Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver wrote:Whatever. Again, sex is glorified more than it needs to be. As Frazz and I pointed out take a look next time you walk past the 10-12 year old section of swimsuits or lingerie at the store (don't gawk as that might be weird). Girls that young don't need clothes like that and it only leads to the wrong message being conveyed.

Not sure how we got so far off track but I guess teen pregnancy correlates with abortion discussion.

Our sex obsession is true, however, on both extremes. In addition to what you've been describing above, the conservative/religious demographic is far, far too fixated on abstinence above all else.

Forget that your child is a selfish, bratty, ignorant, pretentious drunk - as long as they haven't rubbed genitals, they're golden!

There is far more sex on tv than their is violence.

We clearly aren't watching the same television.

guess I don't get what you are trying to say Shuma.

You don't have a point and make things up.

t appears to me you don't think clothes designed to fit a 12yo girl but reveal as much as clothes a 24yo stripper/hooker wears is that big of a problem.

I don't want to see the catalogues you're looking at. They would probably get me arrested.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are saying that since violence is glorified that it should be okay for girls to wear clothes that are not befitting of age?

Well firstly I posted what? Three sentences? Mostly just trying to separate the idea of early sex education or information and a moralistic value on appropriate ages for viewing such things. You're the one who took this into the weird land of me somehow thinking nipple stickers are great for 8 year olds. Secondly you're hyperbolically describing a world that doesn't exist just to prove a point that you haven't really stated. If teen pregnancies have been decreasing for years (as dogma pointed out until the bush years abstinence in schools thing failed) then I don't really see how your point is at all valid. How is a level of clothing directly correlated to teen pregnancy or objectification? Standards for the level of revealing attire are almost in their entirety set by the society, and not based on any sort of scientific review of how much is too much more not enough (Muslim Hijabs being the extreme on the opposite end from more tribalistic "free" attires).

I'm not against discussion of sex or sexual subject matter in shows designed around that or aimed at adults. It's too much when shows like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other teen shows elude to it or downright talk about it.

Well Hanna Montannas intended age group is roughly 13 year olds. Dawning teens. Around this time sex education is introduced in schools, and children start to genuinely deal with such things. Would you prefer to just hide it from them? Because you know what happens then?

In 2006 it increased by 4% (which correlates nicely with the surge in abstinence-only sex education)

Thats what. You don't defeat something like teen pregnancy by sheltering children. It doesn't work.

Teens should not get sex education lessons from the Disney Channel, they should get it from home and/or at school.

And what reason do you have for saying that? From a purely logical point of view they are hardly glorifying it on disney like you seem to think (seriously, are you high? Or are you just saying all this to somehow try and make a slippery slope argument based on your fantasy terror-world?), and a more integrated and less haphazard approach to teaching kids moral values attached to sex is logically a good thing. You just don't seem to have any basis for your views or opinions. Ever.

Fateweaver wrote:
Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I actively leave those shows on while painting and they avoid sex like the plague in any episode I've seen. They talk about kissing and not much else. Maybe I'm missing something or you mean Degrassi, 90210, Gossip girl and the like?

Edit: I feel the need to clarify, they stay on in the background because I don't have to watch them to follow them and occasionally there's a good laugh. I'm not a Hannah Montana "fan" per se.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I actively leave those shows on while painting and they avoid sex like the plague in any episode I've seen. They talk about kissing and not much else. Maybe I'm missing something or you mean Degrassi, 90210, Gossip girl and the like?

No, fateweaver just lives in a fantasy world, totally different from the real one.

Wow...

Next thing you know, anyone who doesn't believe in God is a terrorist, and should obviously be shot.

Still, what do you expect. When you play the God card, this is what happens...

I have nothing against FW's views, I would just make sure you quote your sources properly because it sort of discredits anything else you say. Womenz, 'specially young womenz, are often slutty nowadays.

You don't have to look at kiddie porn mags to see what kinds of clothes are out their for 10-12 year old girls.

FFS Shuma, Frazz himself pointed it out and Frazz has a teen daughter so I'm sure he knows. Walk past or through the young misses section at Walmart or Target.

Don't disagree and insinuate something I'm not (and that comment was borderline calling me a child molester but I'll let it slide for now). Risque lingerie =/= equal nipple covers/pasties and crotchless panties. It doesn't take a magazine from "Child Molester World" to see that clothes for teens are not appropriate attire for a girl that age.

I think the one living in a fantasy land is you Shuma. To you the grass is greener on EVERY side, not just the OTHER side but you are an obvious Liberal so I'll let it slide.

So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy); young adults (18-24) also need better education and to stop being vilified for choosing to do things with their body that they want to.

I'm pro-choice so go ahead and keep thinking I'm a right-wing nutjob because right-wing nutters are pro-abortion.

Fateweaver wrote:
So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy);

The massive drop in the rate of teen pregnancy seems to disagree with your conclusion. The percentage of young people (male, and female) who are sexually active before age 15 also declined between 1995 and 2002. I can't find any data which covers more a more recent interval, but I haven't looked very hard either.

