Published: Thursday, March 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Mr. Evensen makes an excellent point and gives us all something to think about.
It is the great paradox of our life in these United States. We have been raised
to honor and defend our freedom of expression and yet when that expression goes
too far, at least by our own standards, we can see the damage done in our
society.The spoken statements of terrorist Islamic leaders have
focused on the decadent behavior of the West and their misguided terrorist
actions are intended as an answer to that decadence. Obviously - hopefully - we
all reject their terrorist actions but where do we draw the line on our own
behavior? Certainly the responsibility lies with the parents to teach their
children to make correct choices regardless of what popular culture presents to
them. But what about children without parents, or without good parents? How
can we protect them? How much 'regulation' are we willing to
withstand to regulate what we see as harmful behavior by retailers? And how do
we explain to the visitor from another planet how some behavior is acceptable
for adults by forbidden for children? How do we explain that?
"The latest target of concern is Victoria's Secret, which has begun
marketing a "college line" of sexy underwear to teenage girls,
reinforcing the idea that they are mere objects".----Women wearing sexy clothing doesn't reinforce the idea that women are
mere objects. Wearing attractive sexy clothes is a recognition of the fact that
sexual attraction is a part of what women are about.Much is said
that these clothes sexualizes girls. Do we want girls to grow up into women who
aren't sexualized? Who would want such a wife?
"Much is said that these clothes sexualizes girls. Do we want girls to grow
up into women who aren't sexualized? Who would want such a wife?"Answer: Yes, we want girls to grow up into women who aren't
sexualized. Sexual attractions and desires are natural, but are only one part of
what makes women who they are. The culture of today's society
would lead us to believe that sexual intimacy is the most important
characteristic in women, which it obviously isn't. The inner beauty that
comes from developing one's talents, learning a new skill or hobby,
appreciating communication and effective relationship-building with others, in
addition to countless other things, all contribute to make women (and men) who
Just do what ensign magazine does,air-brush sleeves on the 7 year olds.(and don't forget to do the same onthe models at city creek
a "sexy line" to college women?Since when did wearing
something besides a potato sack make them sexy? Being attractive is
not evil. sorry. Leave the 18th century.
But again, where is the line drawn. Is the problem mini skirts? Too much
cleavage? Or do we set the bar at bare arms?And do we want a
society that covers up great works of art (Rodin perhaps). The
problem is that I am quite sure that many of you dont want ME setting the bar,
nor I, you.I do not disagree that our society is sexualized. It is
done so typically by those looking to make money. So, you can either handle the
issue by "voting with your wallet" you get the government involved.
Most men get married so they can have a fulfilling sexual relationship and
partner. Don't discount the importance of this. No other attributes of a
wife can compensate for failure (or weakness) in this area.I totally
agree that women should become educated and develop their talents. You seem to
be implying that women can't excel in womanly charms and the academic. It
would be sad if this were true. The ideal is that a woman excels in both, not
that she spend all her time in her studies and developing her talents and ignore
the other as you seem to imply. (If I am judging you wrong, then I stand
corrected). Becoming well rounded in all areas is the message that
society ought to be sending and this is how parents ought to be raising their
kids. Yes mothers should should help daughters excel in all these areas, not
stifle any of these areas.
Here's an interesting exercise: Are you a FreeMarket
Capitalist, ora Freedom banning Socialist?At least show
some integrity and be consistant.
Has it ever occurred to you that they make those things because that is what the
consumer wants? If the consumer wanted old fashioned undies, that is what the
producers would make. Furthermore, the vast majority of those girls will
grow up to be productive members of society. The only people putting a taboo on
clothing are those who are stuck in the 50s.
A few years ago when i was driving my son home from school (here in CA) he
stated that he likes winter better. Surprised, i asked him why. He stated
"because girls have to wear different (ie more modest) clothes in the
winter." Mr. Evensen makes some valid points. But it is also
true that we have a free market economy and as long as people buy sexy clothing
it isn't going to go away. Schools, on the other hand, should have dress
codes and ENFORCE them. The schools our kids attended back east had a dress
code--and mostly enforced it. No spaghetti straps. Shorts and skirts had to
reach the tip of the fingers. They also kept a closet of sweat pants and sweat
shirts for those who violated the dress code. It wasn't a perfect system
but it helped.
