The raunch culture that’s inundating our boys from babyhood

[Liberal_in_LA]

I'm Too Sexy for My Onesie

The raunch culture that’s inundating our boys from babyhood.

For their 2006 book Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers' Schemes, Lyn Mikel Brown and Sharon Lamb, both professors, waded through the pink muck of girl culture.

---------------------

One of the questions they encountered most often in promoting the book was “What about the boys?” So they set out to find the answer. What they discovered was that boys were being pigeonholed as much as girls. In their new book, Packaging Boyhood: Saving Our Sons From Superheroes, Slackers, and Other Media Stereotypes, co-authored with Mark Tappan, a professor of education at Colby College, they offer interesting new insight into the way oversexed “raunch culture” is marketed to young boys in everything from T-shirts to cologne. Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it.

That boys are getting their share of raunch culture should be an unsurprising conclusion, but the examples they give are shocking both in number and extremity: onesies with “Chicks Dig Me” or “Playground Pimp” (spelled out in alphabet blocks) printed across the front; T-shirts that declare “My Mom Is a MILF,” “All Daddy Wanted Was a Blowjob,” and “Hung Like a Five-Year Old.” Abercrombie & Fitch offers tees with slogans like “Save a Cherry, Pop a Collar” and “One Man’s Junk is Another Woman’s Treasure.” Other favorite shirts cited in a survey answered by more than 600 boys across the country included such charm-free sentiments as “You Can Have My Sister" and “Let’s Flip a Coin. Heads I Get Tail. Tails I Get Head.”

http://www.doublex.com/section/health-science/im-too-sexy-my-onesie

[Warren DeMontague]

1. I think there's a pretty big chasm between "chicks dig me" and "all daddy wanted was a blowjob"

I haven't seen any little kids or babies wearing anything like that. Not even close.

As for "boys are being conditioned to want sex"... I'm sorry, but young men are GOING to want sex. That's the way it works. It's offensive as all get-out to suggest that somehow gays can be hyp-mo-tized out of being gay, everyone who has a brain realizes it's biological.

So why do we still get treated to these old, tired fucking Dworkin memes about how heterosexual men only want lots of sex because they're 'conditioned by the patriarchy' to?

:eyes:

[paulsby]

3. thank you thank you

it's amazing how often science gets thrown away when people start discussing gender differences.

i had to live through years of first wave (it's a social construction) crap.

glad to see that the voluminous data has finally overwhelmed the ideologues.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

7. Correct

I can remember back to when I was about 6 years old trying to get a sneak peek at my then fine god mother changing in the bathroom. It had nothing to do with conditioning. I don't understand why people say that society is programming young guys to be oversexed.

[Egnever]

11. After watching my five year old I couldn't agree more

All boy from the get go. I don't think I could stop it if I wanted to. He just falls into the stereo types one by one.

Having said that some of those slogans are so inappropriate for baby clothing it makes me wonder about the sanity of not only the people who decide its a good idea to make them but also makes me worry about the children of the people that would buy them.

Guess I am getting old.

[jivamuhkti]

271. I oppose this trash and I am not an old fogey!

We have the dumbing-down of culture, as well as the trashing up of it. And those of us who think that a wholesome society is preferable should not apologize or act as if we "just don't get it!" Plus, I think it's wrong to use one's child as a virtual bumper to stick slogans on, but that's just me...

[Onceuponalife]

19. ......

[Chemisse]

22. That is pretty disgusting nt

[Raine]

24. Self-delete

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Well, I guess that proves... something.

I suspect that 99% of those that are sold, are sold as jokes and nothing more.

But pearl-clutching & hand-wringing about the "raunch culture" aside, I personally find mega-churches, abstinence pledges, "purity balls" and rampant evolution denial more disturbing societal trends..

...but maybe that's just me. :shrug:

[StopTheNeoCons]

54. +1

[Scout]

70. "pearl-clutching & hand-wringing about the "raunch culture""

says waaaaaaay more about you than it does about the article.

:eyes:

[Toasterlad]

72. Indeed. It Says He Doesn't Put Much Stock In the Article. Neither Do I.

[Scout]

75. it says he doesn't much give a shit about anyone but himself, and their concerns n/t

[Toasterlad]

82. Hm. Are You Familiar With the Concept of "Projection"?

Your interpretation of his remarks is, shall we say, extreme.

[Scout]

your extreme is my reasonable

you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.

:shrug:

[DainBramaged]

218. Life is too short to chase everyone else's morality

The nanny state, brought to you by 'Liberals' who want to control life from 'onesies' to soda.

[cliffordu]

348. YEP.

[DainBramaged]

372. After a while, you begin to wonder about how they lead their lives

and think about where they live........

[BoneDaddy]

385. Yep

So many liberals are so unaware that they act more like the "freedum luving mericans" who praise Jesus and hate gays. They just praise something different and hate something different. Two heads to the same tired coin.

[redwitch]

263. Wow! Where did you get that?????

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

88. i guess there are only two choices. pearl clutch or porn. no middle ground here. nt

[redqueen]

101. Anything to ignore the point... anything at all. (nt)

[seabeyond]

109. yes. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

113. And they are remarkably unaware of their own similarities to the fundies.

Pornified liberal doodz see women as appliances.

Fundie asshole male supremacist pricks see women as appliances.

But the liberal guys want you to bow down in adoration for them because they're pro-choice.

[seabeyond]

115. exactly. nt

[cliffordu]

349. What about couples that film themselves and then post the result online??

What about people who watch those amateur, married couples?? Who's the appliance??

Sometimes I'm the appliance here at the house, sometimes I'm just the guy who cooks dinner.

Sometimes she's the appliance.....

I guess what I'm getting to is there's a continuum. isn't there???

[Warren DeMontague]

354. Pot, meet kettle.

Pro-censorship, anti-sex, continually bleating about the 'moral degradation of the culture'... shit, downthread you've got someone blaming rape on 'promiscuity' and pining for the wonderful old 1950s.

Hell, MacKinnon was right at home with the Meese comission, wasn't she?

I'm surprised no one in this thread has brought up the fundy nutjobber Dubya hired to promote the idea that nude pictures create evil 'erotoxins' in befuddled male brains.

Someone is similar to the fundies, that's for sure.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. Oh, there's a rather broad middle ground.

You could always choose not to watch porn, choose not wear naughty t-shirts, turn off offensive, or choose not to play violent video games.

But then there's always that horrible lingering thought that somebody somewhere might be having fun.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. H.L. Mencken, is that you? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

163. If we play our cards right here, we could conceivably re-ignite DU's famed porn wars.

Ah, the good old days. sigh.

Of course, they used to get pretty boring quick, since most of the board tilts heavily towards the 1st Amendment and consenting adults, self-determination and all that nonsense yadda yadda yadda.

But given what I suspect is a considerable army of socks clones being housed in a secret corner of the DU Galaxy, I suppose this time it could turn out interesting.

[NashVegas]

232. What Part of "Inappropriate" Do You Not Get

It's not a Dworkin/McKinnon thing.

One doesn't have to be a Puritan or a fundie to want to raise their families free of junk culture, but it's kind of hard when invested interests and stupid hipsters who can't see the forest for the trees are all shouting, "oh, it's harmless," in unison.

[Warren DeMontague]

297. "invested interests"? It's a t-shirt with words on it.

Anyone who doesn't want to buy them doesn't have to. Have you been a parent of little kids in the last 10 years? I have.

I've never seen a single baby wearing a onesie saying "All daddy wanted was a blowjob". I'm willing to bet that not very many of them have been sold, and 99% of the ones that have were given as a joke gift, most often by the kid's mom, and they sat in a drawer or were worn twice while the baby was eating oatmeal.

(REAL parents understand that it doesn't matter all that much what the baby's clothes SAY, because half the time you're not going to be able to read it, anyway)

T-shirts for 2 year old boys that say "Chick Magnet"? *yawn*.

We got our son one that said "Ladies Man". I'm sorry, I guess my spending dollars perpetuated the patriarchy, there. Must be because I'm a stupid hipster.

[TK421]

134. sign of the times....that is all

[Lilyeye]

146. That picture makes me sick.

You don't put a fucking shirt like that on a BABY!!!!

[Luciferous]

325. Agreed

My 2 year old had a "chicks dig me" shirt, but I would NEVER allow my child to wear something like that. Anyone who buys a shirt like that for a baby is disgusting and trashy.

[Warren DeMontague]

343. You realize that the "chicks dig me" shirt is supposed to be part of the problem, too?

I mean, this is the fucking internet. You can find a picture of a dog driving a tractor, that doesn't mean it's a common occurrence.



The authors of this piece have taken a couple examples from a site that specializes in t-shirts designed to "offend", and extrapolated some grand societal trend.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. There's a difference between wanting sex and thinking you are entitled to it.

That's what feminists have been trying to explain to you for years while you've been dismissing it as "tired fucking Dworkin memes".

[Warren DeMontague]

37. "Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex"

That's pretty god-damn clear; the male hetero sex drive is a creation of "The Patriarchy".

Of course, when gay men or lesbians enthusiastically screw each other, they are acting on their own natural inclinations.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. And girls are told, from an early age, to be sexy.

Our own wants and desires are not a priority. The patriarchy didn't create my sex drive any more than it created yours, but it did give both of us very different prescriptions for how we are supposed to act on them.

[Toasterlad]

45. That Much, Certainly, Is True. Society Informs the Way We View Sex, Undoubtedly.

[defendandprotect]

295. And too much of it a "keyhole" view of human sexuality --

focus on an act of pentration --

could be 3 seconds -- but that's the emphasis --!!

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Fortunately, like Ex-Catholics who have ditched the sex guilt they were taught from an early age

we can determine for ourselves how we want to feel about those things.

Personally, I think all this hand-wringing about the supposed "raunch culture" is more than a little overblown.

[Joe Chi Minh]

270. Tell that to the service-women in the American military who have apparently

been raped by their own comrades-in-arms in extraordinary numbers - and seemingly with relative impunity, up to now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that is a feature of the armed forces of other countries with a less heavy-duty, commercially-sexualized culture.

[Warren DeMontague]

296. I think you're really fucking stretching it if you're saying baby onesies are causing army rapes.

I think that rape is a VERY serious problem in sexually repressed countries, countries without this dreaded "commercially-sexualized culture". Of course, many of those countries may not have women in their armies. And rape isn't about sex, remember?

Israel has large numbers of women serving in their armed forces, and Israel also has a very open society sexually. Generally (at least among the portions of the society that tend to serve) they're not uptight about nudity, porn, sex, or even raunchy jokes on t-shirts. (They also let Gays & Lesbians serve openly) I don't know what the numbers are, but given that they've had women & men serving alongside each other for decades, I don't think they have the same sort of problems with this that we do.

But What, precisely, does rape in the army have to do with toddler shirts that say "Chick Magnet", anyway? :shrug:

[Joe Chi Minh]

329. No. you're wrong. Pornography and promiscuity have evidently played a key role in the

rise in the incidences of rape. Or do you think that maybe it's been caused by sexual represssion?!?! A famous American serial killer attributed his actions to porn. And certainly, promiscuity often leads to all sorts of bizarre deviancies, if British killer-rapists are any guide.

"Rape isn't about sex, remember?" Like others, you're taking that way too far. The physical act, itself, is that of violent sexual congress. The interaction of genitalia. Did you think it was something to do with the 'partners'' pancreases, or belly-buttons?

"Israel has a large number of women serving in the armed forces.....", so do they have a similar problem with the males raping their female comrades? If not why not? What is your explanation? I see that you dismiss my contention on the grounds that Israel has a very open society. I take it you mean Israel IS a very 'open' society, but maybe not. Would it have as many lap-dancing clubs and hard-core film outfits per head of population, as the US? I believe Israel conscripts a proportion of its troops, presumably drawn from across the population, in which case, you are gratuitously generalizing. Despite its more recent founding, Israel is not an entirely secular society, is it? I believe it would have a significant proportion of practising liberal and orthodox Jews, as well as atheists, and I suspect Big Business doesn't have quite the total sway over the country it has in the US and UK.

However much we may enjoy sex, whether within marriage or outside it, most people recognise and love the precious dimension the sexual innocence of young children, which is in keeping with the innocence of the state of their mental development. I think the caption on the toddlers's tee-shit, "Chick Magnet" is hilarious, but you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between degrees of innocent humour and extreme coarseness. Some of those other captions on a child's tee-shirt are very ugly to see.

I realise that, like humour, there are bound to be degrees of variation in our appreciation of what we consider to be morally ugly, but this topic seems less susceptible to ambivalence, it seems to me. It's a bit like Jacko's sister flashing her breasts at the football match. Beautiful to see, but that's not the point. It's the way in which societies continue to degrade, little by little. One thing leads to another on a sliding scale (I'm not referring to the chick magnet and such like). It would have been the thin end of the wedge, had there been no sanction or even fuss made over it. We already have young wannabe stars flashing their vaginas as they exit vehicles. What will be the next "daring" attention-grabber?

In the UK, we now have primary school children raping and sodomising each other. It didn't happen in the fifties or before. If it did it would have been very rare indeed. I doubt if it happened in the sixties, maybe seventies. I certainly don't ever remember seeing it reported in the newspapers.