FFS Shuma, Frazz himself pointed it out and Frazz has a teen daughter so I'm sure he knows. Walk past or through the young misses section at Walmart or Target.

I just walked through a sears, didn't notice too much.

Don't disagree and insinuate something I'm not (and that comment was borderline calling me a child molester but I'll let it slide for now).

So it's only ok when you do it? Noted.

I think the one living in a fantasy land is you Shuma. To you the grass is greener on EVERY side, not just the OTHER side but you are an obvious Liberal so I'll let it slide.

You don't know gak. You never argue from a basis of reality, statistic, or citations. You constantly make things up (you just said Gore is making billions on the green agenda like a half hour ago). Don't tell me I live in the fantasy world when you refuse to do anything but somehow try and tear down a new strawman every post.

So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy); young adults (18-24) also need better education and to stop being vilified for choosing to do things with their body that they want to.

Sure they can. We should also worry about them learning how to field strip automatics from their nintendos.

I'm pro-choice so go ahead and keep thinking I'm a right-wing nutjob because right-wing nutters are pro-abortion.

No, I think that you're a right wing nutjob because You are a right wing nutjob. Not because you're pro choice.

Don't ever recall calling you racist or hinted you might be a child molestor so I don't know where you are getting that idea from. If it makes you feel better I could call you much worst but then I'd be stooping to your level and if I wanted to stoop low enough to stick my face in gak I'd go out to the barn.

When all is said and done Gore will probably make billions off his "global warming ponzi scheme" but I guess only the here and now matter, like when people defend the HCR Bill. It doesn't matter it will bankrupt our country into death; it only matters that people next year that don't have medical coverage will get it.

It is so plainly clear to me now.

If I'm a right wing nutjob than you are a leftist nutjob. Ah feth political affiliation. You are just a nutjob in general.

Fateweaver wrote:Don't ever recall calling you racist or hinted you might be a child molestor so I don't know where you are getting that idea from.

I don't recall anyone claiming you did, recently.

It is pretty amazing how much wrong and made-up garbage comes out of FW's keyboard. I just marvel at it. He's like an object lesson in the sheer depth of ignorance and misinformed opinion out there, debasing and crippling our nation's ability to have reasonable discussions about issues of import.

Fateweaver wrote:When all is said and done Gore will probably make billions off his "global warming ponzi scheme" but I guess only the here and now matter, like when people defend the HCR Bill. It doesn't matter it will bankrupt our country into death; it only matters that people next year that don't have medical coverage will get it.

I half agree with you there. Gore WON'T make billions off Global Warming. Many people seem to be against going green(I'm sure you know what happened with Electric Cars).


Health>Money

You can have all the currency in the world, but if you're dead/comatose you won't be able to do anything with it.

Wow... this thread has... well... my popcorn is talking to me now...



It is telling me to wear skimpy bathing suits, and get pregnant at any chance I have... Why in the feth am I listening to a piece of popcorn?

...seriously.

Because it's funny to watch Fateweaver caper for our amusement?

You can have all the currency in the world, but if you're dead/comatose you won't be able to do anything with it.

Yeah, but by the time you realize you can't take t with you, you're too dead to care.

Wrexasaur wrote:Wow... this thread has... well... my popcorn is talking to me now...



It is telling me to wear skimpy bathing suits, and get pregnant at any chance I have... Why in the feth am I listening to a piece of popcorn?

...seriously.

Because it is tasty, so therefore right.

Electric cars failed because they didn't have the range and convenience of gasoline cars. If they work out the battery issues and make them affordable, they'll certainly be popular.

It's the same reason that cell phones really didn't get that much market penetration when you had a handset the size of a baneblade, and the battery was a seperate brick you carried around in a dedicated shoulderbag.

However, once they became pocket sized, with a developing support network that made them feasible to use across the nation, and continued advances made them even more attractive, they became ubiquitous.

Bookwrack wrote:It's the same reason that cell phones really didn't get that much market penetration when you had a handset the size of a baneblade, and the battery was a seperate brick you carried around in a dedicated shoulderbag.

However, once they became pocket sized, with a developing support network that made them feasible to use across the nation, and continued advances made them even more attractive, they became ubiquitous.

It also didn't help that only very few areas had anything like reception, and that the phones were thousands of dollars. The size in fact was likely the last concern, since they were primarily car phones at that point.

The networks were the main issue... as you can see now with many, many phone companies with feth-all for coverage. Not that I could do any better myself, but I dunno, most phone companies just suck?

I don't really see a strong parallel between electric cars and cell phones, mainly because the first car WAS ELECTRIC. So it would kind of be like like if cell phones were around before house phones... or something.

As battery and solar technology become more efficient, the market will begin to accept them as normal. Just like home entertainment systems will eventually be focused into giant versions of Ipods at some point. Feth all of these cords, and random ass crap; get an Ihouse! , or something along those lines.

In the next 5 years or so, Tesla Motors is hopefully going to be offering medium mileage electric cars (150+ miles), at relatively affordable prices. I would guess that a standard electric sports car will end up running you like 40-50k. I would buy one if I had the money, they sound sweet.