"Has it ever occurred to you that they make those things because that is
what the consumer wants? If the consumer wanted old fashioned undies, that is
what the producers would make."Have you ever heard of something
called "Manufactured Demand?" That is when a manufacturer of anything
decides the market needs to be expanded to ensure greater income. One example
is bottled water. Until the soda companies realized that people would be dumb
enough to buy bottles of water instead of getting it free from the tap, there
was no such thing as bottled water. So they went to work, convinced gullible
consumers that tap water was "unsafe" and that their water -- which is
often just tap water in a jug -- was somehow better. They even got us to pay
much more for water than we do for gasoline.We see it in Happy
Meals. When kids know there's a toy and a burger in the bag, parents have
no choice but it buy it or listen to 48 hours of whining. Those
advertising people are diabolically clever. They can convince anyone that what
they REALLY want is on that shelf over there.
Ernest T.: Years ago my wife and other neighbor women had the idea to produce,
with their sewing machines and skills, "modest" swimsuits and dresses
(including for proms) for our young women, thinking that's what the
neighborhood girls and their parents would prefer to buy. They got it half
right: the stuff the ladies so lovingly produced was dismissed with extreme
prejudice by the girls, who flocked to the mall for the latest styles in swim
and promwear. When the girls were asked by their parents what was wrong with
the more modest, neighborhood-produced clothing, they replied it looked "old
fashioned". Oh well, the idea was well-intentioned.
Deny it all you want, but its consumer driven. Girls want what they feel is
"cute".Look at the fashions in the 70s with short shorts and
spaghetti strap tank tops. Those girls grew up to be fine women.You guys
are over reacting, as usual. If you want burkhas, move to Saudi Arabia.
I love this kinda stuff. Here people (guys usually) complain about women being
objectified, and then they go on and tell women how they should do, how they
should act, and even how they should dress, right down to their underwear. Who
is it that is really treating women like objects? Guess what? I
decide what clothes I wear, and you know something else? Women decide what
clothes they wear. And what is it with you guys and Victoria's
Secret? They make panties and bras. Now, I have never worn either, but I used to
go shop there with a girl friend I had. Yeah, the stuff looked good. But she
mostly bought the stuff from there because it fit well and was well made. . It
seems that women like bras that are comfortable. Who would have thought it? Oh, one other thing, if you see a little girl in a bikini, and you think
she looks at all sexy, you have a problem. .
Mark @ 2:20 am. You just saved me the time to write exactly what you did. As I
read Jay, I thought, but that's what the church's culture does: it
objectifies women as much as "the world," just in another way. It
dictates what I should want to be and what I should wear.
Here's an interesting exercise: Pretend you're entertaining a visitor
from another planet. Try explaining to him why your society arrests and locks
away men who use guns to prey on people and yet allows national gun
manufacturers to freely market the destructive power of assault rifles in an
effort to increase gun sales.On January 10th, Evensen decried gun
control as an attempt to "snatch solutions from the wind and make them
stick." How quickly he forgets his allegiance to the Constitution when it
offends his sensibilities. The First Amendment came first, Mr. Evensen. Quit
calling on government regulation of speech as a fix-all.
The answer is simple. Moral decay.What the liberals here have
ignored so far are the messages that they send out through the media.For example, look at most TV shows targeted to tweens and teens. You have
shows like the Wizards of Waverly Place where the girls run around constantly
worried about getting and keeping a boyfriend. The teen dramas are not any
better and usually have tons of promiscuity. In other words, girls are taught
that they need a boyfriend and need sexual relationships be fit it. At the same
time boys are being taught by liberals that they are to be cute and dumb.The Sexy clothing lines are just a symptom of the decay that is going
on. Businesspeople will only sell what people are willing to buy. Think
RedShirt, really? The Wizards of Wavely Place? Having watched that show in the
past, many episodes in fact, (there was a little buddy of mine that watched that
show, and yes, she roped me into watching it with her. But nevermind). So I can
say from experience that, yes, while the show dealt with boyfriends, that was
hardly the focus of it. It was actually a rather cute rather well written show
that dealt with a lot of the lighter issues little girls, or Tweens I guess they
are called, deal with. And, frankly, the type of story lines you would expect,
and that are fitting for young viewers. I never caught any type of political
agenda in it, unless saying that you should be nice to others is a liberal
political agenda.And liberals want boys to be cute, and dumb?
Really?Tell me, what's it like to see political agendas and
conspiracy every place you look?
Let's not forget that the fashion industry is a business, and as a
business, is about making money. It is in their interest to make what sells and
they will keep making stupid clothing as long as the parents of young girls keep
buying it. Further, it is in the interest of the industry to make skimpy
clothing because it costs less to make (due to less fabric), but they can charge
the same price as they would for a product with more fabric. I'm not a
young girl, but it hurts me too, because it is becoming more and more difficult
to find work-appropriate clothing in the stores. The only way to change it is if
we, the consumers, stop buying it. Let's not expect the fashion industry to
make decisions with the social/emotional well being of our young people in mind.
As parents, that's our job.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments