Sexual Ads

You would have been in hog heaven with a sex product ad from a gun magazine?


You should check out the bra section of the Sears catalogue. Now that's steamy!




I think you'll find that many "upright citizens" had plenty of access to real pornagraphy, and aren't walking around as drooling hedonists. I think you would have turned out as the exact same person, just a tad less uptight about this stuff.
 
give up ye olde electricity and move to Pennsylvania

Hey, hey, ease up on Pennsylvania. And what the hell is electricity?:D

These days, many kids are in a one parent home. That parent must work one or two jobs to keep a roof over the head and food on the table.

Not the best situation for sure, but not one caused by those ads. Or is it?

Anybody concerned about the 'legal steroid' ads in the magazines? Granted, they're smaller and jammed in the classified sections, but I was wondering?

If the mystery is removed from sex, and appropriate behavior taught, doesn't that arm our children better than shielding them from exposure and pretending it doesn't exist? (And before anyone spins this wildly out of proportion, I am speaking in relation to these advertisements, not exposing your kid to porn) It would seem to me that the shielding/pretending route is like arming yourself with an empty gun.

Our children are going to be exposed to crap we don't approve of everywhere, and I think finding a way to help them make the best possible decision they can when we're not there to guide them, is the best possible solution.
 
And when do you predict the smut based breakdown is likely to occur?

:D Well there are alot of people allready broke down and more headed in the direction. Heck maybe it's natures way of culling out people with weak wills, drugs and porn along with all the other activites that kill ya or make your life short. Only thing is those that break down expect others to get them going again.

Most things don't break down all at once, it's bits at a time and you see it running bad and hear the noises but unless you know what to do your dead on the side of the road.:eek:

25
 
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all around it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
 
I agree and I don't care to see any advertisements in magazines I read that have nothing to do with the topic of the magazine and hate magazines that are 50% junk advertisements, BUT.....

The publishers of the magazine can put whatever advertisements they want in their magazines. If they get enough money from the advertisements and they still hold a decent amount of magazine sales, they aren't going to back down.

And who ever said hunting or shooting magazines were meant to be family oriented or "pure" of anything not appropriate for your child by your personal standards?
Many other readers and subscribers to these magazines may not be as offended to what advertisements are in these magazines.
As some may think it is wrong to let a young boy be exposed to some slight sexual content in a hunting magazine, there will be others who would say, here I am teaching my 11 year old son to hunt and kill a living creature, so what's the big dea and how is is so wrong to let him see a girl in a bikini holding a gun or a Viagra ad?
It's okay to kill Bambi, but don't look at breasts may not make sense to many who are more open and less restrictive of content of a sexual nature.
 
It seems that some of you think that being open minded about sex is harmless. Some of you think that no harm comes from exposing our youth to sexual stuff early. Do you find inner city gangs harmless?

There is connection here. According to the latest United States Census, 70% of inner city children are born out of wed lock. They are born to teenage moms with the father out of the picture. The boys born into this are without a male role model. Then as they grow up, they may have a social worker helping the family. Again, most social workers are women. When the the male child enters school, most elementary teachers are female. So, these boys spend the first dozen or so years of their lives without any positive male role models. Is it any wonder that many of these kids turn to strret gangs to find the role model. Then in high school, these kids are given condems and told to use them if they are going to have sex.

Why were these children even born before the mom and dad were old enough and responsible enough to have sex? One reason is society's messages. The messages are that sex is to be experienced when the hormones are raging, damn the consequences.

I agree with some of you that one silly ad, or one photo will not in itself harm anyone. But, our kids are being bombarded day and night with inappropriate messages. Many of these kids have little or no adult guidance to counter those messages.
 
The real irony IMO is that the "right" to publish sexually oriented material anywhere from TV to magazines to the side of a bus is on the rise while our right to keep and bear arms is on the decline.
 
Since when is it ok to shift the responsibility of raising our children onto society or worse media? The issue is not with sex, but a failure to maintain an appropriate parental relationship.
 
We are all responsible for future generations. When I was a kid, if a neighbor, family friend, or any other aquaintance saw me do something wrong, they notified my parents. They in turn took appropriate action to rectify the situation. This usally involved my dad and a switch of my choosing.

I do agree that the actual parents of any child are the foremost responsible party. But, are we to ignore all these single parent kids? Do we wait for them to take over our inner cities?

One more example. This is for those of us in our mid forties or older. Imagine going for a family drive with your parents. Then imagine that a billboard was put up with a nearly naked woman on it. I know how my parents would have reacted. We might call that old fashioned or unenlightened. Today, the reaction from most thirteen year olds is barely a yawn. Don't you find it disturbing that our youth have been so desensitized to this stuff? I know, some of you will think we are better off with this new attitude. I submit we are not.

For seven years I was a teacher at an inner city elementary school. A ghetto school if you will. I saw first hand what an overly permissive society can lead to. Out of each class of thirty kids, maybe three had a father they even knew. These were kids of parents from an enlightened society.
 
We are all responsible for future generations.

:D Ahhh a voice from the wilderness,(this reply is just useing your words not pointed at you) I been trying to say this but at the same time people need their freedom. I guess maturity needs to be with freedom but alot of people don't agree. The maturity to do what is best for community without the loss of the rights we have.

You have the right to look at some porn but not to show it to my kids or get kids involved in any way. You have the right to carry a gun but for defense not agression. Heck you have the freedom and the right to kill yourself with drugs or booze or whatever but do it so it only harms you.

