Troublesome t-shirts redux

Vocaboly.com
Vocabulary builder software for SAT, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and more

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Troublesome t-shirts redux
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english

Author

Message

Tony Cooper
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:28:15 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Somewhere out there there's the general public; the average Americans.
The people in this group aren't concerned about the issue, aren't
offended by the tee shirts, and probably don't even notice them.

OK, but the thing I don't get here is that you say this politician
is doing this to get votes, yet also that the average American would
not agree with his views. Isn't there any danger that a politician
who becomes notorious for wanting to ban things might lose support
for it?

By the time the election comes around, the average American voter will

not remember what cause Steve Rauschenberger championed. However,
they might recognize the name and vote for Rauschenberger because they
don't know who the other guy is and they know Rauschenberger did
something.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

the Omrud
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> spake thusly:

Quote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.

I invoke Godwin's Law.

You have driven me to laughter.

--
David
=====
replace usenet with the

Laura F. Spira
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:47 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Salvatore Volatile wrote:

Quote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.

I invoke Godwin's Law.

applause

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Ross Howard
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:38:12 GMT, Jim Lawton
<usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrought:

Quote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:38:12 GMT, "Maria Conlon" <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

Jim Lawton wrote:
Ross Howard wrote:

So what's all the fuss about?

These: <www.drudgereport.com/af.jpg>.

Good grief, this is a world where people are killing each other,
starving to death, poisoning the planet, and he's worried about a set
of feeble t-shirts?

From my soapbox:
This is also a world where AIDS and STDs are serious problems, and
there's no cure as yet. And shall we think about rape, and what might
trigger a rapist? Should any young woman really be wearing a t-shirt
that says "Available for parties" across her breasts? How about "shag me
now" (as mentioned below)? Not all the people who may be reading those
t-shirts are completely sane, you know.

No, but those who aren't completely sane don't need a "shag me now"
t-shirt to be triggered; a bit of lipstick and a shortish skirt is
usually enough for them to bleat "well she was asking for it, wasn't
she?" And how do you feel about breast implants? Or even Wonderbras?
Are they really intended to please only the implanted or uplifted
women's husbands and boyfriends and no other men?

Quote:

I agree. But haven't legislators got better things to do than this? I
suspect Tony's right -- the state senator was just playing to the
straitlaced seats in his electorate's gallery -- but having
legislators as the arbiters of what we can wear is, frankly, an
appalling idea. Forty years ago, in a much less sexually permissive
society than today's, I don't remember anyone suggesting Mary Quant
should have been required by law to stop encouraging the scandalous
exposure of young thighs by selling mini-skirts.

Quote:

It's also my guess that no woman over 18 would want any men or any
other woman tellking them what they should and shouldn't wear. After
all, these are items on sale in a clothes shop; nobody's proposing
them as anybody's obligatory uniform. A case of a woman's right to
choose, and all that.

Quote:

Yes, but the example should be set by not buying the stupid t-shirts,
and not giving our teenage daughters money to buy them -- not by
writing letters signed Disgusted of Peoria to state senators (which is
how I imagine he heard about this).

Quote:

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If teenage girls and young women
are led to believe by people whose opinion they respect -- magazine
editors could play a role here -- that the t-shirts are tacky and
uncool, they won't buy them and A&F will abandon the line as
unprofitable.

--
Ross Howard

Michael Nitabach
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:3t1au5Fq6u7kU1@individual.net:

Quote:

Maria Conlon wrote:
[...]

What she said, all of it. And if it takes a couple of actions under
obscene publications acts (which I generally disapprove of) to help
make a safer street, then it would be worth my swallowing my
anti-censorship pride.

Thanks for introducing some irony into this thread; it's much needed.
You should forward your post to Rauschenberger, too. (Nah, he wouldn't
get it.)

--
Mike Nitabach

Maria Conlon
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

Quote:

Maria Conlon writes:

From my soapbox:

Understood.