Do you remember the case of the toddler, Jamie Bulger, who was murdered by two 10-year olds? They had watched hard-core porn videos of their parents. Of course, some have said that hard-core videos and ultra-violent video games, alone, don't turn children into killers. Of course, not, because they exist in the ambience of the society concerned, and some parents will have a worse effect than others, some having, themselves, preyed on the young victims. Incidentally, I remember an atheist Guardian journalist at that time, saying he did not beleive in God, but this kind of thing made him acutely aware of his sense that he had nothing in its place to make any sense of such a horror. Didn't Ted Bundy attribute his actions to pornography. What was in it for him, to make that up? Of course, again, there must have been other major factors - not least the fact that he was a total psychopath, but its negative effects should clearly not be discounted.

Let us know if you can get hold of the figures for male Israeli soldiers raping their female comrades, will you?

[dustbunnie]

330. Your post is too long to go into at length but I'll just point out --

What was in it for Ted Bundy was attention. Death was closing in on him, and James Dobson offered him one last chance to climb into the limelight. It was complete bullshit. What drove Bundy to kill was a combination of sociopathy coupled with rage at having been rejected by his beloved Stephanie Brooks. All of his victims resembled her.

Bundy was born in a home for unwed mothers and grew up thinking his mother was his sister. It came out after he was caught that discovering the truth about his circumstances later "changed him" forever. His aunt relates a story wherein she awoke from an afternoon nap to find Ted had ringed her body with knives pointing inward toward her body. Also, it's commonly accepted that serial killers become what they are at a very early age. It's also commonly accepted that sociopathy is innate, not learned.

You have also fallen into the trap of thinking that just because you didn't "hear about it" when you were young, that violent depraved acts didn't happen. They did, with frequency. Murder, rape, serial killings, gang rape, home invasion, kidnapping, sickening acts of cruelty... all happened. It's only now that we access to so much information so quickly that the world is privy to what used to be kept in the shadows.

[Warren DeMontague]

335. "Pornography and promiscuity have evidently played a key role in the rise in the incidences of rape"

Got any statistics to back THAT one up?

I don't mean the word of Ted Bundy, who was also a pathological liar.

Here, I'll do your homework, for you: There is NO definitive scientific evidence linking consenting adults looking at pictures of other naked adults, or watching films of other consenting adults fucking, to incidence of rape. NONE.

But let's cut to the chase, shall we? You think things were "better" in the 1950s, before society got so "coarse". You think "promiscuity" is a societal "problem". You do understand that this is essentially the fundamentalist right-wing argument, here in the states, don't you? Before "free love" and the "feel good 60s" fucked everything up.

"Slippery slope" arguments aside, violent crime, including rape, is actually down from where it used to be.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

As you can see, it peaked around 1991-1993, well before free porn became widely available to anyone with an internet connection & a search engine. Of course, I wouldn't attribute the drop in violent crime to the easy availability of porn, any more than I would attribute its rise to it- I actually think violent crime rates are driven by things like economic conditions and the median age of the population.

[AngryAmish]

376. WHy has the incidence of rape gone down about 85% in the last 30 years?

Tons more porn now then 30 years ago. This thing we are using? It is called the internet. And you can find porn on the internet.

[Joe Chi Minh]

379. It would seem the military has taken a fair few. But, do you believe all statistics?

Or just the most implausible?

Anyway, it's pointless disputing the matter. People on both sides tend to have made up their minds quite firmly. One is right and one is wrong. But statistics can be produced to prove anything and everything. I'm not, of course, contending that it turns everyone into a rapist, but that it creates a climate in which a certain proportion people become more vulnerable to promptings to rape than in a less frenetically-sexualized society.

I don't believe rape would have figured as highly in the military serving in WWII. Not by a long chalk.

"This one I do". I rest my case. As long as people are unable to read the signs of the times (whether or not, by reason of youth alone), it must, it seems, remain a subject of complete disagreement between individuals.

[AngryAmish]

380. This one I do.

[Warren DeMontague]

381. Wait a minute. YOU were the one who first tried to use 'statistics' to bolster your claims

Now that you've been presented with actual statistics that contradict your assertions, all of a sudden it's questionable to use statistics? :shrug:

less "frenetically sexualized" societies- like, say, Saudi Arabia- still have rape.

Where is this magically free and open society that nevertheless bans pictures of consenting adults fucking, and has reduced or eliminated rape? Do tell.

[Uncle Joe]

382. This could be related to the demographics of an aging baby boomer generation. n/t

[NashVegas]

233. And Then We're Penalized When We Are

"Oh? You mean I'm not supposed to be fucking boys at age 9? Shit, why didn't someone tell me?"

[Scout]

73. nice selective quoting there....

use the whole sentence please:

"to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it"

no one is saying boys don't ever want sex on their own, but then i bet you knew that, didn't you.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. I doubt anyone is going to be greatly influenced by a joke printed on their onesie.

But don't let that stop your outrage train.

[Scout]

160. we all know already that you don't give a shit about other people

and your comments here prove that. especially the way you've locked onto that one sentence FRAGMENT and keep using it thinking you are making some great point or observation.

[Warren DeMontague]

227. Anyone who challenges your self-validating, axiomatic bullshit doesn't 'give a shit about

other people'?

You don't fucking know me. You have no idea who I've helped, what I've done, where I've been. All you know is, I think this fucking OP is ridiculous, I think the outrage train over "chick magnet" t-shirts for toddlers is absurd.

What's YOUR great point or observation? That women are being oppressed because a baby got a "daddy wanted a blowjob" onesie as a joke, probably from the mom?

No, really, if there's some grand consciousness raising to be done here, let's fucking have it.

[Scout]

71. +100 n/t

[Kalyke]

63. I think the difference here is this: yes, young people of BOTH genders

are GOING to want sex, but it shouldn't be promoted as everything - and the only thing - a young man strives for and nothing a young woman should ever want (until marriage).

I wish every man who says "it's biological" could transform into a woman for a very short time and watch TV or go out to a club to witness the misogyny and disrespect young men have for young women, whether it's in a television ad (as has been discussed today) or face-to-face.

Then you may begin to understand why we should promote other "recreational" outlets for young men, while simultaneously getting rid of that pink Barbie wannabe crap for young women.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Yeah, I don't get why "it's biological" should ever be accepted as an excuse for being an asshole.

Institutions await those who cannot control their biological urges.

[Scout]

78. boys will be boys, but so many of them will be assholes if you let them get away with it. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

81. That's the key. They get away with it.

If the world became a matriarchy where women held the power and had all the privilege I don't if female assholery would look the same as the male kind we have in the world now. But assholery of some sort there would be.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

360. girls will be girls, but so many of them will be bitches if you let them get away with it. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Who is being an asshole in the OP? The toddler with "Chick Magnet" printed on it?

Oh, I know, *I* am, in the thread, (spare you the effort of the response) for daring to challenge the Axiomatic Smith College Womens' Studies Dept. Bullshit again.

But what, precise, behavior is "assholeish" in this story? You've got people who are pissed off at a joke printed on a onesie. You've got some anecdotal shit about babies with shirts that say "hung like a 5 year old". Once again, these are floated as signs of the apocalyptic demise of western civilization.

I'm sorry, but this entire thread is a search for an excuse for manufactured outrage, based upon urban legends and dumb t-shirts.

[Scout]

164. i wasn't talking about the OP n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

192. Conveniently forgetting that there's such a thing as "subthreads" comes in handy

Warren knows full well that I was responding to a comment that was about a larger issue and not just the OP.

[Hello_Kitty]

172. And yet you showed up right away

To promote armchair biology bullhockey and trot out every MRA's favorite bete noir Andrea Dworkin. You are so boringly predictable, Warren.

[Scout]

191. new keyboard please Kitty! :rofl: "boringly predictable" .... n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

226. I just call 'em like I see 'em. And we all know where shit like "boys are being told to want sex"

(And Here's the rest of the sentence!)

just as much as girls are being told to embody it.

Yeah, we all know which mentally ill bete noir that sort of craptastic logic originated with. You're playing off the same 30 year old script. Who's predictable?

[dionysus]

384. have you been possessed by the ghost of OMC?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[bluetrain]

64. So, if they're not conditioned you just think they're naturally misogynistic and inclined toward

aggressively seeking sex? I'm not arguing with you, but I do wonder what the solution to that problem is. We will nver have an equal society if men are always predatory.

[Gwendolyn]

83. Misogynist, no. Aggressively seeking sex, yes.

If women weren't conditioned to be more reticent, more would be aggressively seeking sex as well.

A solution would be to put the onus for initiating romantic/sexual contact on women. That is, women asking men out, taking them on dates, deciding when to make the first move, etc.

[alphafemale]

181. agree...to a point

many adolescent girls today are extremely sexually seeking.

While there are those who would tell us that that is merely a product of poor self esteem and they are really being victimized I don't really agree.

Sex feels good.

Why should we assume that these young girls that enjoy sex with multiple partners are somehow victims.

I would want them educated about STD's and pregnancy prevention, but they should be allowed to have just as much fun as the boys always have been expected to have in their youth.

Those onesies are stupid. But those babies/toddlers have no idea what their shirts say. There's no way they are being influenced by them.

[Gwendolyn]

187. You make a hell of a lot of sense to me.

:)

[Unvanguard]

243. Andrea Dworkin said nothing of the sort, incidentally

though she did say, probably rightly, that a lot of the ways our society thinks about "sex" are conditioned by the patriarchy.

The "raunch culture" noted in the OP is a perfectly fine example of this: it's not "sex" as such, it's sex with a certain picture of gender relations embedded in it.

[Warren DeMontague]

300. She was a tragic, probably mentally ill figure, who most likely could have benefitted from meds

She commands a dwindling but still-unhinged core group of devotees.

She's really a lot like Ayn Rand.


And I'm perfectly capable of dredging up quotes of the things she actually DID say, verbatim, if you insist on going down that road.

[Scout]

304. yeah, sentence fragments taken out of context :eyes: n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

306. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the meaning of "boys are being told to want sex" changes

if the entire sentence is quoted, as it is here:

"Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it.

There it is. The whole sentence. Like I said, the second part of the sentence doesn't change the meaning of the first part, it just quantifies it: "just as much".

Don't you think it says something about the words- or about Dworkin's words, for that matter- if you have to spend that much time running away from them or trying to explain them away? :shrug:

[Scout]

321. i think you should work on your reading comprehension....

if you still insist that the fragment you quote has the exact same meaning as the entire sentence.

if you're not going to do that, then you aren't worth the time it takes to post.

[Warren DeMontague]

337. I do.

Nice cop-out. :hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Seems like a lot of boys at my sons' school want to use or are using AXE body products. That seems

a little odd to me since these kids were only just washing with Elmo Shampoo or what-have-you a couple of years ago.

[Raster]

5. AXE is taking advantage of their raging hormones, NOT CAUSING THEM!

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Well, I get that the first major flush of testosterone comes through at

7 or 8 or so, but I'm not sure that's why my 9yo wants the AXE stuff. It seems more like I hear the "hey, the big boys in brother's class are doing it" tone in his voice than the "Hey, those chicks in the commercials are so hot" one.

[Hippo_Tron]

178. I remember the body spray craze in middle and high school

Most people grew out of it when they realized that it's essentially like bathing yourself in cologne and that girls generally aren't attracted to that. Although a professor mine in his 40's uses it, so go figure.

[vadawg]

15. axe is the only stuff i use, its pungent enough to wear at work to cover up the smells associated

with the county jail.... means people dont throw up when i go to get donuts and coffee :)

[cynatnite]

4. Geez, all the boys I knew in school wanted sex....all the time and I mean ALL THE TIME...n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

149. They were obviously programmed that way.

Maybe by this guy.

[Hippo_Tron]

180. Girls want it just as bad from what I've been told but don't show it for fear of the stigma

It's kind of funny, but men collectively make it harder for themselves to get laid because of their misogynistic attitudes.

[redqueen]

188. Yep, that is very much the case. (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

197. 'Tis the paradox of the double standard. eom

[Lorien]

219. In Preschool? nt

[Brooklyns_Finest]

8. Comical

It is absolutely comical to think that heterosexual boys want sex because society tells them that it is the appropriate social norm. If that was the case, how do you explain young gay men who have even more sex than heterosexual males. Most of society tells them that they should NOT be having sex, yet they still follow their desires.

The author of this article had to be a woman, because she has no clue about what drives a man.

[Touchdown]

9. You got it. Marisa Meltzer wrote this crap.

Amazing what you can get paid for these days.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. You don't need any skills to get published at doublex...

only an attitude.

[Tutankhamun]

67. Excellent point about homosesexual men having more sex despite societal taboos, Brooklyn's Finest.

And (even though our post counts are about the same) welcome to DU!

[donco6]

76. I had more sex than my straight friends?

Wow, they must have been lonely.

[Toasterlad]

85. LOL! That's Exactly What I Thought!

Do you ever get the feeling that straight people think we do nothing but fuck from age 13 on?

[donco6]

93. God yes. I had no idea I was such an oversexed horndog.

Especially since I didn't get any until college. Well, except for Hannah . . .

[redqueen]

104. People from all sides are throwing out all kinds of stereotypes

in this thread.

It's disheartening.

[donco6]

120. I'm used to it. And it's Friday. Nothing's getting me down tonight!

And I think I've contributed enough to this train wreck.

Have a great weekend!

[Brooklyns_Finest]

371. This is what google gave me

"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'" Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men. Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. "
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Maybe because young gay men have an easier time finding willing partners?

If they're in the right environment, that is. Straight young guys, OTOH, have to go through more resistance to get the sex they deserve...um...are entitled to...uh I mean...have been programmed by nature to want from young women who are called sluts for having casual sex...um I mean are programmed by nature to want Twoo Wuv and a provider for the baybeez.