Fateweaver wrote:You don't have to look at kiddie porn mags to see what kinds of clothes are out their for 10-12 year old girls.

FFS Shuma, Frazz himself pointed it out and Frazz has a teen daughter so I'm sure he knows. Walk past or through the young misses section at Walmart or Target.

Don't disagree and insinuate something I'm not (and that comment was borderline calling me a child molester but I'll let it slide for now). Risque lingerie =/= equal nipple covers/pasties and crotchless panties. It doesn't take a magazine from "Child Molester World" to see that clothes for teens are not appropriate attire for a girl that age.

I think the one living in a fantasy land is you Shuma. To you the grass is greener on EVERY side, not just the OTHER side but you are an obvious Liberal so I'll let it slide.

So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy); young adults (18-24) also need better education and to stop being vilified for choosing to do things with their body that they want to.

I'm pro-choice so go ahead and keep thinking I'm a right-wing nutjob because right-wing nutters are pro-abortion.

Tween actually-which is even more the pity. GC had to go t several stores just to find a decent one piece as she was not comfortable with the bikinis being foisted upon her.

Its less the immediate shows she watches, but there are a slew of TV shows and music that are targeted at teens that are way way out there. As importantly, but tangentially, much of the mags and other media portray teen girls as wafer thin unrealistic bodies. Tghats just as damaging becuase it sets them up for poor expectations and body image crap that falls into other things.

Fateweaver's approach and outlook is hardcore, but as a parent of tween daughter, and DAWG of a girl scout troop, it really is out there like a bad wave. Just look at rap and how it depicts women and you want to lock and load on anyone involved in that industry.

Fateweaver's approach and outlook is hardcore, but as a parent of tween daughter, and DAWG of a girl scout troop, it really is out there like a bad wave. Just look at rap and how it depicts women and you want to lock and load on anyone involved in that industry.

Yeah, but fateweaver is treating it like it's somehow new, when it's been like this for my entire life (NWA pre dates me). As for the one pieces, yeah those have fallen out of style, but two pieces are only embarrassing and revealing if you've taught your daughter that they are. The amount of skin shown has no true moralistic value, and I don't bat an eyelash at kids that wear bikinis. Hell, in the 1800's boys would just go in the buff before swim fashion really caught on. The world changes a lot in a century, don't get too caught up in the change or else you'll end up being torn apart by it.

It is really only as bad as you make it for yourself. That is basically what most of the 'thong culture' is based on; self destruction. You can split it different ways, but it really boils down to an image based on a lack of your own image. To not conform is to be bad... or something. Super weak-sauce mind control lameness. No jedi mind trick need phase you, as long as you have your fly-swatter handy.

One thing that, though not surprising, is very saddening; is the fact that people seem to soak this stuff up en masse. The important part to realize though, is that the whole idea that fuels the industry, is simply a tangent of our larger culture. Excess, and lots of it.

Nothing wrong with pampering yourself, but it can become a bad thing over time. Honestly though, figuring out how to plain old ignore all of it, is really not that hard.

...OOH! A BUTTERFLY! WHEEEEE!!!

Wrexasaur wrote:No jedi mind trick need phase you, as long as you have your fly-swatter handy.

The trick is that the fly-swatter is a thing called personal identity, and acquiring it means being willing to try new things. Even, and sometimes especially, if they happen to be mainstream.

Anyway, don't tease Fateweaver.

Yes, instead put him on ignore like I did.

If we all did it he could scream flamebaiting hyperbole into the cold vacum of space forever whilst the rest of us have grownup talk.

Mutual win.

Well, say what you want about Fateweaver (although the mods may still deck ya) but the guy certainly stands his ground. Some call it stubborn, but Fateweaver wouldn't be the only person to be called that here on Dakka.

I just wish that he (or you, as you may be reading this) wouldn't post it in such a flamatory way.

And yes, some people can't really talk themselves...

As with all these things, there has been drift on the actual topic. My principal outrage is that via this test, it is going to be possible to identify women who've had abortions.

That is a breach of medical confidentiality and would be unthinkable in the UK. One of the most personal, sensitive operations a woman can undergo is to be made public, I cannot stress just how much I believe this to be wrong.

The rights of medical confidentiality must remain intact in a modern, free thinking Western nation.


...Also, could someone explain for the record how difficult it would be for an Oklahoma woman to cross the state line and get the operation? I guess it would become much like the situation in Ireland, where women travel over on the ferry to the UK to have the abortion, in that case.

Well as for the state travel:
Your neighbors see you pregnant, (it's noticeable enough) you travel interstate and come back not pregnant and no baby. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

What irks me is that this is such an obvious attempt to intimidate the women, while not actually doing so much as making it illegal. I'm sorta pro-life (havn't got my act together) but this is just disgusting.

I was just thinking, everyone is 'Pro Life'.

It's a dreadful term, as though anyone who believes in the right of a woman to make a choice is 'Anti-Life'.