And shall we think about rape, and what might trigger a rapist?
Should any young woman really be wearing a t-shirt that says
"Available for parties" across her breasts? How about "shag me now"
(as mentioned below)?

I see absolutely no reason why not.

"Understood." Smile

But I think our ages determine our opinions somewhat.
My children may not see things exactly the way their father and I do --
they grew up in a different world than we did, and our influence only
stretches so far. Having said that, I think that our daughter and son
both (and our s-i-l and d-i-l) would frown on such t-shirts. (I should
probably ask them, eh?)

Quote:

Not all the people who may be reading those t-shirts are completely
sane, you know.

That way, I'd say, lies burqas. There is very little in the way of
women's dress that has not, at one time or another, been said to
"inflame the lust" of men or been dangerous for them to wear, lest
some men consider it an invitation. Naked arms, naked hair, naked
ankles, pants, etc.

Sure, but burqa-type repression is not where I was going with my
comments.

Quote:

If a woman wants to be flirtatious in her dress, I see no problem.

Nor do I.

Quote:

Well, consider this bit of comparison: Often, we set the tone for how we
are treated. Use "raw" language, and we'll likely hear the same. Tell
lies, and we'll hear lies back, and likely not be trusted to tell the
truth. Wear clothing that is not simply "flirtatious" but is considered
by many as "in your face," and we'll be likely be treated as more than
simply flirtatious.

We *are* beyond "she was asking for it" (thank goodness), but we're not
beyond the need to use common sense. Flaunting/parading sexuality is
hardly sensible in all situations.

And: Having a sense of propriety is not totally out of fashion. The
availability of suggestive clothing does not change that, I hope.

Quote:

I don't disagree with that. As I've said, I don't favor legislating
morals. Nor would I condone legislating morals.

Quote:

Personally, I'd class wearing sexually suggestive t-shirts in with
t-shirts that imply that the wearer likes to drink or bowl or play
golf or watch football or go to church.

Well, we disagree there.

Quote:

..........You don't need to have no
self-respect or no limits to enjoy partying or flirting or even
engaging in casual sex.

Enjoying partying or flirting, sure. Casual sex, I don't know. I know
it's always been there, but people didn't talk about it so freely in the
past. (We're back to the generational thing.)

Quote:

.......More than having no self-respect, I'd say
that wearing such slogans can indicate an uncommon degree of self-
acceptance and comfort.

I guess my "old fogey" question would be "self-acceptance" as what? As
being part of the real world? As being a socially "with it" person? As
being true to oneself and "not your father's car" or your mother's
wardrobe? <sigh> Maybe so, and maybe rightly so. But it's not easy for
me to overlook the fact that such openness can be misunderstood, and can
result in an unfavorable (and yes, perhaps unfair) opinion. It could
actually cost someone a "second look" or second date, or even a job
opportunity. People make decisions all the time based on appearances.
Human nature.

Quote:

There was a young woman in my local music club the other week with a
t shirt emblazoned with the legend "shag me now" - now that's racey.

I feel rather sorry for her. The shirt is probably meant to be
funny, but it isn't, not really. Would you want your daughter --
say, a daughter between 15 and 20-or-so, wearing one of those
t-shirts in public? Your sister? My guess is that most adult men and
women would not like that idea.

I'd guess that most adult men and women with 15-to-20-year-old
daughters are uncomfortable about thinking of them as sexual beings at
all, whether the sexual activity (or hinting at it) takes place in
public or private.

Yes, I believe that's true.

Quote:

........I'd hope that if I had a daughter I'd understand
her well enough to be comfortable with the reason she chose to wear
such a shirt if she did.

What sort of reason would you find acceptable? (I didn't want to use
that word --"acceptable" -- but can't think of exactly the right word at
the moment.)

Quote:

As for my sister, she's a big girl. But even when she was younger, I
don't think it wouldn have bothered me.

Lest you think otherwise: I am not in favor of legislating morals.

Understood.

I am not in favor of the government banning certain clothes, books,
films, etc. I *am* in favor of people learning how to act like
responsible adults. And that's got to start with the already-adult
among us setting examples.

while realizing that many of the examples we set would have been
shocking not that long ago and accepting that personal choices that
really don't matter really don't matter. I have no problem with
someone saying "That's inappropriate *here*" on their own property (or
property they've been delegated the right to decide for), but I can't
think of anything that doesn't involve non-consentual harm to somebody
being simply unacceptable.

I'm not sure I understand that last part. If it doesn't involve harm,
it's acceptable?

Quote:

.........The notion of stores not being allowed to
sell shirts to people who would like to buy them because they have
"sexually suggestive slogans" goes *way* across the line.

I don't want stores being regulated in this matter. I just wish that
they weren't so eager to make a buck that they peddle what many parents
find to be in questionable taste. And I wish teenaged girls, especially,
didn't want to buy such merchandise.

--
Maria Conlon

Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:09 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> writes:

Quote:

"Maria Conlon" <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[1] Or girl; whatever the target audience, I'm sure the shirts are
sold to whoever has the wherewithal to buy them.

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If teenage girls and young women
are led to believe by people whose opinion they respect -- magazine
editors could play a role here -- that the t-shirts are tacky and
uncool, they won't buy them and A&F will abandon the line as
unprofitable.

And, conversely, nothing will make them hotter than the disapproval of
adults, especially "authority figures". The best way to kill the fad
would be to have adults describe them as "adorable" and have
grandmothers buy them for their granddaughters. Even worse would be
to have the grandmothers start *wearing* them.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Other computer companies have spent
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |15 years working on fault-tolerant
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |computers. Microsoft has spent
|its time more fruitfully, working
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |on fault-tolerant *users*.
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Maria Conlon
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:41 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Ross Howard wrote:

Quote:

Jim Lawton wrought:
Maria Conlon wrote:
Jim Lawton wrote:
Ross Howard wrote:

So what's all the fuss about?

These: <www.drudgereport.com/af.jpg>.

Good grief, this is a world where people are killing each other,
starving to death, poisoning the planet, and he's worried about a
set of feeble t-shirts?

From my soapbox:
This is also a world where AIDS and STDs are serious problems, and
there's no cure as yet. And shall we think about rape, and what
might trigger a rapist? Should any young woman really be wearing a
t-shirt that says "Available for parties" across her breasts? How
about "shag me now" (as mentioned below)? Not all the people who
may be reading those t-shirts are completely sane, you know.

No, but those who aren't completely sane don't need a "shag me now"
t-shirt to be triggered; a bit of lipstick and a shortish skirt is
usually enough for them to bleat "well she was asking for it, wasn't
she?"

I'm not so sure it's the ones who aren't completely sane that come up
with the "she was asking for it" routine. I think that comes from the
total jerks, to give them a euphemistic label.

Quote:

......And how do you feel about breast implants? Or even Wonderbras?

See below.

Quote:

Are they really intended to please only the implanted or uplifted
women's husbands and boyfriends and no other men?

I don't know. Maybe someone who's had implants or worn a Wonderbra will
comment. I imagine, though, that it's more for the benefit (self-esteem)
of the woman herself. Things like that (or toupees or hair implants for
men) can make people feel better and more attractive -- and as a result,
they project a better and more attractive appearance.

And, since many women have the same bustline that the implants and
Wonderbras can provide without availing themselves of such aids, there
is nothing particularly unusual, in public, about a woman who has done
so.

Wonderbras, wigs, and implants (hair and breast) are not a problem,
AFAIAC.

Quote:

All that aside, maybe Rauschenberger is worried about how stupid and
cheap young women look when wearing t-shirts like that. My old fogey
opinion is that wearing sexually suggestive t-shirts makes a
woman[1] appear to have no self-respect, and no limits, either.