Heck you can see we are losing community do to technology. The use of technology is taking us from a community world and putting us into a world that we want at our fingertips rather than a world where we deal with people. I see people post on the computor things they wouldn't have the stones to say to your face. I see people turn their back on you to answer the phone in their pocket as it's there world calling and your not part of it.

I don't like sex adds but I ain't going to try to stop it, it has to be.

25
 
Last edited:
Do you find inner city gangs harmless?
This is why many of us aren't going to take you seriously.

You aren't going to be able to pawn inner city gangs off on condom ads when even a modest search of the relevent facts reveal that the origin of the welfare ghetto in the US is primarily the widespread factory layoffs in large northern industrial cities during the '50s and '60s. The ensuing poverty and unemployment lead directly to a rise in crime, and a large amount of the male population ending up in jail, creating the first generation of fatherless inner city youth. That continued, with little break, right up to the present day.


Obviously, you feel strongly about this, but you're frankly inventing connections that you have no reason, aside from your convictions, to believe exist to support them.


The most "liberated" free love populations in Europe are meanwhile shrinking.
 
Fan Club?

Some of the replies to this thread are surpising. One would think that some folks here are charter member of the Bill Clinton fan club.:D
 
lizziedog1 stated:

I am a believer that everyone should have the freedom to do as they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's well-being. I also am a "normal", red-blooded American male.

Handy responded later on with:
MRS LIZZIEDOG1
.

just thought I'd point that out.
 
Heck, when I was in fourth grade, I barely knew what women were. I hear fifth graders talking about sexual stuff that I did not know about even in college.
Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe that's the problem? My mother was, among other professions throughout her life, a very good nurse and a decent psychologist. By the time I was nine I knew as much as I could possibly know about sex from a clinical standpoint. From that age I knew exactly what every sexual organ does, exactly what happens during intercourse, exactly how eggs become fertilized, and exactly what occurs in both male and female bodies during puberty. This stuff wasn't taught in health class until my freshman year of high school five years later. When they showed us those wierd videos (the birth and the dude coming out of the shower canoodling his boys to check for cancer) I wasn't bothered or distrurbed, I wasn't embarrassed or giggling like some of the other students. Most importantly when I was older and the opportunities for sex came about I was far better informed and was able to make wiser choices than my friends who's parents either ignored the issue completely hoping the school would take care of it, or even worse, taught them that sex was a sin.

My parents didn't shield me from the sheer and simple reality that everyone has sex. Every human being on the planet has the exact same sexual urges and it's completely natural to begin feeling those urges at and around the teenage years. It's been suggested the puberty is starting earlier as each generation passes because of all the chemicals in our food (any straight red blooded male in the public school system notices how girls seem to fill into their clothing earlier), which bothers me far more than the thought of getting kids to understand what's going on with their bodies.

Each parent has the right to determine how their child is brought up, whether or not that child is blood related, but I cannot fathom how simply telling a child that they're not allowed to know about a certain subject until a certain age will in any way help them to cope with it. You may not like it, you may not even want to admit it, but your 12 year old wants to have sex. He himself may not understand the concept, he may not even know why he feels those strange things when he sees images of scantily clad attractive women but the chemicals in his body are telling him "you're preparing for reproduction".

Maybe some parents think their little girl will just shy away from sex if mommy pretends it doesn't exist and if daddy threatens to smack her silly for kissing boys. Those are the parents that will then blame the media for "introducing" sex to their kids when it was their own biology that did it.Even without all the sex in the media kids would still feel the exact same urges. The problem is that parents are too afraid or too embarrassed with their own nature to tell their children the truth about who we are and where we come from.

Tell a child not to have sex "because I said so" is only going to entice the child more. When you deny a human being the satisfaction of a curiosity it emboldens that person to pursue it with greater tenacity and, if necessary, deception. Instead if you tell a child what sex is, why people have sex, what happens during sex, and the consequences of sex then maybe you'll raise a child better able to understand and control his or her own feelings when the time comes to make a tough decision.
 
HAL
I noticed that too. Some folks have to resort to personal attacks when they can't debate an issue. Many liberals do that when they are ill equiped to battle in the arena of ideas.
 
It was a reference to you switching to the "MR HANDY" label. That seems to be a common perversion of my forum name used by people who are starting to get pissy.


I go by Handy, or Andrew if you want a real name. You don't need to pervert either because you're upset.

You might take your own advice when it comes to personal attacks. I would hate for you to be labeled "liberal" unnecessarily.
 
For seven years I was a teacher at an inner city elementary school. A ghetto school if you will. I saw first hand what an overly permissive society can lead to. Out of each class of thirty kids, maybe three had a father they even knew. These were kids of parents from an enlightened society.

I taught for 6 years at the elementary level. For one year I taught in a school maintained by child protective services and the rest with self contained emotionally disturbed students. These students (CPS kiddos) were in the custody of the state. The media nor "enlightened society" had nothing to do with their problems. I choose to place the blame on the choices made by their parents. IMO the parents can not use porn or drugs as an excuse for being such lousy parents. Nor will I accept the excuse that the parents of those parents were just as lousy. There are a lot of "bad" things out there. Parents have to teach these kids to deal with these issues and make "good" or "healthy" choices. The passionate intensity of the revultion has not changes over the last hundred years or so. If it triggers revultion then instill those values in your children. You can ask society to change; but IMO it is a waste of time. Vote with your dollars, that is the only vote you have when it comes to popular opinion.
 
Back
Top