[donco6]

94. Really?

Man, I totally missed the boat. Dayum!

Seriously, though, it wasn't even possible to ask a person I was attracted to on a DATE, let alone get any sex.

[Hello_Kitty]

99. I'm basing it off of his premise that young gay men have more sex.

Which probably has no more basis in reality than much of the hogwash emanating from the biology-is-destiny crowd.

As a straight young woman I had to contend with the intersecting cultural myths that 1) I could get sex any time I wanted it from any guy and 2) that only women who are Hugh Hefner approved are worthy sex objects. But then, even when I did manage to get past my social conditioning baggage and work up the nerve to approach a guy for sex and he accepted my offer despite my glaring lack of resemblance to Cindy Crawford or Pamela Anderson, that of course made me a slut.

[Gwendolyn]

103. Probably depends where you live. There are more opportunities for gay males in bigger cities.

My gay friends were regularly hooking up on the internet at a young age. Kind of dangerous, but you don't think about that when you're 16 or 17. Plus there are meeting spots where you can find someone for fast fun. And finally, by the time you hit 18, the baths are an option on top of all the rest. Straight guys don't really have those options for fast, no-commitment sex that gay boys/men do.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. Yes they do. Ever hear of prostitution?

A man can take his "biological urges" to the red light district in almost any city and relieve them on a drug addicted runaway for less than $10.

[Gwendolyn]

116. Not the same thing at all. Not everyone, especially 17-year-old teens are comfortable

breaking the law. Hooking up over the internet means a regular "date" with guaranteed sex. Same with the other options.

[donco6]

117. Well, the internets were born well after me.

So that part was out.

If there were hookup spots, I didn't know about them and had no way to find out.

But I could have told you at 14 where to find a flophouse hooker. Is there something less "commitment sex" than that?

[Atman]

250. +1

Wow. They didn't have shirts like this when I was a kid, yet I was as horny as a teenage boy could get. Funny thing those t-shirts. And all this time I thought my urges were driven by hormones.

.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

10. Sorry. I dont know what I think about this stuff at 59

I'm sure as hell not going to try to figure out what I thought about it when I was 9.

[calmblueocean]

12. It's about the values surrounding sex, not just sex.

Geez, reading some of the responses here, you'd think the author was saying that the entire male libido was caused by a T-shirt.

That's not what the author is saying. Of course young men have always been driven by sex. But ideally, we're supposed to live in a world where society shapes those urges in healthy ways, so that young men aren't treating women like meat, or feeling that sex is a contest they have to win, or that girls are obligated to do what men say, for example.

As our culture has gotten sexually more explicit, the roles around sexuality have gotten cruder and cruder. You end up with boys and girls having sex too early, even when they may not want to, but feel expected to. That's the sort of thing you want to stop.

[nemo137]

13. +1

It's not "OMG boys are going to want sex in the relatively near future," it's about how we're teaching boys to understand sex.

[theHandpuppet]

28. Bingo!

It's also how they are conditioned to see women and girls, and the picture they're presented isn't pretty.

[Hekate]

16. Yes. A T-shirt at Macy's for a grade school age boy had "Want to buy my sister?" on it....

I was not amused. Somewhere in fashion-land there's a cadre of folks who think it's all edgy and ironic to make clothes like this for little kids. "Playground Pimp"? Gag me.

As a parent all I wanted to do was give my boy and my girl a set of values that included respecting their own bodies and respecting other people. I didn't expect them to remain virgins forever, but this push to sexualize very young children is just kind of sick.

Hekate

[Touchdown]

59. I can interpret that two ways. The first thing I would think of is

just the brother wanting to get rid of his sister so he can be the one that gets all the attention. Sounds like typical boy (Girls! Ick!) behavior to me.

If it's included with all the other innuendo clothing, only then would I think of the pimp angle.

[Zywiec]

96. I remember when two young girls wanted to sell their brother...

:rofl:

[ThomCat]

21. Thank you for an intelligent response on this thread.

Reading most of the responses on this thread you would think that baby boys are born insisting on getting laid regularly and demanding blowjobs from the baby girl in the next crib.

Everyone is born a sexual person, but people LEARN to talk about sex from seeing other people talk about it. They learn how to talk about it, and what language to use, and what attitude is considered cool, and what general ideas and assumptions they should believe about boys and girls and gender roles and sexual situations. That's isn't in dispute. (I think)

Where this article comes in is saying that corporate culture is now trying to amplify boys' sexuality into overdrive from birth. They are also trying to channel that sexuality in very culturally specific ways, some of which are not very nice and could be teaching boys some very bad lessons about how to interact with girls.

Do we really want to push babies into Pimp/Ho posing and acting out? Does anyone think that will teach them anything positive about treating girls well, or treating them like equals?

Culture is always going to be providing a lot of the sex ed that our kids receive. That has always been the case, and always has been. But do we want it being this pushy, this early, with messages this crude that kids are not going to have any ability to understand with any maturity or depth?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. "that's the sort of thing you want to stop"... EVERY friggin' generation does this.

And every generation of old farts, like myself, exhibits gasps of shock and dismay that the young folks haven't stopped their pernicious screwing. When I was in high school, we were all supposed to be so terrified of AIDS that we were locking ourselves in our rooms and studying economics under big posters of Reagan. And none of us were supposed to be smoking pot, either. :hippie:

The reality didn't work out that way.

As for the article in the OP, I quote: "Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex"

Um, that's pretty clear- that's insinuating that boys' sex drives are somehow programmed in by the evil culture. Wow, if only some righteous moral authority, like the pope-- were more influential; I'm sure this extra-marital fucking is something he "wants to stop", too.

[Toasterlad]

44. THANK You.

The problem isn't the pervasiveness of raunchy sexual messages, the problem is OUR INFANTILE SOCIETAL VIEW OF SEX.

Sex in this country is treated like a dirty little secret, instead of the healthy, biologically instinctual, and just plain fun act it truly is. T-shirts like "All Daddy wanted was a blowjob" (which, by the way, is hilarious) wouldn't be nearly so shocking and offensive if we didn't have such a fucked up, twisted, childish view of sex itself.

[Kalyke]

66. It's not hilarious.

Daddy needs to give before he gets. But our boys aren't being taught this - and that's the problem.

So, there.

[Toasterlad]

68. HIlarity, Like So Many Other Things, Is In the Eye of the Beholder

If you choose to read that shirt as more than anything but an off-color joke, that's your prerogative.

Does Mommy also need to give before she gets? If so, it appears that no one's getting anything, since both are waiting for the other to give.

[Kalyke]

79. No, Daddy needed to be taught at an earlier age that he's not entitled to

sex, particularly, in this case, oral sex that is so unsatisfying for his female partner that she wanted more in the way of straight sex to get anything of physical value out of it.

The joke isn't off-color, it's derogatory to both Mommy and the baby that Daddy apparently didn't want.

[Toasterlad]

86. Aren't You the Woman Who Wouldn't Let Her Husband Go To Strip Bars?

You ARE consistent, I'll give you that.

God bless my gay gene!

[redqueen]

91. "God bless my gay gene!"

What does that mean? All gay people are A-OK with their partner's going to strip bars and getting lapdnces?

[Toasterlad]

112. Not At All. Just That THIS Gay Man Was Spared Falling For THAT Woman.

[Zix]

387. Wouldn't bother me.

But then I love my bf for all him not just his dick.

[Zywiec]

98. Wow, selfish much?

:eyes:

[redqueen]

102. deleted

[cliffordu]

353. Yep. Perfect.

[MadrasT]

383. +1

[anonymous171]

52. I forgot. Without religious authority there can be no values.

Thanks for reminding me. Any attempt to discuss values is inherently non-secular.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I'm sorry, I don't conflate "stopping other people from fucking" with "values".

Do you?

[redqueen]

108. Nobody is talking about stopping other people from fucking.

You seem to be doing your best to ignore the point.

[Scout]

84. you used the same sentence FRAGMENT again, and you are distorting the meaning

intentionally.

you can't be stupid, so i guess you're just rude and disingenuous.

[Warren DeMontague]

225. How does it distort the meaning of "boys are being told to want sex"?

Here is the sentence, in its entireity:

Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it.

Quoting the first part doesn't change the meaning. It just de-quantifies it. I quoted that part because it's the absurd part. Telling girls to 'embody sex' is fairly meaningless, but it doesn't imply fiddling around with someone's innate desires. It says that girls are being told how to dress, presumably. Whether or not I agree with whatever that part of the assertion means, the part I was quoting suggests that "boys are being told to want sex". Suggesting that, yes, boys want sex because they're "told to".

Now, as I said elsewhere, if someone made that kind of asinine assertion about gay people; like "gays are being told to want gay sex" or gays want gay sex because someone put some sort of gay whammy on 'em.. it would be fucking offensive. It's offensive here, too. Qualifying "boys are being told to want sex" with "just as much" doesn't alter the fundamental dumb-ass assertion that some nitwit put out, flogging that tired old line 'bout how men are 'programmed by the patriarchy' to like having sex with women.

[Uncle Joe]

89. You took that sentence out of it's context, removing a critical part of it.

"Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it."

[Warren DeMontague]

224. Quoting the whole sentence doesn't change the pertinent idiotic part, that boys can be

'told to want sex'. That's why I quoted that part. I could quote the entire article, it wouldn't change the meaning of those 11 words.

Do you think teenage boys want sex because they've been told to? Really?

[Uncle Joe]

302. Do you honestly believe propaganda has no power? Really?

Of course boys want sex and children want sugar and french fries but when the message is continuously streamed to them via all form of program and advertising, the affect is magnified, kids wouldn't be screaming and crying for Sugar coated cereal, or MacDonald's if they weren't continuously exposed to those messages, and corporations damn sure wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on advertising to manipulate the peoples' thoughts if they didn't believe there was great power of persuasion behind it. It's a form of macro hypnosis and the results are clear, we're among the world leaders, if not the leading nation in child hood obesity and diabetes.

Every human is programmed in their subconscious to some degree by their environment, and the messages or information, they take in. This is most powerful during early impressionable childhood and adolescent years but never entirely goes away. That's another reason corporations aim much of their advertising at the younger generation.

"Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it."

When you double up on both genders with a message such as this, young girls may feel more subconscious pressure to dress promiscuously without knowing the consequences. It's like two trains heading toward each other and the messages only serve to increase the speed by feeding more energy in to the boiler.

[Warren DeMontague]

307. It's "effect", not "affect".

My kids don't scream for sugar coated cereal. Wonder why. :shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

309. Well then, I guess after they read your post, all those corporations will stop spending

their billions of dollars in commercial and advertising money since your kids don't scream for sugar coated cereal and tomorrow there will be no more commercials, yeah!:bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

310. I guess I just place more faith in people to think for themselves.

I'm sure the corporations think the money for commercials is well spent.

I also think that the DVR, another corporate invention, must piss them off to no end, because I think it's probably been 4 or 5 years since I've actually sat through an entire commercial.

[Uncle Joe]

320. 1. People think logically with their conscious mind, not the subconscious, but the literal

subconscious mind has great power over the logical conscious mind. People also have varying degrees of mental capability and awareness.

2. The corporations know the money is well spent, marketing and psychology have advanced a great deal since the early 20th century. Focus groups, polls and the like are just a couple of tools in their arsenal. The American Peoples' tastes and biases, hopes and fears have been studied to the umpteenth degree based on age, gender, region, race and today we're akin to Pavlov's Dogs and they know which bell to ring in order to bring about the desired result.

3. Not everyone has DVRs by any stretch, and commercials are only one aspect if the corporations don't get their message out during advertising time, they will do it in the television programming, movies, radio, magazines, billboards even the "news."

[Warren DeMontague]

334. "today we're akin to Pavlov's Dogs"

Okay, so -just out of curiosity- who is ringing YOUR bell?

[Uncle Joe]

357. Even if I knew, why would I want to disclose that kind of information?

As I just posted some people are more aware than others; either because of capability and/or experience, to those people it may be more difficult to ring their bell, but I don't believe anyone is totally immune.

I do believe my bell isn't as easy to ring as it was thirty years ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

364. So you're not brainwashed, but most other people are.

Gotcha.

[Uncle Joe]

365. Really!? I don't believe you got anything.

I have reposted and bolded pertinent parts for your ease of reading.

Even if I knew, why would I want to disclose that kind of information?

As I just posted some people are more aware than others; either because of capability and/or experience, to those people it may be more difficult to ring their bell, but I don't believe anyone is totally immune.

I do believe my bell isn't as easy to ring as it was thirty years ago.

Most people can be brainwashed; the run up to the war with Iraq is just one example and I never said I couldn't be.

[Warren DeMontague]

369. I'm perfectly proud to admit that I didn't buy any of that bullshit about Iraq.

I remember yelling at the tv during Bush's 2003 SOTU speech, when he said that crap about the uranium yellowcake- which was known, at the time, to be bullshit.

Maybe that's why I give people credit to figure things out for themselves. I certainly don't think sexy ads and toddler shirts that say "Chick Magnet" are going to turn people into mindless drones.

[Uncle Joe]

373. Do you believe everyone is as smart or aware as yourself?

Apparently not because at one point 70+% believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and the reason for that was because most of them were brainwashed in to believing it. Virtually every Cheney/Bush speech and that of their minions and corporate media puppets had sentences containing both 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's name.

Even if they didn't outright state that Saddam was behind 9/11, they were both in those same sentences, so by the mere fact of mental chain association, most of the people or at the least a very large percentage equated the two as being connected within their subconscious minds because they heard these messages from what they viewed as authority figures either the government or the press.

You chose one of the more *benign examples but there are other t-shirts with much worse messages and as I stated below these t-shirts are just one tree in a huge sexual exploitation propaganda forest.

*Although some women may not appreciate being referred to as "chicks."

[Warren DeMontague]

374. Using your definition, pretty much everything people do is part of the 'conspiracy'.

People fuck. People like sex. Lots of people like to look at attractive, sexy people of the opposite or same gender... and lots of people like dumb or raunchy jokes, some of them appropriate, some of them not so much.

Good luck trying to stop it all. :patriot:

[Uncle Joe]

377. I have no intention of trying to stop any of what you just posted, but nice try.

Good luck in your endeavors.

[seabeyond]

314. thanks uncle joe. and this is obvious. people blissfully dismiss cause interfers with

their agendas, desires and wants.

but yes

what you state is obvious.

[redqueen]

87. Thank you SO MUCH for getting it.

Was a very depressing thread, reading the earlier replies.

[KittyWampus]

95. what? You mean channel our libido into other areas and not just indulge in sex?

YOU PRUDE!

[Hello_Kitty]

140. Not just sex, mind you

It has to be Porn Industry Compliant^TM sex, otherwise you're a prude who doesn't celebrate Women's Empowerment Through Porn^TM.

[Warren DeMontague]

298. Who is "our"? You can do whatever the fuck you want with YOUR libido

I'm curious as to why you think other people's libidos are your business.

[rebecca_herman]

229. Agree 100%

you managed to say well, what I was thinking but couldn't put into words perfectly.

[LWolf]

338. YES. Thank you. nt

[nemo137]

14. It's the messages, you know

No one's doubting that young men will, one day, want to have sex. I was a teenager relatively recently, I am well aware of this fact. On the other hand, try reading this:

The authors cite an episode of the Disney Channel show The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, in which Zack sets up his own underage dance club in the lounge of the luxury hotel where he lives. As the bartender, he pushes root beer after root beer to a shy girl character, Barbara, who proceeds to shed her glasses, shout “hit me again!” and dance while the crowd encourages her.

without feeling just a little skeeved out. This is a show targeted at 10 and unders, remember, and it's normalizing binge drinking and poor decision making, as well as the idea the alcohol (and don't think for a second that kids aren't getting the bar reference) as a way to make boring girls "fun."

It's pernicious, and makes me worried.

[redqueen]

92. It's sad that some people in this thread are trying so hard to avoid the issue.

Thanks for getting it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. They have the right idea, they just take it the completely wrong direction

Sexual desire is strictly biology - but sexual attitudes and a greater discussion of what masculinity means in America is another thing entirely. Society doesn't condition men to want sex - society conditions men to be douchebags, and that includes attitudes about women and sex.

And sadly, I have seen the "All Daddy Wanted Was a Blowjob" shirt on a real breathing baby.

[nemo137]

20. I got the douchebag conditioning from the article.

I posted the bit I found most shockingly douchey above.

[TicketyBoo]

23. That is one of the most disgusting ones.

In other words, it says, "Daddy didn't really want me."

What kind of sick person brands their baby that way?

Really despicable.

[Missy Vixen]

18. Most of the t-shirts mentioned in the article are from tshirthell.com

I'm not sure I'd put one on a baby, but I do own a couple of their shirts. (My favorite is "I bring nothing to the table", which regularly stops traffic.)

If people didn't buy them, there wouldn't be a market. Someone's buying them. The question is, who?

:eyes:

[the other one]

25. Nonsense

Selling products isn't "telling" anyone anything. Marketers may develop weird products, but people still have to buy them. It's hard to make someone buy something they don't want.

If the authors want to allege a conspiracy, they should include some names and incriminating evidence.

Victim mentality.

[saltpoint]

26. It doesn't appear that a majority of parents have purchased these shirts

for their babies or that a majority are likely to.

I call non-issue.

[saltpoint]

27. And we can only pray that parents won't put a "Meep" t-shirt on their baby.

It would be too socially disrupting.

[seabeyond]

29. in the past, what a man is, was defined in many characters. today, it is all in their sexuality

the only compass they hold to themselves of what a man is thru their penis. they no longer are defining themselves as men in any other way. leaves them in a precarious position, not to mention a falsehood and really makes them less a man

sexuality is only a part of who we are as people. it is not all we are as a people

we talk about the prudes making such a big deal about sex. the ironic and hypocrisy and just flat out hilarity is the big deal i watch people, particularly men, make about sex/nudity.

they hear or see boobs, and regress to the point of adolescent.

that is not all of a man

but that is what we teach our boys. there are no other conditions in being a man, but fucking, dehumanizing females, and struttin like the caveman.

booyah

[Odin2005]

30. +1

Numskulls in this thread are spewing BS claiming that the OP is saying that guys wanting to have sex is socially conditions. Uh, no. It's about the attitudes towards women contained in these memes.

[closeupready]

40. Caveman? Not even. Monkeys. Seriously.

It's disgusting, tacky and vulgar, but people seem fine with that today. Don't ask me why; if I was raising children, I would have none of it. Period.

[redqueen]

97. Monkeys - exactly. (nt)

[Caliman73]

41. I disagree. I think we need to be careful about generalizations.

There are no "good old days" when it comes to what defines a man. There was a time when sexuality was repressed in both males and females, but sex and sexism still existed. Gender roles were more rigidly defined and that included repression of women and subjegation. I think that in recent times the definition of what a man is has expanded and challenged men to adapt new roles in society.

There is definitely push back from some people who do not want to lose the "dominance" granted by being a man. Some men do not want to have to consider what other people want, what women want. We see that in other aspects of challenges to a historically dominant group. It is change that people are afraid of.

There is also a push to sell sex to both genders by marketers. Sex is very important to humans and figuring that it can be commercialized has made many people very rich.

It is not that men are defining themselves or view the world through their penis. That is not the case. Both genders have become more casual about sex and intimacy and that has some negative consequences.

I for one am not teaching my boys that their existence is based on sex and objectifying women. I am teaching them to be the best people they can be. To be sensitive to the needs of others, to be assertive about their own needs, and to work to make the world better.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I know. In the good old days, it was how many human heads he could put on a pike.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. This is largely true.

Boys used to have different aspirations and role models.

One of the problems is that most of the previously accepted male cultural ideals are now frowned upon. Even the phrase "be a man" is now considered bad form.

[seabeyond]

124. right back atcha. there is a lot true in what you are saying too. i hear ya. nt

[NashVegas]

234. Bless You

When was the last time you heard words like, "honorable" in public?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Offensive novelty T-shirts?

Our society went down this dangerous path the moment they legalized plastic vomit.

[gkhouston]

46. Now, now. I'm all for plastic vomit.

It's so tiresome, having to come up with fresh vomit all the time. Much easier to rinse and re-use the plastic kind. :9

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. The other challenge is to find boys' clothes that don't promote either

violence (camouflage suits for 2-year-olds?) or sports-and-nothing-but-sports.

Back when my nephews were small, I had trouble finding clothes for them that weren't either militaristic or bearing the insignia of pro sports teams. I'd search several stores to find something like a T-shirt that depicted camping in the woods or some plain overalls with a plaid shirt, something that didn't send a macho-macho message that was out of line with the values of the boys' parents.

That princess crap for little girls is equally obnoxious.

[gkhouston]

48. +1. What the hell is wrong with solid colors?

And why do girls' clothes have to be so relentlessly pink and lavender? :puke:

[Kalyke]

74. I know.

I'm female. I have a son and a daughter.

The boys section is replete with science kits and telescopes and erector sets and educational toys, whilst the girls section looks like a the giant pink and purple people eater took a dump on the vacuum cleaners and dress up dolls. About the only "good" girls toys are the pretend stoves - that may teach them to at least be the next Iron Chef or something.

Do we still live in the 1950s?

[gkhouston]

213. I don't know, but I've got a daughter who likes the science kits and educational

toys as well as some of the "gender appropriate" things. Guess I shouldn't have bought her some blue onesies when she was an infant but I was so goddamned tired of nothing but pink. ;-)

[seabeyond]

214. ya and my son is a reader and articulate at a very young age. must be the pink sleeper

i put him in, lol lol.... had a bag of three. blue, yellow and pink. wasnt gonna throw the pink away, and with his complexion, look damn good too. lol

[Warren DeMontague]

50. This site always worked for me:

YMMV. :hippie:

http://www.littlehippie.com/

[chatnoir]

60. Totally agree

So sick of the all camo or sports themed toddler/infant wear.

[LWolf]

339. I've had that trouble

shopping for clothes for my grandson.

I have to search, but he wears plain stuff; no logos, no writing, etc..

[JonQ]

36. I wonder what these shirts are conditioning young girls to do

[Kalyke]

80. That's just as bad.

Both for the message and because it is annoyingly pink.

:puke:

[Arugula Latte]

38. I do agree there is a hell of a lot of twisted stuff both genders wade through

and I guess inappropriate t-shirts is one subcategory. However, I'll admit I think this shirt is hilarious:

[bluetrain]

61. 1 out of 3 women are raped at least once in their lifetimes.

[Toasterlad]

69. Yes, Those T-Shirts Definitely Turn Babies Into Rapists. Because Rape Is All About Sex.

:eyes:

[bluetrain]

114. ?!?! Rape is about asserting power. Ingraining misogyny in the populus from the time they are

infants does not to help raise children who value women and men equally. I don't think rape is funny. And I don't think bigotry is funny. And I don't think the sex trade is funny. There are a lot of things which deserve to be made light of. This isn't one of them.

[Toasterlad]

121. I Must Confess, I Missed the Picture. I Can't See It On My Machine.

My response was in reference to what was SAID, in the context of the other remarks in this thread. I didn't realize till now that there was a picture of a t-shirt, and don't know what it said. The picture certainly may have caused me to reply differently, although, I must admit, my boudaries for humor are expansive.

In other words, while I agree with you that rape is an horrific act, I also believe that, given the context, ANYTHING can be funny.

[bluetrain]

123. In the current political climate, I don't find any misogyny funny.

When we have "liberals" eager to vote away civil rights, I don't feel the luxury of joking about such things. Call me humorless; someone has to take this shit seriously.

[seabeyond]

125. i have been listening to sexist jokes from old men all my life being told to lighten up

dont wanna.

because they are really half serious. using it to put someone in their place

[bluetrain]

145. What's your take on women telling misogynistic jokes? I find it really disturbing.

I first heard the Don't Trust Anything That Bleeds For Five Days Without Dying "joke" from a longtime friend whom I'd, up to that point, considered one of the more ardent feminists in terms of behavior that I'd ever known.

[seabeyond]

170. part of the problem. to be one of the guys, you know, equal. regardless

of the backlash to female as a whole.

my beef isnt with a gender. both genders are being conditioned.... equally.

[Odin2005]

259. +1,000,000

[Gwendolyn]

138. The picture is a non-issue. It's funny actually, not like some of the other examples.

It says, "Daddy's little squirt" with some laughing cartoon spermies flying by. The expression on the cute little kid's face is priceless.

Will this t-shirt create future rapists. I doubt it. But that doesn't stop the hysterical among us from having a grand mal seizure over little nothings like this. Some people just don't get that bathroom humor and bad taste are not synonymous with misogyny. What can you do?

[bluetrain]

151. Trust me, my taste in humor tends to run directly to the gutter. We do not have the luxury right now

of degrading women; we're being stripped of our civil rights by other women and by our supposed allies. It's not funny. I hope you will consider taking this all very seriously. I don't want to be stoned to death for speaking to a man in the street. And I don't want rape to be legalized. And I liked it a lot better when we at least had the pretense of being equal citizens on paper. Repealing abortion rights removes all of those comfy illusions of equality. How much does your boyfriend pay for tampons every year and how many of your male friends have been raped?

[Gwendolyn]

157. Please explain to me how pictures of laughing cartoon sperm...

one of which at some point connected with the egg that sprouted that cute kid wearing the tee... are responsible for creating a rape culture. Seriously, get a grip on yourself.

[bluetrain]

162. Are you seeing a different OP picture than I am? Playground Pimp?

Also, seriously, if you think my being offended by misogyny is something I should "get a grip on" you have many more problems than I do, Gwendolyn. Namely, that you condone legalized hatred against yourself.

[Gwendolyn]

175. I'm talking about the pic in post 38 which you responded to with hysteria about creating rapists.

It's actually the only cute shirt on this whole thread, and miles away from the hyperbole you're posting.

I have no probs bluetrain. Somehow I have escaped the horror pit that everyone else lives in and have really great relationships with pretty much all of the men in my life. Just plain lucky I guess.

[bluetrain]

186. I'm not responding to #38. I've been responding to inane excuses for misogyny.

Those men and women in congress who voted against your right to be an autonomous human being are people in your life working against your best interests, believe it or not.

[redqueen]

189. It's funny, this habit of narrowing things down in order to avoid the big picture.

Funny in a sad kind of way.

Editing sentences... ignoring that this ins't about onesies convincing babies to be assholes, but indicative of a cultural trend... etc.

*sigh*

[bluetrain]

198. Sadly, it isn't a trend. But it's time we take note and action.

[Hello_Kitty]

217. Splitting hairs, parsing semantics, and focusing on minor details

Are the stock in trade of the defenders of the status quo and male privilege.