I agree. But haven't legislators got better things to do than this? I
suspect Tony's right -- the state senator was just playing to the
straitlaced seats in his electorate's gallery -- but having
legislators as the arbiters of what we can wear is, frankly, an
appalling idea. Forty years ago, in a much less sexually permissive
society than today's, I don't remember anyone suggesting Mary Quant
should have been required by law to stop encouraging the scandalous
exposure of young thighs by selling mini-skirts.

I don't disagree, as you probably gathered from my earlier post.

Quote:

There was a young woman in my local music club the other week with
a t shirt emblazoned with the legend "shag me now" - now that's
racey.

I feel rather sorry for her. The shirt is probably meant to be
funny, but it isn't, not really. Would you want your daughter --
say, a daughter between 15 and 20-or-so, wearing one of those
t-shirts in public? Your sister? My guess is that most adult men
and women would not like that idea.

It's also my guess that no woman over 18 would want any men or any
other woman tellking them what they should and shouldn't wear. After
all, these are items on sale in a clothes shop; nobody's proposing
them as anybody's obligatory uniform. A case of a woman's right to
choose, and all that.

Yes, but it's also her parents'/guardian's responsibility to raise her
in such a way that she will not make a goddam fool or spectacle of
herself in trying to be trendy or sexually attractive. There's a time
and a place for everything, and that should be considered.

Quote:

Lest you think otherwise: I am not in favor of legislating morals.
I am not in favor of the government banning certain clothes, books,
films, etc. I *am* in favor of people learning how to act like
responsible adults. And that's got to start with the already-adult
among us setting examples.

Yes, but the example should be set by not buying the stupid t-shirts,
and not giving our teenage daughters money to buy them -- not by
writing letters signed Disgusted of Peoria to state senators (which is
how I imagine he heard about this).

Well, did I say otherwise? And for all we know, the senator may have a
daughter who wanted to advertise that she and her bosom were "Available
for parties."

Quote:

And lest you think otherwise, I'm not in favour of such t-shirts
either, and I agree with you. However the most powerful style leader
is the TV, and that spirals down into the opportunistic cess pit as
fast as it can.

BTW, here's another story (from the Nov 2 Newsday) about the A&F
t-shirt issue:
http://tinyurl.com/cd88x

[1] Or girl; whatever the target audience, I'm sure the shirts are
sold to whoever has the wherewithal to buy them.

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If teenage girls and young women
are led to believe by people whose opinion they respect -- magazine
editors could play a role here -- that the t-shirts are tacky and
uncool, they won't buy them and A&F will abandon the line as
unprofitable.

You just said a mouthful, Ross. (I don't know if that's a midwestern or
a southern phrase, but it means you said something very sensible.)

--
Maria Conlon
OBediting: I've edited this post a few times for clarity. It may now
contain some inexplicable errors.

JF
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

X-No-Archive: yes
In message <dq6nm1tsepid5511ms1da9v2iin7i1v5su@4ax.com>, Ross Howard
<gguiri@yahoo.com> writes

Quote:

It's also my guess that no woman over 18 would want any men or any
other woman tellking them what they should and shouldn't wear.

England's contribution to life in a Monty Python sketch is the invention
of Moslem women's soccer teams that can't actually play football in case
there might be a MAN! (Shock! Horror!) in the audience who might see
them in shorts!

The willingness of some woman to wear what men tell them to wear is
stunning. Last summer on a scorchingly hot day with temperatures well
into the twenties, a party of women kitted out in flowing saris,
headscarves and suchlike nonsense went swimming in the ocean off Bognor.
Despite the warmth, they sat around afterwards shivering, learning all
about chill factors and just how rapidly a breeze could conduct away
their body heat.

--
James Follett

Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:43 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Maria Conlon <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> writes:

Quote:

Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
Maria Conlon writes:

From my soapbox:

Understood.

