.eyebob
Sep 4, 2003 12:46 PM
Bet you can't. Automatic thoughts (ooops that's the pop psychologist in me coming out) are virtually impossible to fully alter. The best you might expect is to catch them when you experience them.

BTW, using the words "prude, prudish, and prurient" are very telling, especially in the context of trying to deny that you resemble a "prude."

What was that saying in the 70's? If it's too loud, you're too old (regarding music), well, if you think their clothes are too revealing, you might just be a prude.

Acceptance is a two-way street.

I love to ogle, yet Moneyman has stumbled upon somethingStarliner
Aug 29, 2003 10:47 AM
There are a lot of ways to look at this issue, as it's so complex.

Given the many sexually oriented laws that target men, such as sexual harassment, one big problem I see with skimpily clothed females jiggling on by is the self-desensitization heterosexual men must undergo in order to keep our wits and our hands to ourselves.

To say that we men should just get with it and simply accept this trend as just the way things are now (compared to earlier days) is proof of this desensitization process having taken effect. That's not good, at least for me.

I'm a man who wants to stay in touch with that sexual part of me - I want to stay sexually sharp. To have to walk around and pretend not to notice the kind of beauty and attractiveness that the present fashions offer for fear that I will be accused of too many seconds worth of eye contact is totally contrary to my own attempts at living my life in a sensitive, feeling way.

Sometimes I joke that I should move to a Muslim country. In fact, sometimes I think that the root cause for cultural conflict between their and our culture is that Islam seems to understand and respect the power of sexuality in ways that we in the West are totally ignorant of. They cover their women because they don't want their men to lose their sexual sensitivity - it's about life and preserving its future - it's ancient in its roots - and it's a form of morality which in a sense resembles our own historical morals about controlling sexual arousal.

What there is to understand is that of the two genders, only one, the male gender, needs to be aroused for procreation to occur, and life to go on. (Not to say that it wouldn't be nice for the female gender to be aroused as well, but things can happen without that). And we men seem to be wired to become aroused when we see someone we find attractive.

I think seeing those scantily clad girls in his face plucked a very primal chord deep within Moneyman, and it made him uncomfortable. He might not have realized exactly why, other than that it conflicted with his sense of morality. I'll bet that if he would delve more deeply within himself he would understand that his natural sexual instincts were being tweaked, forcing him into a state of shutting a cherished part of himself down in the process lest he lose control. And to be put in that position was not something he wants to find himself doing.

Morality is a protection and offers a structure for our most basic feelings to manifest. I understand how Moneyman was hurt that day.
When in doubt about anything, refer to "Seinfeld".jesse1
Aug 30, 2003 2:52 AM
Just a couple of nights ago the episode where George was caught staring at the ample cleavage of NBC's prsident's 15 yr old daughter. He got caught in the act and Jerry lectured him by saying something to the effect "You don't stare at cleavage! It's like looking into the sun! Look fast then just be aware of it!"