[Gwendolyn]

194. I see. You're responding to excuses for misogyny.

Well there's a thread somewhere downstream about a professor who recently punched a woman in the face for disagreeing with him. There are plenty of excuses for misogyny on that thread, which addresses violence toward women. Funny how I don't see any of the regulars with an axe to grind against the terrible menz anywhere near that thread.

As usual, people prefer to nit pick at the nonsense meaningless shit rather than focus on real issues. These t-shirts and far worse than what's displayed on this thread exist in countries like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Australia... pretty much everywhere. The women are guaranteed their right to choice in all of these countries. Try again.

[bluetrain]

199. So, instead of defending the misogyny you've claimed to find humorous upthread, your gripe is that I

didn't stumble upon a MORE OFFENSIVE thread first? Are you kidding? Me? Yourself? Whom? Cuz nobody's buying what you're selling.

[Pithlet]

201. Yeah, how dare you miss one thread out of the thousands. What's wrong with you?

[bluetrain]

206. Yes, how dare I?! Stupid woman, right?!

[Gwendolyn]

202. WTF are you talking about? What misogyny have I defended? Right. None.

You're just one big pile of hysterical mush, aren't ya?

I don't care if you and all the other outraged ladies don't respond to threads that expose real acts of violence and misogyny against women and prefer to discuss the horrors spawned by babies wearing messages imprinted on their onesies. Knock yourself out. I'm just pointing out the hilaria of it.

In the real world bluetrain, nobody's buying what you're selling, but have fun spouting it on a message board.

[Pithlet]

205. Personally I could give two shits about the t-shirts. I don't think they're that big of a deal.

Offensive? Yes. Symptomatic of anythng? I've never even seen them. I doubt they really matter. But some of the points in the article and being brought up in this thread are still valid. I get tired of the immediate knee-jerk dismissal. It's nuts. I don't think people have to immediately agree that yes, the t-shirts are just such an outrage. I don't think they are in terms of what sort of earth shattering effect they may have on society. But the point of the article wasn't "Boys are being told to want sex all the time OMG!!!1 either.

[Gwendolyn]

210. I agree with you mostly.

The t-shirts are symptomatic of a culture that vacillates between casual and really bad taste. The kid with a stupid onesie is being carted around by a dad who paints his face to go to a football game and wears t-shirts that say "the liver is evil, and must be punished."

And while there are fair points raised in that article, I tend to also agree with those who remind us that these kinds of issues have always existed. Nothing new under the sun. It's just that today media connects people so much more easily, and our population has doubled in only twenty years, that these pre-existing issues are magnified. Also, some of the 50 and over people on this thread seem to think that 14-year-olds should innately and magically possess the same level of emotional maturity, social "smoothness" and identical relationship goals as they do after many years of socializing and experience.

[seabeyond]

241. you have it ass back wards gwen. what parents understand

is the kids do NOT have the ability to " innately and magically possess the same level of emotional maturity, social "smoothness" and identical relationship goals as they do after many years of socializing and experience", ergo, should not be given the adult sexual world to play in because that is just not where they are

to allow kids to do their exploring and experiencing in their world, at their level and give them time to acquire what they need so they can in a healthy manner walk into that adult world and be able to possess a level of emotional maturity and social "smoothness".

instead the adults want to play in the kids exploration of sexuality, manipulate and condition when AS PARENTS KNOW, they are not at the level to be able to put it in the proper place. since the boundaries of the two worlds have so readily been obliterated, we now have the people defending the children getting this shit at the youngest of age cause after all, either no parents talks sex with kids or we must teach thru porn. no middle ground.

it is a free for all out there with our kids. a grand experiment with a whole generation.

[Gwendolyn]

246. I agree with what you mean to say in your first two paragraphs completely.

It's the third I have problems with and that's why we are usually at odds in these threads.

I don't believe in half the hype out there about most things. I think passing judgment on a society based on the pockets of sensationalized news stories we get daily is foolish. I don't know of any parents who want to sexualize their kids. You don't do that to your kids, do you? No children appeared at my door on Halloween dressed in "slutty, skanky costumes." I'm looking for baby clothes these days in NYC no less, and have not seen ONE single example of the onesies and t-shirts displayed in the OP. Not a SINGLE ONE in countless stores. I've never seen a kid in one either. In a huge city where basically anything goes. As someone said downthread, these tees are available from some obscure website, yet we're supposed to believe all adults, women included, want to indoctrinate their babies with misogynistic themes and are buying them up like proverbial hotcakes.

I also don't believe things have gotten "worse" since the 60s and 70s. (Statistics seem to back that up. Many more freedoms for women and rape stats have actually decreased.) I just believe many adults have forgotten how stupid they were back then in their own youth. I don't think children should be entitled to a free for all... I think they should be dealt with as we were, with guidance and discipline. Not hysterical hand wringing and police interference for every little thing because somehow all the hype has convinced people that this generation is going to end the world.

The thing that made me laugh on this thread is I actually agree with a lot of the points brought up in the OP. I only responded to the exaggerated reply to someone's pic of the most innocuous of the bad taste tee shirts. Babies DO come from squirts of sperm. Not a single misogynistic thing about it. But there are really angry women who just can't pass up the chance to rabidly attack even the most innocuous example of human sexuality. Sorry. I read some posts and I just pity people for their hate, anger and obsession with minutia. I don't see anything political in it. It seems pathetically personal to me and reeks of people who have bad or non-existent relationships and are just venting at message board males.

[seabeyond]

282. the difference gwen as you sit in middle or upper middle, no kid environemnt and i

live in a world of children.

we see things differently. i can tell you were you are wrong in so many areas due to your lack of experience. but that would take a lot of time. we are going to see this issue differently. and forever your conclusions will be incorrect on people motives and reactions because of your lack of experience.

[Gwendolyn]

285. You make huge assumptions in thinking that I live in a no kid environment.

I make my living off my intuition, sensitivity and shrewdness in reading people as well as their work, so it's all cool Seabeyond. You have your beliefs and I have mine based on what I've come to know.

[bluetrain]

209. Ha ha! Hysterical! Nice diction! I must be and you must be having a nice laugh "Gwendolyn".

In the real world, women are dying on a minute by minute basis of the things I'm pointing out. Do you know how many women were raped yesterday? How many of those men will ever be prosecuted for those crimes? How many women are At This Very Moment Victims of Domestic Abuse? How many of them will be killed before and often instead of their attacker ever being charged? Are you aware that the police in most instances refuse to grant a woman a restraining order despite proof that she's being threatened until the attacker actual makes an attempt on her life? You can't get a restraining order until you're attacked with a knife and live through the assault. Do you think it's a good idea to train little boys from the time they are infants to see themselves as pimps? This is funny to you? Really? Hate crimes are not funny to me. Legislation which prevents the prevention and prosecution of hate crimes is not funny to me. You're either enormously lucky, in total denial or just outright lying as you profess to find misogyny a non-threat to your well-being.

[Arugula Latte]

128. I don't really think there's any connection

between a novelty "Daddy's Little Squirt" t-shirt and rape ... :shrug:

[bluetrain]

155. The image in the OP says "Playground Pimp". Do you know what a pimp is?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

204. Did you know that the kid in the picture is not an actual pimp?

If you see a guy wearing a shirt saying "Frankie says relax" that does not actually mean his name is Frankie nor does he necessarily want you to relax.

[Arugula Latte]

248. I'm not talking about that shirt ...

I'm talking about the one I posted that says "Daddy's Little Squirt."

[Gwendolyn]

177. There isn't. It's cute. Thanks for the laugh. :-)

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

228. It may be more than just uncanny.

[Gwendolyn]

231. It's always nice to run into old friends on the internet. ;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

361. I need a reputable link on that one.

[Echo In Light]

42. Fantastically offensive - - -

Yes, it's a t-shirt :evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Classic.

I'm sorry, I mean I'm totally outraged.

[BoneDaddy]

386. Yeah but the "forever outraged"

crew in here would never get that. What is offensive to one group isn't to another.

[Toasterlad]

43. "Hung Like a Five Year Old" Is the Second Most Hilarious Onesie Ever.

The first is "No one puts baby in a corner."

In other news, boys never need to be "told" to want sex.

[NeedleCast]

53. Awesome - Ordering for ten month old nephew immediately

[bullwinkle428]

118. You must be looking to get out of your Thanksgiving dinner invitation!

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. I find interesting what kinds of conditioning are not okay.

Sex jokes are not the only kind of conditioning that young boys experience, and it's also not the most harmful.

It's like a venn diagram. Of the universe of values that boys are conditioned to accept, the only ones worth getting upset about are the ones which intersect the universe of female sensitivities.

I really wish we'd stop using doublex as a source, I find them to be completely bigoted.

[Kalyke]

90. The universe of female sensitivities?

Oh... I'm so sensitive that I can't possibly tell the difference between a healthy sex drive (no matter the gender) and misogyny. Oh, poor little ole me.

Whatever. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Once you sort out which sensitivities compelled you to comment...

... and can articulate how you disagree, get back to me.

Boys are conditioned to compete with other boys and avoid conflict with girls at all costs. They are conditioned that their only worth is the money they can bring in. They are conditioned that parenting=mothering and paying the bills=fathering. They are conditioned that violence (among themselves) is to be celebrated. They are conditioned that school is for girls, work is for boys.

None of these forms of conditioning run afoul of the agenda which gets one published in doublex. They don't intersect with female issues so they are nonexistent problems.

[Hello_Kitty]

119. Once again, I'm compelled to remind you.

That the majority of men's problems are not caused by women, no matter how hard you try to blame us.

[Toasterlad]

122. So...Men Determine ALL Of Societies Ingraining, and Women Contribute Nothing?

Given that men are such assholes, and women are so powerless, it's a miracle we let you do anything at all but clean the house and make babies.

[Hello_Kitty]

130. Women as individuals can, and do.

Women with money and privilege often have a vested interest in maintaining the system, while participating in the repression of other women and men who are in an unprivileged group. Women, as a class, haven't had much (if any) power in determining social structures and doctrines until very recently. And the backlash to the gains that feminists have made has been fierce, and some men (like lumberjack and maybe yourself) view any gains made by women as a profound loss to men. They will also try to blame every problem that men are having now on the recent gains women have made. They want to return to a slightly modified version of the Mad Men era.

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. Don't tell me what I think.

You're not qualified.

[Hello_Kitty]

161. Your posts make it obvious what you think.

And I'm not going to be lectured by the likes of you on making assumptions of what someone thinks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

169. I'm not lecturing you about what "someone" thinks.

I'm lecturing you about telling me what I think.

Next time you feel compelled to do so, if I might borrow your phrase, "STFU".

[Hello_Kitty]

185. You're the one telling us what you think

Your words:

One of the problems is that most of the previously accepted male cultural ideals are now frowned upon...

What previously accepted male cultural ideals did not include male dominance and male privilege?

[lumberjack_jeff]

126. Perhaps not.

But publications like doublex do a stellar job of convincing us those problems are unimportant.

[Pithlet]

129. Oh please.

They have a friggin Republican who likes Sara Pailin writing there for goodness sake. I wonder if there's any forum that would cater specifically to women that you wouldn't have a problem with.

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Probably about as much problem as the average DU'er has w a forum which caters specifically to men.

The very concept of having a mens group on DU fer chrissake gives people the vapors.

And why would support for Palin be even remotely considered something reflective of an openminded or tolerant worldview?

[Pithlet]

190. Way to twist. The problem wasn't with a forum that caters to men.

But you know that, and there's no point in getting in that argument all over again.

The fact there's a repub Palin supporter says to me we're not talking radical feminist website.

[redqueen]

131. Do organizations like NAACP make you think other problems are unimportant?

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. NAACP are advocates for a minority group.

They don't presume to speak for and define the problems of society in general.

[redqueen]

142. They address the problems faced by a specific group of people.

Why is it only a problem when the group whose problems are being addressed is women?

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. It's not an analagous dynamic.

Advocacy for women is marketed as equality, and it uses chivalry and other elements of "women and children first" patriarchy to pursue their goals on behalf of a majority of the population. Feminism is perfectly happy with structural and institutional sexism which benefits their members.

Because of that confluence of patriarchy and advocacy, they have been successful at controlling the cultural debate.

Thus, suicide, joblessness, barriers to education, poverty, teen violence, substance abuse and poor health are social problems only in a very specific sense... so we address them with programs like;
a) the violence against women act, and
b) the Women, infants and children program, and
c) the Women's education equity program, and
d) Women and Sex/Gender Differences Research drug abuse treatment program administered by the NIH
e) equalizing healthcare premiums by gender.

The disparity in outcomes for minority groups justifies advocacy. Advocacy for a majority group which already benefits from so many institutionally sexist social benefits, not.

[redqueen]

171. "a majority group which already benefits from so many institutionally sexist social benefits"

What are these "many institutionally sexist social benefits"?

If there are so many, please list a dozen or so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

174. Are you registered for the draft? n/t

[redqueen]

184. There's 1. One. You said many. If there's so many, go on, list a dozen more.

It should be easy... since there's so many.

I know that any woman on this thread (besides maybe one) could list a dozen ways men have it over women thanks to our male-minority yet still (yes, it's true) male-dominated society.

[lumberjack_jeff]

200. Girls are 50% more likely to go to college than boys. What is government's response to this?

"The Women's education equity program" of course.

But they don't apply it like it sounds, because the goal is to get an even greater proportion of women in college.