And shall we think about rape, and what might trigger a rapist?
Should any young woman really be wearing a t-shirt that says
"Available for parties" across her breasts? How about "shag me now"
(as mentioned below)?

I see absolutely no reason why not.

"Understood." Smile

Thanks.

Quote:

But I think our ages determine our opinions somewhat. My children
may not see things exactly the way their father and I do -- they
grew up in a different world than we did, and our influence only
stretches so far. Having said that, I think that our daughter and
son both (and our s-i-l and d-i-l) would frown on such t-shirts. (I
should probably ask them, eh?)

It would be interesting. Ask them, too, whether they would really
care, especially if the setting were a party or a club or someplace
where such clothing was clearly not considered inappropriate by others.

Quote:

I know, but this really does seem like a slippery slope. Once you
start accepting that "people shouldn't dress like this because it
sends a message that might cause other people to lose control", it's
hard to be sure that the line will be drawn someplace *you'd* consider
reasonable.

Quote:

I'd hope that as a society we've gone beyond "She was asking for it,
dressed that way", and I honestly don't think that wearing such a
shirt will make the wearer any more likely to get raped. (She may get
comments due to it, but I sincerely doubt it would put her in any
danger.)

Well, consider this bit of comparison: Often, we set the tone for
how we are treated. Use "raw" language, and we'll likely hear the
same. Tell lies, and we'll hear lies back, and likely not be trusted
to tell the truth. Wear clothing that is not simply "flirtatious"
but is considered by many as "in your face," and we'll be likely be
treated as more than simply flirtatious.

I have no real disagreement, here. You set the tone by your dress and
your actions. And so you shouldn't do so in a way in which you won't
appreciate the result. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse (or
mean that you should have to worry about) people making unreasonable
inferences. Just as somebody who happens to wear a cross shouldn't
(on that basis alone) be treated as narrow-minded, so someone who
wears what she (and her peer group) see as a flirtatious shirt be
treated as inviting unwelcome advances.

Quote:

We *are* beyond "she was asking for it" (thank goodness), but we're
not beyond the need to use common sense. Flaunting/parading
sexuality is hardly sensible in all situations.

And: Having a sense of propriety is not totally out of fashion. The
availability of suggestive clothing does not change that, I hope.

I fully agree. But "propriety" means "appropriate to the situation".
Flaunting sexuality is not sensible in all situations. But that
hardly means that it isn't in any. I suspect that most of the time
that such shirts are worn, they are hardly improper. (With the
possible exception of schools, in which norms of propriety are always
changing. I'm having trouble with what's considered proper dress at
Josh's school, not because it's revealing, but just because it's far
more casual than was permitted when I was in school. But then again,
what I wear to work is far more casual than my dad was permitted to
wear to his office.)

Quote:

..........You don't need to have no
self-respect or no limits to enjoy partying or flirting or even
engaging in casual sex.

Enjoying partying or flirting, sure. Casual sex, I don't know. I know
it's always been there, but people didn't talk about it so freely in
the past. (We're back to the generational thing.)

.......More than having no self-respect, I'd say
that wearing such slogans can indicate an uncommon degree of self-
acceptance and comfort.

I guess my "old fogey" question would be "self-acceptance" as what?

As someone who enjoys the things that have "always been there but
people didn't talk about...so freely in the past".

Quote:

As being part of the real world? As being a socially "with it"
person? As being true to oneself and "not your father's car" or your
mother's wardrobe? <sigh> Maybe so, and maybe rightly so. But it's
not easy for me to overlook the fact that such openness can be
misunderstood, and can result in an unfavorable (and yes, perhaps
unfair) opinion. It could actually cost someone a "second look" or
second date, or even a job opportunity. People make decisions all
the time based on appearances. Human nature.

And, of course, that goes both ways. If you dress or act in such a
way as to make others consider you "uptight" or a "prude", you can get
similar unfavorable opinion.

