Sexual Ads

REDWORM
You know what happens when we ignore history don't you?

If one does not study history one is doomed to repeat it....especially if one bombs the midterm.

I in no way suggested that the sexual culture of the Roman Empire be ignored. On the other hand I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting by brining them up. Do you believe that the world today is likely to suffer the fate of the Roman Empire if children are taught the realities of sexuality instead of being sheltered from it?
 
REDWORM
I believe that teaching children about sex should be left up to the parents.

I bring up past history to give an example of what happens to societies when their priorities are warped. The Roman decline happened due to many factors. One of them is that the leadership decided orgies were more important then keeping the Empire's affairs in order.

In the 1950's sex was regarded in a different attitude. Yes, teens were trying to get it on then too. However, teen pregancies were rare. In fact, pregnant girls were often sent away until the baby was delivered. It was looked upon as a shameful thing. Today, many teenage girls look at having a baby as badge of honor. Teenage child births are epidemic, espically in our inner city schools. Something has changed between then and now. Some folks say that our enlightened attitudes are better, I sat they are not. I don't suggest going back to the world of fifty years ago, but we have gone too far in my opinion.
 
And I Thought

After reading all the replies here about sexual stuff, I don't want to read anyone's remarks about us Californians. There are some folks here that would feel right at home in Marin County.

Everyone thinks all the kooks are here in California. I guess some of them have gotten away.:D
 
Despite the times, teen pregnancies DID happen, so what's you're point? That they at least had the decency to be embarrassed?


The '50s was a very repressed time, yet it still happened all the time.


It's funny, with all the generations of family I can remember, the only people to get or im- pregnant out of wedlock, it was two aunts in the 1950s. All the hippies,'70s, '80s and '90s kids have somehow managed to avoid it - almost as if they were educated better or something.
 
Because I'm in favor of treating as adults in training? Or because I know the history of gang violence in the US and the culture of ancient Rome?


I have said absolutely zero that could be construed as "liberal" by anyone who thinks.
 
Re: Handy

You are claiming to be an expert in many different fields. You may or may not be. This is the internet and with all due respect, there is no way to verify things.

I could claim to have a masters degree in ancient history from Yale. You have no way of knowing that. For all you know I could be a little old lady from Pasadena. It is sort of like the sex talk phone lines that are manned by little old ladies trying to make an extra dollar.

I too think that sexual type ads have no place in shooting and hunting magazines. The other stuff that is being argued I don't want to touch. But our society is not condusive to decent child rearing.
 
"And that has what to do with condemning me to your hole of a state?"

And that has what to do with this thread? This exchange has been downright embarrassing.

Tim
 
REDWORM
I believe that teaching children about sex should be left up to the parents.
I fully agree. I just think it's ridiculously counterproductive to shelter and insulate them from the truth instead of actually teaching them. Telling a twelve year old "You're too young to ask those questions." is not teaching him about sex.

I bring up past history to give an example of what happens to societies when their priorities are warped. The Roman decline happened due to many factors. One of them is that the leadership decided orgies were more important then keeping the Empire's affairs in order.
And nowhere did I suggest that sex be considered more important than keeping the nation running but to think that it's not important denies the very nature of that act which brought every single one of us into this world.

In whatever way it's presented by the media it is up to the parents to teach their children about sex. If those parents fail to do so there will be consequences. What my parents did can be chalked up as a wonderful success; I've always been safe and careful because I don't have misconceptions about how the human reproductive system works.[/quote]

In the 1950's sex was regarded in a different attitude. Yes, teens were trying to get it on then too. However, teen pregancies were rare. In fact, pregnant girls were often sent away until the baby was delivered. It was looked upon as a shameful thing. Today, many teenage girls look at having a baby as badge of honor. Teenage child births are epidemic, espically in our inner city schools. Something has changed between then and now. Some folks say that our enlightened attitudes are better, I sat they are not. I don't suggest going back to the world of fifty years ago, but we have gone too far in my opinion.[/quote]You sure they were rare? How rare? What studies were done to quantify this rarity? Are the teen pregnancies of today more caused by the media or by more parents that were raised in the 50s refusing to teach their own children about sex?
 
REDWORM
Here are some numbers from the National Center For Health Statistics. They are great resouce for information. In 1970, the peak of the "hippie" days, the birth rate amongst children 15 to years of age was 40 per 1000. In the year 2000 the rate fell to 30 per 1000. In the 1950's the rate was less then 5 per thousand.

There has been a drop in teen pregancies in the last several decades. But suggesting that the hippie mentality of 60's reduced teen pregnancy is absurd. To suggest that during the prudish 50's teen pregnancies were like today is wrong. The reason there has been a drop in the last few years is attributed to several things, none of them is more exposure.

These are numbers that anyone can research. Claims of expertise are needed for that.
 
Guns and Sex

Being born the year that Roosevelt took office, Franklin, not Teddy. My somewhat aging face (think sphinx) big belly (think he can't hardly see his belt buckle).......does not seem to attract young, beautiful females, my wife would not put up with any hanky-panky anyway and I am not interested in nuthin' but lookin'.....don't touch. besides the can do vs. the want to departed some time ago..........But I can reload carteidges and shoot pistols and rifles and shotguns right alongside the young cowboys!

Moral of the story is: Hell ain't half full and I never want in that waiting line anyhow, shucks, Heaven has a lot of my former Marine pals and I hope they have built a firing range there!

Semper Fi
 
Lizziedog, you might as well have a talk with your son. All that stuff you're talking about ain't gonna go away. He will have it in his face for the rest of his life. Help him get it sorted out early on.

In the meantime, I hang around and wait for my next installment of the Dillon catalog. sundog
 
I think the worst atrocity in that issue of G&A is the fact that their "Guns of the Year" article did not include seperate categories for revolvers and semiautos. :mad: Y'know, nothing against the handgun they chose but it would've been nice to see both types.
 
First off, I don't believe that some of you think that all that smut in all media is not effecting our kids. McDonald's must use some magical television waves that only affect certain people. Hollywood uses other waves that don't interfere with a child's upbringing. To me, that is absurd. If Nike can make a kid lust for their shoes, be certain that most prime time shoows can cause other desires that are not healthy in children.

I just recieved the new issue of Hunting magazine. There are two, full page ads about sexual products. This brings me to my second point. Some of you are saying that this is not a big deal. See, even you have become so desensitized that you don't notice. The bar of morality has been lowered. It will continue to go down when good people choose to ignore, if not support certain behaviors.

Not that many years ago, these ads would have brought the number of readers to a dead halt. The magazines would not even have considered those ads. The fallout would have been a financial ruin. Now they have sold their soul and no one cares.

I am canceling this subscription too.
 
Back
Top