And we're not talking about the nebulous concept of "privilege" or the fact that standing up to pee is admittedly convenient, we're talking about institutional sexism. The kind of sexism in which government says, "You are fundamentally worth less than your sister, and here's the law that says so."

Social security is written specifically to disproportionately benefit women.
Health care reform is written specifically to disproportionately benefit women.
A women's business enterprise is given preferential treatment in government contracting and borrowing.

WIC, Welfare, draft registration, the White House Council on Women and girls....

I've made my point. I need not cite 12 or 36 or 128 examples to suit any arbitrary threshold.

[Pithlet]

203. You have really gone around the bend.

That is crazy. Yep, it's a conspiracy against men and even the government is in on it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

208. Is even one of my observations inaccurate? n/t

[Pithlet]

215. Inaccurate. Distorted. But mainly just crazy.

As for the college, yes, there are a some colleges that have more women now, particularly the liberal arts. But more admissions are actually starting to give more weight to male applicants because of it. So if you're a male applicant you might be more likely to get admitted now at a lot of these colleges because admissions have been reading a lot of the same boys in crisis articles that you apparently have.

The rest of them? I'm not even sure how to address. I don't even have any idea what you're talking about. Your Men as downtrodden minority at the hands of the oppressive Regime of Women point of view is just so bizarre. It's hard to even know how to begin. It's a wonder that a government still predominantly governed by men would even be in on all this. Particularly when Repubs were in power for so long. Amazing when you think about it.

[JonQ]

299. When it was the other way

more men going to college than women, it was declared a conspiracy against women and it was demanded the government do something about it.

Women failure to achieve equality = society is stacked against them, the government should get involved to fix things
mens failure to achieve it equality = suck it up boy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. ... but let's talk about privilege for a moment.

Men are more likely to be charged with a crime given the same events and circumstances, and they get harsher sentences for the same crime.
Men are at least as likely to be the victim of domestic violence, but are dramatically more likely to be prosecuted for it.
Men and boys are;
85% of the homeless
80% of suicides
93% of workplace deaths
98% of military deaths

[JonQ]

301. But they deserve it

because they choose those things.

Men choose to be homeless or get abused. If it happens to a woman it is a disturbing trend, if it happens to a man, well merely pointing it out is sexist.

[Hello_Kitty]

179. But gosh, you men keep telling me if I don't like what's in a publication I don't have to read it!

I guess that only applies to porn and other things that men like. Women's reading material must be carefully monitored for anything that may be offensive or threatening to men or their status, apparently. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. True enough, but I don't post Maxim articles as definitive of important social policy goals. n/t.

[JonQ]

238. Well the majority of teachers

and day care workers where boys will spend most of their waking lives are female. I would imagine they contribute.

[Pithlet]

127. Well yeah. The website is called double x. Not X Y. n/t

[fishwax]

244. for the record, the book itself appears to address some of those concerns

"Player. Jock. Slacker. Competitor. Superhero. Goofball. Boys are besieged by images in the media that encourage slacking over studying; competition over teamwork; power over empower - ment; and being cool over being yourself. From cartoons to video games, boys are bombarded with stereotypes about what it means to be a boy, including messages about violence, risktaking, and perfecting an image of just not caring. "

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312379390?ie=UTF8&tag=dblx-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0312379390

[seabeyond]

245. yes. and something we seriously reject in our family. it isnt a gender issue. both genders

are under attack from society as a whole. i am not going to suggest our boys have it any easier than our girls. they do not. maybe a difference today, is the kids are left alone to do this on their own without the support and guidence from parents, and our culture as a whole, unlike the times in the past.

they are being raised by the media. all these things and more are addressed with my kids. continually directing them to go within, and feel if what is being projected is a truth or conditioning.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

323. seabeyond, seeing as you speak about how you raise your sons..

....what if you discovered that the teachings that made your sons sensitive, polite young men led to them being largely liked as only as platonic, but rejected for romantic longterm relationships by young women, leading to frustration, a "what am I doing wrong" complex, and an eventual turn for the worse in the attitude towards women?

And before you yell at me, go yell at your pal HelloKitty first, and ask her why she thinks "nice guys" are secretly wannabe date rapists who shouldn't be trusted.

[dustbunnie]

326. I read that comment and found it freaking shocking.

Some people have a lot of pent-up rage locked inside.

[seabeyond]

327. gosh, it really sounded like you wanted and interesting conversation until you threw in

that dont yell out me... ect. showing an incredible amount of resistence to actual dialogue.

that being said

my son and i have talked about this position. there are things that are addressed, like, putting himself out there. there is a difference between respectful and being timid. what exactly a male is getting when they are assholes. like assholes?, vulnerable low self esteem females? he doesnt want that and he recognizes he doesnt.

he has always had girls interested. and he has had that, thru being respectful, listening, trustworthy, insightful. who he is

he does not have the desire to change who he is in order to get a female he probably would not ne interested in anyway.....

and if it is just sex, when his time comes, he will be able to get that a plenty, i am sure.

he will have to address it as he walks his journey. but walking away from integrity isnt the answer. being less than who he is isnt the answer. he recognizes this thru his own self reflection

[dustbunnie]

331. My boyfriend is a "nice guy." My girlfriends are all married to, or seeing, "nice guys."

All the guys in our band of friends are nice guys. It's a myth that all women want bad boys. Your son will do just fine.

[seabeyond]

332. as is my husband. every guy i went with. and male friends i hung with.

i am not buying it either. and this is another onversation son and i have had. that it is now being projected culturally that the nice guy can get the girl. suppose to be an asshole, they get the girls. jsut another of the conditioning of guys and girls today

but i agree

[Rambis]

57. Agree with one exception

[redqueen]

100. LOL

:thumbsup:

[DailyGrind51]

106. Parents who buy this stuff for their kids are psychological child abusers.

[NashVegas]

236. Yep. Neglectful At the Very Least

They've got their heads straight up their asses. Probably grew up in negligent households, where they pretty much had to raise themselves.

[smalll]

107. Agreed. And it's even worse, for this reason:

Once boys become teens and young men, and they experience today's dating reality, it leads to disdain for women. They face a world of de-facto polygamy. Some young men end up satisfying the occasional sexual urges of their female counterparts, while other young men get shut out of the "game" again and again. The "studs" end up in the "familiarity breeds contempt" mode, while the "losers" develop resentment out of a sense of injustice -- "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink." At the same time, young women end up hating men because their romantic/sexual lives are poisoned by the studly douchebags they end up with again and again.

It couldn't get much worse. :shrug:

[redqueen]

110. Good point... and most often when the subject is discussed...

we see the same kind of 'I'm not listening!' stuff that we see in this thread... I wish I knew why.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. Interesting insight. n/t

[seabeyond]

135. it behooves neither gender and something i teach boys. not about pointing finger at one gender

it is two genders being equally conditioned....

and fuckin everyone up

[redqueen]

139. "two genders being equally conditioned...."

Which is exactly what the OP was about...

[Warren DeMontague]

147. I just think it's odd that most of us agree that our sexuality is fairly innate

but when it comes to things like beer ads and porn magazines, at least male heterosexuality magically morphs into open-source software, ready for hacking.

[redqueen]

154. I'm not sure what you mean.

Everyone is susceptible to influences to some degree or another.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Do you think gay people can be made hetero?

I don't.

[redqueen]

159. Where did that come from? Who ever suggested such a thing in this thread?

You're being intentionally disingenuous, it seems.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. "Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex"

From the OP.

[redqueen]

173. Why do you continue to refuse to stop editing that sentence?

If you simply read the entire sentence, you'd see how off the mark you are in your interpretation.

[Hello_Kitty]

182. I suspect it's because he agrees with the second part.

Nothing wrong with preparing girls for their proper role as walking fuck dolls. :sarcasm:

[redqueen]

193. I sure hope that's not the case.

This thread is depressing enough already.

[Warren DeMontague]

223. Right. I don't agree with your tired line of Andrea Dworkin all-hetero-sex-is-rape bullshit

so, obviously, I must want to see young girls in stripper outfits.

:sarcasm:, yourself.

Let's take a step back, shall we, from the flappy-armed histrionics (YES I just used that word) that these threads invariably devolve into, and look at the ACTUAL issues behind the outrage: A toddler shirt that says "chick magnet" and a baby onesie that says "all daddy wanted was a blowjob". From this, we get "1/3 of women will be raped", and clearly if that statistic is anything close to true it is the fault of people who put dumb jokes on baby clothes.

I understand that it's hard to think rationally when you're neck deep in your patriarchy-blaming bullshit, but, really. These are facts we're dealing with, not the freight cars full of idiotic assumptions you seem to need to attach to them.

FWIW, I do think there are outfits, like some Halloween costumes, that are wholly inappropriate for girls (and boys, for that matter). I didn't see any of them in my neighborhood this year, but maybe that's because I live in some weird bubble of male privilege :hi: ... but that said, I don't think it's a massive problem, nor do I think that baby onesies about "daddy wanted a blowjob" are some societal herald of the apocalypse.

I think the hand-wringing about "raunch culture" is overblown, I think there is always an element of shock/outrage about "these kids today", just like there was in Aristotle's time. We were having sex when I was in High School, so were my parents' generation. So was my grandparents' generation.

As for why I 'keep quoting that part of the sentence'; here is the FULL sentence, okay? It was highlighted in the OP, so obviously someone else thought it was important:

Boys are being told, from an early age, to want sex just as much as girls are being told to embody it.

Okay. So, girls are being 'told to embody sex' and boys are being 'told to want it'. I keep quoting the first part because it is prima facie fucking absurd. And it dovetails with another one of those Dworkin-MacKinnon bullshit railroad cars full of idiotic assumptions, namely that men (and presumably women) are hyp-mo-tized into being heterosexual, that gender roles are an entirely social construct, and that hetero fucking is inherently oppressive to women.

The reason I only quote the first part of that sentence is because that is the part that suggests that anyone can be 'told what to want'. If someone made that suggestion about gays; that they are 'brainwashed' into being gay- it would be laughably offensive. But when that kind of crap is floated in the 'battle against the patriarchy', it's supposed to be okay, even taken as gospel fucking truth.

[Odin2005]

260. A misogyny-defender using Dworkin as a talking point = EPIC FAIL!

[Warren DeMontague]

293. Did you bother to read what I wrote?

I'm guessing, "no".

[NashVegas]

237. Did You MISS the Part About "OUR PREVIOUS BOOK..."

[Warren DeMontague]

305. They could have written the Illiad, previously, it wouldn't make that any less a dumb statement.

People seem to think that including the rest of the sentence, or the paragraph, or maybe the entire universe surrounding the words "boys are being told to want sex" will somehow change the meaning of the words.

It doesn't. It's a dumb statement. If they were trying to say something else, like "boys are being encouraged to adopt certain attitudes towards sex", it would have a different meaning. It would at least make sense, although I would remind the authors that people have been encouraged to take all sorts of attitudes towards things like sex since the beginning of time, and what usually ends up happening is that some people listen, some people rebel, and the rest of us make up our own minds on the matter.

My parents and their parents were told that sex was bad and dirty and not to do it. So they did it.

My generation was told that AIDS was going to kill us all and so we better NOT do it. So we did it.

[Hello_Kitty]

158. It's more like Microsoft, really

Straight male sexuality, as a paradigm, has done a pretty good job of crowding all the others out of the public domain.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. That's funny.

Not where I live, sister.

[Hello_Kitty]

176. It's exactly where you live.

And it's why you fight tooth and nail to protect male privilege. It's your home.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. I was talking about the 2 bedroom apartment up the hill from the Castro, but whatevs.

I guess I'm 'fighting tooth and nail to protect my male privilege' by not getting outraged over dumb jokes on baby onesies? :shrug:

Yes, yes, it makes sense... the all-controlling phallocentric patriarchal conspiracy is devious, that way.

[Hello_Kitty]

152. Oh FFS.

Pity the poor Nice Guy^TM, who pretends to befriend women expecting to be rewarded with sex, because the very fact that they don't try to rape said women after lunch dates is de facto proof of their Nice Guy^TM- ness. Oh, and the women must be hot looking because no matter how ordinary or even downright unattractive the Nice Guy^TM is, he is entitled to nothing less than a hot babe. Unfortunately said hot women tend to be shallow bitches who won't even give Nice Guys^TM a chance.

:eyes:

Newsflash: Women aren't sex vending machines. We actually have desires of our own. Who knew?

[Gwendolyn]

235. Attractive women all tend to be "shallow bitches"?

And we should be worried about the way the patriarchy portrays women? :rofl:

[JonQ]

239. Well kinda

people respond to positive/negative reinforcement. If some strategy is successful in getting what they want people will continue doing it, this is classical conditioning.

And if "douchebags" who treat women poorly tend to get sex more often then "nice guys" who treat women properly then how do you suppose most men will start to act?

[seabeyond]

242. integrity has nothing to do with the other person. if a person lacks integrity or is weak

or lacks character, that has everything to do with him, nothing to do with another.

this seems to be the going attitude today, a shift from my day

a person is able to steal from another. so hey... what fault is it of his that he steals, the other person "lets" him get away with it.

the very concept of character is even if one can do.... they dont. cause it is wrong, hurtful or unhealthy for them to do.

[JonQ]

249. Who's talking about stealing?

Or integrity. I'm not suggesting that it's acceptable to drug and rape women or anything immoral. Merely the tactics used to hook up with random women in bars. For instance, the way you talk, dress, your mannerisms etc. These are neither moral nor immoral, they are on a different axis all together.