[snip]

Quote:

........I'd hope that if I had a daughter I'd understand
her well enough to be comfortable with the reason she chose to wear
such a shirt if she did.

What sort of reason would you find acceptable? (I didn't want to use
that word --"acceptable" -- but can't think of exactly the right word
at the moment.)

If she did it in the spirit of fun, with a peer group that also saw it
as being flirtatious and intentionally outrageous. If she did it in a
setting in which she and her friends went to "let their hair down"
(another thing that women weren't supposed to do in public) and
unwind.

Quote:

while realizing that many of the examples we set would have been
shocking not that long ago and accepting that personal choices that
really don't matter really don't matter. I have no problem with
someone saying "That's inappropriate *here*" on their own property (or
property they've been delegated the right to decide for), but I can't
think of anything that doesn't involve non-consentual harm to somebody
being simply unacceptable.

I'm not sure I understand that last part. If it doesn't involve harm,
it's acceptable?

"'An it harm none, do as thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law"
isn't a bad philosophy. But I wasn't going quite that far (here).
What I meant was that for anything that doesn't harm anybody, there's
no reason that it shouldn't be acceptable in *some* setting, even if
it's just in the privacy of your own home or among your friends.
That's why I said

Quote:

.........The notion of stores not being allowed to
sell shirts to people who would like to buy them because they have
"sexually suggestive slogans" goes *way* across the line.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low.

kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Mark Brader
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Evan Kirshenbaum writes:

Quote:

I see absolutely no reason why not.

What he said. All of it. And a "sheesh" that anyone would think otherwise.
--
Mark Brader | "How is freedom gained? It is taken: never given.
Toronto | To be free, you must first assume your right
msb@vex.net | to freedom." -- Salman Rushdie

Mark Brader
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Tony Cooper wrote:

Quote:

Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.

Richard Fontana:

Quote:

I invoke Godwin's Law.

"David":

Quote:

You have driven me to laughter.

ROTFL!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "A cow-orker of mine used to ood dogs."
msb@vex.net -- Steve Hayes

Charles Riggs
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:48:00 -0600, Michael Nitabach
<mnitabach@acedsl.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:3t1au5Fq6u7kU1@individual.net:

Maria Conlon wrote:
[...]

What she said, all of it. And if it takes a couple of actions under
obscene publications acts (which I generally disapprove of) to help
make a safer street, then it would be worth my swallowing my
anti-censorship pride.

Thanks for introducing some irony into this thread; it's much needed.
You should forward your post to Rauschenberger, too. (Nah, he wouldn't
get it.)

Probably not: it's the old censorship is for your own good as long as
morally-superior people like myself are doing the censoring.
--
Charles Riggs

Robert Bannister
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

Quote:

while realizing that many of the examples we set would have been
shocking not that long ago and accepting that personal choices that
really don't matter really don't matter. I have no problem with
someone saying "That's inappropriate *here*" on their own property (or
property they've been delegated the right to decide for), but I can't
think of anything that doesn't involve non-consentual harm to somebody
being simply unacceptable. The notion of stores not being allowed to
sell shirts to people who would like to buy them because they have
"sexually suggestive slogans" goes *way* across the line.

I have to agree with you on this. I have seen far more disgusting
T-shirt slogans than the ones mentioned, and I did find them offensive,
but I wouldn't dream of saying anything unless the person wearing them
wanted to come onto my premises or somewhere where I had the right to
control what was worn. Banning such things only encourages them.

--
Rob Bannister

Robert Bannister
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:08 am Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux

Maria Conlon wrote:

Quote:

And I wish teenaged girls, especially,
didn't want to buy such merchandise.

Agreed, but apart from our own children, any effort to control them is
likely to make things worse.
--
Rob Bannister

	Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english	All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Office Forum Access Forum Electronics Windows Server Exchange Server
New Topics Powered by phpBB