If being a perfect gentlemen increased chances of sex men would act like perfect gentlemen in that scenario. If spraying on a fake tan and axe effect, popping your collar and acting like you're better than everyone there and don't care what you say to women works then that's what people would do.

Does someone who acts like a smug SOB because he has seen it work lack integrity? Not really, he isn't hurting anyone, and he isn't forcing himself on the unwilling.

Women in that scenario adopt their own tactics based on what has been shown to work for them.

You don't really think people act the same to everyone they meet all the time? I'm guessing most couples behave differently after being together for 60 years than they did on their first meeting.

[seabeyond]

253. douchebags who treat women poorly has nothing to do with integrity, or character?

if you cannot see it, then the conversation is basically over before it starts.

as i say, .... a problem today. when a person cannot even recognize lack of integrity

[JonQ]

254. So in your mind

the way a person dresses and acts in a bar to hit on women is the sole criteria defining his integrity?

I trust you act the same at all times, and never once tried to act differently to impress someone or get friends.

Besides, if someone in this scenario is such a horrible person and lacks integrity then all women would simply ignore him, or throw a drink in his face right? That doesn't happen or the behavior would disappear. So obviously some women appreciate it. And reward it with sex.

[seabeyond]

255. douchebag who treats women poorly. that was your post. that is what i am talking about

that is what i addressed.

and again, lack of integrity has nothing to do with the other person.

[JonQ]

256. I never said treat them poorly

You have on one end of the spectrum the complete gentleman, and on the other you have a violent person who abuses women. I'm talking somewhere in the middle, no physical abuse obviously. You seem to think only extremes exist.

And can you really dispute that acting like a jerk works for some men with some women? Have you been to a bar? Was yours an arranged marriage?

I really can't discuss this with you if you are ignorant on the subject so I need to know what background you have on it.

I'm glad I met my girlfriend elsewhere so I could skip that whole bar-etiquette nonsense. But it is fun to watch single guys doing it when we're out, and guess what? Eventually it works.

The quiet guys sitting by themselves not saying much go home alone. The loud obnoxious frat guys dressed in pink polos with popped collars go home with some girl. Like I said, if certain women didn't reward this behavior it would cease. You don't see guys routinely emulating behavior guaranteed to keep them abstinent.

[seabeyond]

262. if "douchebags" who treat women poorly ... post 152.

[JonQ]

268. Post 152:

"Pity the poor Nice GuyTM, who pretends to befriend women expecting to be rewarded with sex, because the very fact that they don't try to rape said women after lunch dates is de facto proof of their Nice GuyTM- ness. Oh, and the women must be hot looking because no matter how ordinary or even downright unattractive the Nice GuyTM is, he is entitled to nothing less than a hot babe. Unfortunately said hot women tend to be shallow bitches who won't even give Nice GuysTM a chance.

:eyes:

Newsflash: Women aren't sex vending machines. We actually have desires of our own. Who knew?"

Since your righteous outrage (TM) seems to have affected your reading comprehension, could you point out where in that post it says treat women poorly?

Actually it was a screed about how men who act nice shouldn't complain when they don't get laid. I pointed out that if men who act nice don't get laid then they will stop acting nice and starting acting like douches. You took that to mean date rape or some other nonsense.

I think you meant a different post.

In my response I did say that, but obviously from the context it meant as opposed to treating them as a gentleman, rather than rape them as you seem to have believed.

I'll take this in baby steps for you.

1) do guys enjoy having sex?
2) will they modify their behaviors to get more sex?
3) If so are they more likely to modify them copying a successful tactic or unsuccessful?

[seabeyond]

273. my post, and each one of my post stands. you dont want to acknowledge integrity, so be it

that is the position i took initially and every one since. i was calling the lack of integrity without shifting blame to the woman.

all the rest, in your other posts are discussions i am not partiipating in. there may be validity, or not. i may have an argument of them or not. i made a simple statement on the original post of yours. i stand by that statement.

[JonQ]

277. Out of curiosity

when women act as ditzes because they think it helps them land a husband do you lay all the blame on them, or do you blame "male society" for making them conform to such expectations to get what they want?

[seabeyond]

279. squarely on the womans/girls shoulder.

i sat with a little 14 yr old girl on porch a couple months ago as she acted ditzy. i asked what was so nifty about being stupid. she told me, not stupid just no common sense. so i say.... oh, you are the dumb blonde type. then walked into house, steaming, my two boys and nephews laughing.... they are already aware about my position on the stupid girl

niece and her friend declare they dont know the difference between nm and mexico. we live in fuckin texas. that was five yrs ago. boys young. they were amazed at 8 that a teenager didn't know. they already had my spiel about girls acting stupid. about a week ago i reminded niece about that, as she raises a little girl. she still claims to not know the difference. i told her, would behoove her to learn.... at 20.

no patience for it .... at all

[JonQ]

280. Sure you do

no blame for the "patriarchy" at all. ;-)

[seabeyond]

281. you are calling me a fuckin liar. that is your position. that i am a liar. you are an ass

and you dont follow my posts if you at all feel you can make a statement.

what a jerk

[JonQ]

283. Post 145

you blame women telling sexist jokes on them trying to act like men (implying all men do this and assume it is a prerequisite for acceptance in to male society).

So when men act bad it is because men are irresponsible and frankly evil, when women act bad it is because they are copying men and trying to win their acceptance.

So if men are to blame for acting differently to get acceptance from women (sex in this case) then women bear the full responsibility for acting differently to get acceptance from men (allegedly).

You're bad at this.

[seabeyond]

287. self deleted. this has nothing to do with calling me a liar

your bahavior is mud.... but you shift blame. a consistent pattern with you. and like you shift the behavior of douchebag to the woman, you do the same with yourself. no wonder you cant identify integrity.

[JonQ]

292. Um, yes it does

I pointed out how you do exactly what I accused you of (which you claimed were lies).

True/false, if I can point out how you are lying using empirical evidence then I am at fault and not you?

[seabeyond]

311. um no. you ask, females act stupid. males fault? my answer.... no. you.... liar. nt

[JonQ]

313. I'll make this simpler

I asked if you'd likewise blame women for acting stupid and not men for expecting it of them. You said yes. I have provided a situation where women acted stupid and you blamed males for expecting this of women.

You . . . liar, and hypocrite. Unless you are of the opinion that your own words cannot be fairly used against you, in which case you are insane.

Now I'm not going to alert the mods at this point, even though you have unfairly leveled accusations against me that are not true because I'd like to give you time to realize your errors and apologize. But I think you should consider carefully before continuing.

[seabeyond]

315. you asked, i answered, you called me liar. then you make an assumption about another of my posts

and tell me that is what i am saying, which is wrong.

[JonQ]

316. So you don't believe I can use your past words against you

even though you concluded that if I were to say such things about you that means I don't follow your posts (which implies that past postings are fair game).

So you are nuts. Simple enough.

[seabeyond]

317. you can use MY words, but you add your words and say, it is my words. that....

is dishonest.

you used my words and then state

it implies..... and give me an assumption of yours, not an implication.

i dont have to take your words as my own

which is back to the whole integrity thing.

and the person gets to own it, and not shift it to anothers fault

but again.... you post walks away from calling me a liar.

[JonQ]

319. No no, don't backpeddle now

It is unfair for me to use your statements to understand your positions. Apparently I'm supposed to use telepathy.

And I have never once walked away from calling you a liar. Of course that is your assumption, right? I never actually said that initially, you inferred it. But I suppose the rules are different for you. Double standards and whatnot.

[seabeyond]

328. btu i am not back pedaling. what you should do is ask, not assume. it is "unfair"

to interpret your way and say it is my words.

but, when you ask, i answer.... you say, liar. so even asking doesnt work with you

[JonQ]

333. Post 280

you choose to put words in my mouth and make assumptions. So yeah double standard.

[seabeyond]

288. dupe

[Gwendolyn]

258. It's always been a "problem." Nothing is different between then and now. n/t

[seabeyond]

264. except one cant recognize the lack of integrity. i didnt say there is a difference

between now and then. i did say it was lacking in integrity and had nothing to do with the other person.

what seems to be the difference is the acceptance of behavior and excusing and validating it.

[Gwendolyn]

274. "Acceptance of behavior and excusing and validating it."

Movies up until the late 60s still featured men slapping women hard across the face when they became "irrational" because slapping women was acceptable. Homes for Unwed Mothers were a thriving business because it was acceptable for boys and men to run out on women they got preggers. Girls didn't report gang rapes because it was acceptable to blame her for the violence and ruin her life over it. Women couldn't report marital rape because it didn't exist. Forcing your wife was acceptable. The list of what was acceptable and excused behavior "back then" is very, very long.

And as far as dating behavior goes, because it is often a game of conquer and conquest, both men and women behave in ways that are manipulative and sometimes cruel. That hasn't changed from days gone by either. Sometimes it's sad, other times it's hilarious, and mostly it's just life.

[seabeyond]

276. i dont know what any of that has to do with me calling the douchebag that treat women poorly

as lacking integrity.

[Gwendolyn]

289. Only in that you said it was a problem "today." n/t

[seabeyond]

290. being able to recognize integrity. ya.... it is a problem. nt

[Gwendolyn]

303. No more of a problem than it was in yesteryear.

"this seems to be the going attitude today, a shift from my day."

That's what you said. I've made not even a tiny dent in the long list that shows this is fallacious. There are many honorable people walking around today. As many as there were in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

[seabeyond]

312. yes, gwen.... it is in all areas. not just sex. business, politics, family adn individual.

poster cant even recognize integrity. that is a problem.

[seabeyond]

278. Girls didn't report gang rapes ... and today it is entertainment. come a long way

baby

[Gwendolyn]

284. It was entertainment back then too. You just didn't hear about it.

And boys have less of a chance of getting away with it today because we don't brush it under the rug as much.

That's what you don't get every time.

[Gwendolyn]

153. This is something new? People haven't always gravitated towards attractive others?

Football stars have never been idolized over glasses-wearing, geeky chess players? Up until women started to work in droves, they didn't choose boys/men based on how successful they were going to be, how much money they could make? Before this modern society, the unattractive among us had it made? Fat people had loads of dates? Skinny girls with no breasts and glasses were home coming queens? Fascinating.

[smalll]

216. What's new is the hook-up culture rather than the "going steady" culture.

When more young people "go steady" or "date" and have boyfriends/girlfriends, people PAIR UP. Sure, life has always been unfair, but today's "hook up" culture makes it MORE unfair and exacerbates the de-facto polygamy factor

[dustbunnie]

240. What do you consider new? Hooking up has been around since the 60s.

Hooking up has mostly always been a function of youth. People are more open about having casual sex, and maybe they're having more of it than back in the 1950s. But people dated around back then too.

Eventually people still pair off and go steady/move in/get married.

[JonQ]

252. Damn kids always having sex

things were different in our parents generations. Teens in the 60s knew what life was about, going steady, saving yourself for marriage, those were all the rage back then.

In fact I can't think of anyone back then who wasn't a virgin when they got married. Remember that big concert celebrating abstinence in woodstock? You couldn't do something like that now.

[JonQ]

251. Oh I wish we could go back to those idyllic days

before modern culture took over and ruined everything, when people were judged not by their looks or wealth but by what they were like on the inside.

Back in the 80s, no 70s, no 60s, no 50s, well anyway, back then before everything went to hell and society started to decay.

Now you kids get off my lawn!

[Gwendolyn]

291. Haha... yes, I too hanker for utopia and a chocolate malt. :-D

[Scout]

196. self-delete n/t

[Lorien]

220. Yeah, right, and you've hit on unattractive women, huh?

Every "loser" I've met only wants to date "hot chicks" even though he seems to believe that even taking a shower more than once a week is too much to ask. I've also noticed that most self proclaimed "nice guys" are just like the last one on this board who made a statement similar to your own. He later stated that he considers all women to be "human sub-species" ; creatures who were good for little outside of sex and domestic chores. Some "nice guy" eh?

[Uncle Joe]

150. I wonder if this is part of a deliberate political strategy to magnify

natural gender and cultural differences as a means of fracturing the American People; to make manipulating them all the easier.

The Republicans successfully demonized a corporate media that in fact had no allegiance other than to the bottom line; which De Facto meant corporate supremacy, as being "liberal." In regards to the "news" given to the American People this was a great hoax; as the vast majority of the corporate media haven't seriously promoted liberal points of view since the 60s. The Republican's job was made all the easier because the corporate media; swallowed it and promoted this myth themselves as it served their corporate supremacist interests for the American People to believe the corporate media was liberal.

Instead of serious in depth content and discussion of critical issues affecting the American People, we're treated to a daily dose of the National Enquirer on steroids as part of the real "news." The environment, American health care in relation to the rest of the civilized world, the long term implications of allowing private corporations having nothing to do with health care to profit from the American Peoples' illness and injury, war in general and it's real consequences at all levels, the impact from the so called "War on Drugs", Exploding CEO pay in relation to their own employees' stagnant salaries, our exploding prison population in the land of the free, the long term implications of allowing private for profit corporations to imprison the American People, in-depth coverage of other nations and their societies, etc. etc. are given bare minutes, if that much, between the commercials, fluff, propaganda spin and opinion from the corporate media; them selves.

On the other hand, violence and/or sex are continuously streamed out to the American People on regular programming, commercials and various products of every type, 24/7. This of course makes the job of the Republicans; to spin the corporate media as being "liberal" to cultural conservative Americans all the easier. This in turn helps the corporate media as they can play both sides against the middle, trashing any semblance of putting real news of import out or seriously informing the American People as to the critical of the issues of the day in an in-depth manner. They can more easily side their news programming overwhelmingly with the corporate supremacist Republican point of view, because the rest of their programming antagonizes cultural conservatives.

In short, I believe it's part of the dumbing down process, yes; boys, girls, young men and women had, have and will always have their strong natural instincts, but the continuous single minded promotion, and glamorizing of those basic urges by the corporate media; are done with some measure of motivation; not just to make a buck, but to divide and conquer the people for the sake of corporate supremacy.

Thanks for the thread, Liberal_in_LA.

[redqueen]

167. Yes... it kind of reminds me of Brave New World. (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

308. It's a fucking t-shirt, sold by a website. I doubt the Illuminati or the Bildeburgers are behind it.

the continuous single minded promotion, and glamorizing of those basic urges by the corporate media; are done with some measure of motivation; not just to make a buck, but to divide and conquer the people for the sake of corporate supremacy.

No, it's just that sex sells. And dumb jokes sell, too.

You're saying that, without porn and sexy ads, the American people would throw off the yoke of corporate oppression and buy all their food from co-ops?

Shit, I used to go to a co-op that SOLD porn, right next to the organic kale. :shrug:

Actually, totalitarian regimes have generally used sexual repression to get people to do what they want.

[Uncle Joe]

318. You're fragmenting again, my post never said it was just a t-shirt, although

that's certainly part of it.

"On the other hand, violence and/or sex are continuously streamed out to the American People on regular programming, commercials and various products of every type, 24/7. This of course makes the job of the Republicans; to spin the corporate media as being "liberal" to cultural conservative Americans all the easier. This in turn helps the corporate media as they can play both sides against the middle, trashing any semblance of putting real news of import out or seriously informing the American People as to the critical of the issues of the day in an in-depth manner. They can more easily side their news programming overwhelmingly with the corporate supremacist Republican point of view, because the rest of their programming antagonizes cultural conservatives."

The United States isn't a classic totalitarian regime, we're a pseudo democratic republic with some powerful shadow players exerting tremendous influence on the Peoples' elected representative government. That's why universal single payer coverage for every American was virtually eliminated right out of the box with out serious consideration in spite of overwhelming support by the American People.

So if you're a corrupt totalitarian power player; how do you manipulate the kind of nation we are? The answer is by dividing and conquering the people along cultural lines. In our case the debasement of sex by the corporate media in virtually all forms is the modus operandi used to perform this task and that was the primary point of my post.

[Warren DeMontague]

345. Okay. So the genius behind "t shirt hell" is a "corrupt totalitarian power player".

I think there's a story there, scoop. Investigate that one- Run with it. Let me know how it turns out.

[Uncle Joe]

352. Maybe, maybe not.

But even if he's not, corrupt power players would certainly be motivated to market or promote his product as it serves their interests.

[Warren DeMontague]

356. Really? So... say, Time Warner... or FOX... is "promoting" this guy's web page?

Maybe Halliburton?

Got any proof on that?

[Uncle Joe]

359. Do you have any proof, you listed their names? I said a corrupted power player would certainly have

motivation, I didn't they were, but nice try.

I also believe in the universe of corrupted power players; many operate in the shadows.

[Warren DeMontague]

362. Right, but if there's a grand conspiracy to promote offensive baby onesies for nefarious purposes

the onus is upon the person making the allegation to provide some sort of evidence.

[Uncle Joe]

367. You keep focusing on the tree while ignoring the forest.

I do believe you're somewhat intelligent so this must be deliberate.

This baby shirt business while egregious in it's piss poor taste and debasement of innocence is only a microcosm of the entire culture.

There are definitely corrupt power players, to deny that is to deny reality.

These corrupt power players would have a motivation to divide and conquer the people.

On the one hand the corporate media in it's multitude of forms sells sex one way or another, on the other hand the same corporate media's news divisions give overwhelming support to the corporate supremacist Republican Party, their allegiance is to the corporations not the people.

The same kind of corrupted mentality lusting for nothing but the bottom line, willing to promote wars based on lies would have motivation to promote such a product as this; because it's a furthering of what's prevalent throughout our society. I never said they were in this singular incidence but if you can find it in any of my posts point it out.

[Warren DeMontague]

370. Certainly, a conspiracy that broad and diffuse would be hard to spot.

But the baby onesies are the topic of the thread.

So I'm wondering what your solution or alternative is? :shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

375. The raunch culture is the topic of the thread, the baby onesies

are just one manifestation of that culture, tree, forest etc etc.

I imagine pedophiles and corporate supremacists would absolutely love this kind of shit, for one reason because it tears the peoples' self image down to the lowest common denominator while also magnifying division, that in itself makes the people easier to manipulate for nefarious purposes whether waging war, voting against their own best interests etc. etc.

I strongly believe in the First Amendment but I also believe the American People; even those people that love porn need to wake up to what's happening to our nation. They need to leave kids out of it and double their effort to do so, be aware of the messages they're sending in the larger context of society and take some voluntary responsibility. Put them selves in the other gender's shoes if nothing else for a few minutes and not just what you may believe to be the perks of the other gender but all the adverse conditions as well.

The porn industry needs to understand the magnifying power of their messages which no matter how you cut it, is a form of propaganda.

I don't believe there is a total solution until the corrupt shadow power players are exposed for what they are and neutralized and I honestly don't know whether that day will ever come; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for it.

[seabeyond]

378. here here and hear hear, wink. nt

[Scout]

322. read "Femininity" by Susan Brownmiller.

most gender differences are truly not THAT different ... the ones that are are then magnified by society to create a wider gulf.

one very small example: men tend to be more hairy than women, so when/where women do have body hair we are "required" to shave it off to amplify the small natural difference between the genders.

[Warren DeMontague]

341. At least you remembered to put "required" in quotes.

I spent a lot of time at Dead shows. Believe me, no one is required to shave anything.

[Scout]

346. yes, all the women of the world are dead heads n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

351. The ones who want to be certainly are.

Why don't you ponder that, for a while.

[dustbunnie]

342. That isn't actually true. Shaving is a matter of fashion and marketing, nothing more.

Throughout history women have traditionally been quite hairy with slight variations here and there. In the 1200's women shaved their heads, eyebrows and tweezered their lashes because of the uber festive headresses they wore. Legs, pubes and pits remained hairy.

Shaving the pits began with a US marketing campaign started by the Wilkinson Sword to accompany Harper's first ever spread of a woman in a sleeveless dress. The rest of the female world stayed hirsute. Women started to shave their legs when the war time pinup became popular and because hair looked gross under the new sheer stockings.

Today men shave their chests, legs, nutties and hopefully, their backs so that further blows the theory you set forth. Women also commonly shave or wax their pubes along with the rest. Both sexes do it for fashion and sexual consideration and politeness. It's not some diabolical patriarchal plot.

[Scout]

347. i listed shaving as one SMALL example, and you go all crazy on it....

i stated that shaving off our body hair is used to emphasize the small difference in general hairiness between the genders. i am fully aware that women have been quite hairy throughout history. i don't need a lecture.

and the shaving of the pits and legs for fashion's sake is certainly "required" of women if you want to wear fashionable clothes. do you really think that a woman would last long in her job if it required fashionable dress, and she wore sleeveless clothing with hairy pits? if she wore panty hose over her hairy legs?

you think patriarchy doesn't influence men's behavior? :rofl: you are ignorant, aren't you!

i'd be willing to bet that most women and men today do NOT wax/shave off their pubes, most men today do not shave their chests or their "nutties". i'd also be willing to be that most of the men who do are gay.

[dustbunnie]

350. That was going crazy to you? Lol, okay...

- You said shaving was implemented to emphasize differences between the genders. That didn't make sense, as I explained and apparently you have nothing to add to clarify. Because it still doesn't make sense.

- We shave our legs and pits for fashion, yes. Would you wear a clown suit to work? I doubt it. How about painting your face pink? Same idea. If you work in sales or the fashion industry and wear dresses to work, it's probably a good idea to shave your legs as that look has become the norm. If you're an accountant, who cares. My ex-boss had quite the dark moustache and errant chin hairs happening. No problem.

- Men started shaving once they started being photographed the way women are -- beginning with the 50's and 60's muscle men. Now that biceps and 6-packs are in vogue, and they have their own fitness and fashion rags like Men's Health, they're shaving too. It's all about fashion.

- And yes, young men and women do groom themselves en masse. And no, they aren't gay. Don't know how many 20-some-things you're hooking up with, but if you are, you'd know that.

Edited to add: Here's the 10th biggest selling shirt at T-Shirt Hell, the website that inspired this thread to begin with.

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/i-shaved-my-balls-for-this/

[Warren DeMontague]

355. P'raps you need to get out of the ivory tower more.

My 20something nephew at least trims his chest hair and keeps himself WAY more groomed than we did at that age, because that's what his GF likes. (How do I know this? Because I had to tell him to vacuum the friggin' hair off my bathroom floor, once..)


So, people only groom themselves to make themselves more attractive sexually for their partners because of "the patriarchy"? Wow.

I think if anything, modern culture (slipping inexorably into 'raunch', according to the OP) has made it more incumbent upon men to try to be physically attractive if that's what their partners want. Which is, if you ask me, a more equitable situation than the way things used to be.

[dustbunnie]

358. Well you know, if we lived under the matriarchy, we'd be hairy freaking beasts.

[Warren DeMontague]

363. R-rr-warrrrrrrr!!

[Warren DeMontague]

344. Brownmiller, MacKinnon, Dworkin. Rinse, Repeat.

Like I said. It's the same, tired, 30 year old script.

Those meet-ups must be getting pretty lonely, about now.

[pitohui]

195. wow boys today have to be TOLD to want sex?

"slackers"

:-)

[dusmcj]

221. and amidst it all both genders fail to become developed human beings who would be free, including

sexually. As Gloria (Steinem) said, we have a huge fucking problem (my emphatics) with gender role polarization in this country. We're so busy being mares and stallions we don't have time to become functional human beings.

DUH.

[LeftyMom]

230. Half those shirts are from t shirt hell. I wouldn't take them as a big cultural indicator.

That's the store you to to if you really, really want to rock a t shirt suggesting the virgin mary took it in the pooper, or something equally offensive. Complaining that their shirts are offensive is like complaining that thinkgeek's shirts have too many retro gaming references- that's just what they sell. Further, not all of their stuff is sexualized, though it's all deliberately provocative. My favorite of their baby shirts shows a baby floating in the womb with a large, baby-shaped bulge in his umbilical cord and the caption "I ate my twin." Funny as hell, not at all sexual.

So like I was saying, you really can't take those as indicative of a trend, it's one niche internet retailer. If "All Daddy Wanted was a Blowjob" onesies start showing up at baby gap, then you have a trend on your hands. In the meantime, if you don't like the stuff t shirt hell has on offer for the toddler set, don't shop there.

[SmileyRose]

247. Every generation thinks the next one is going to hell in a handbasket

My grandparents thought they raised complete idiots because my parents allowed Motown, peace symbols, mini-skirts and pierced ears for their kids. My parents and grandparents alike thought these things were the Devil's handiwork sure to destroy this country and turn us all into whores. My own generation thought their kids were going to hell in a handbasket because of body piercings and tattoos and hair color of the week. And my grandma slapped her head and said "My kid grew up to be a complete idiot to allow such tacky things for my grandkids" Now a few of our kids are putting "my mom is a milf" shirts on their babies - which is proof we raised complete idiots who will destroy our grandchildren.

And it goes on.

[alfredo]

257. All the adult bookstores on my mail route were owned by right wingers. None

were liberals. A local child porn purveyor I turned in was a Republican businessman.

[ccharles000]

261. a big k/r

[JVS]

265. There is a culture of not knowing how to mind one's own business that is inundating our country.

I really don't care what onesies say

[seabeyond]

266. i dont really care what the anti gay say. i dont really care what the religious say. mind own

business.

i hear ya. consistency, right jvs?

[JVS]

267. They can say what they want. It's my choice on whether to listen or not.

[seabeyond]

275. was anyone saying they are not allowed to say? that we should pass law? people are challenging

what is being said and repercussion to our society as a whole, male gender in particular. a discussion. that you them suggest is none of our business.

just as you can say what you want, i have the choice to respond. butting into your business, .... ok.

[JonQ]

272. But don't you realize this is all part of the patriarchies

insidious plot to train a secret army of baby rapists to keep women oppressed?

[DefenseLawyer]

269. When right wingers try to legislate morality you howl.

But when you do the same thing, couched in terms of "misogyny", it's suddenly righteous.

[TransitJohn]

286. Something I don't understand

I commend these studies. However, why did it occur to the authors to go gender specific right off the bat? Why not just study the marketing of sex to children?

[defendandprotect]

294. Could you send Sesame Street kids as easily into war???? Don't think so --

[uppityperson]

324. "my other ride has tits" on the back of a BIGtruck yesterday. Yup, sure makes me wanna

know him better.

[Warren DeMontague]

336. Hey, at least it wasn't "Truck Nutz"

Or maybe he had those, too.

[tigereye]

340. that's disgusting

:puke:

[BillDU]

366. You want money.

The money culture that wants to have us feel guilty about..
just about everything we enjoy.

[BillDU]

368. Old news.

This is nothing that didn't go on 40 years ago.
Now its cyber and up for church lady to see.
I can remember viewing porno about at a young age.
Girls were slapping anybody that tried it.
Boys always liked getting their dicks sucked.